The First Vision

[KitCarson]

I'm a recent convert and have understood that Joseph Smith's vision of the Father and Jesus Christ was a spiritual experience. Alot like the brother of Jared's vision of the Finger of the Lord and then His image. Ether 3:6 says, "And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord;"

I have been very surprised by the number of long-time church members that truly believe that the First Vision was a literal, "with human eyes", human-to-God experience. Every testimony meeting members state, "I believe Joseph Smith saw Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father." I hear Stake Presidents, Bishops, Seventies, Apostles, and even the church Presidency use those words.

When I shared my beliefs about the First Vision later, a sister in my ward was very aggressive that my belief was incorrect and that all LDS believed it was a literal "seeing". Later, I talked to a long-time seminary teacher and was told that my understanding was corrrect. That it was a "vision" seen through spiritual eyes.

So if it was a spiritual "unveiling" to allow JS to see them, why do church members and leaders routinely say that he "SAW THEM" instead of "SAW THEM IN A VISION?" Obviously, everyone's understanding of the event is not the same. Has the abbreviated testimony "SAW" instead of "SAW IN VISION" confused alot of people?

Joseph Smith himself NEVER claimed to have a literal sighting but a VISION, at least, in all I've read in my short time as a church member.

Would love to hear some of you more seasoned members comment on this.

[bytebear]

I disagree. What are "spiritual eyes?" The way I understand it, God's countenance is so bright that a man would literally incinerate in his presence, so the Holy Ghost descended and protected Smith, creating a spiritual shield allowing him to see God. But to say that he didn't "actually" see the Father and Son is false. Both have bodies as tangible as man's, and as such He saw their physical bodies. Whether he saw them via "spiritual eyes' or his physical eyes via the Holy Ghost, the result is the same.

Often, people criticize the vision as going against the scripture that says "No man has seen God at any time" (John 1:18), but Smith clarified that verse in D&C 67:11:

For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God.

Joseph Smith also clarified the verse in John:

JST, John 1:19

19 And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.

Edited July 30, 2011 by bytebear

[skippy740]

Why does spiritual have to be separate from physical?

A vision doesn't have to be a dream or a trance. Remember that Joseph Smith went to pray to ask a question. He'd have to be conscious and be awake to know and ask the question and get an answer.

Don't forget that the Adversary was ready to destroy Joseph Smith as well. That was quite physical as well.

JS-H 1:15-16

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being.

This is a physical experience with the spiritual world - and not the spiritual world that I would ever want to experience.

[prophetofdoom]

I have many times pondered that the vision may have been seen through spiritual eyes not physical eyes. This in no way impedes my faith in any way. If Joseph saw things literally (physical) or spiritually, it makes no difference to me.

[KitCarson]

If a vision was literal "seeing", others present or near could also see and experience it. Something supernatural needs to happen to allow a person to see heavenly beings. If the bright light JS saw was literally physical, then the whole town, people working in their fields, JS's father in nearby field, would have all seen the bright light.

JS describes finding himself laying on his back looking up. He was totally unaware of when his posture changed from kneeling to laying on his back. This is a typical reaction to somebody coming out of a spiritual trance or vision.

The Vision about the Three Degress of Glory: This vision is described in Doctrine and Covenants 76. About twelve other men were in the room and witnessed Joseph and Sidney receiving this vision, but they did not see the vision themselves.

Apostle Paul: He saw a great light and heard the voice of Christ. None of those with them saw or heard anything.

Stephen, the Martyr: He saw Christ at the right hand of God while he was being stoned to death. Nobody else saw what he saw.

[JudoMinja]

Joseph Smith literally saw God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. Yes. His own spirit had to be "quickened" for this to even be possible. What does that mean, exactly? We don't really know. We know that it involves some kind of partial transformation between mortality and imortality, but that's about it. That means that yes, it was an "existential" or "spiritual" experience. That does not change the fact that he did in fact SEE Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ literally standing in front of him in all their Glory.

So, you are both right. It was both a spiritual and a literal experience. No different than when Moses spoke with God "face to face... as a man speaketh with another". I can't remember the exact scriptural reference right now, but it's in the Pearl of Great Price. How much more literal can you get than that? Yet he too had to be "quickened" for the experience.

[Dravin]

Apostle Paul: He saw a great light and heard the voice of Christ. None of those with them saw or heard anything.

You might want to double check that:

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Now the accounts don't quite match up and the JST removes the discrepancy (making both that they saw a light, but didn't hear) but they all disagree with a characterization that they neither saw nor heard anything (if you want to take seeing no man = seeing a light but not Christ then they all agree they saw a light).

Edited July 30, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest Sachi001]

Personally it sounds to me that you got upset from a members chastisement. However the way you want to interpret is you personal revelation. Others are going to stand by their interpretation. The main thing is to just ignore others, and tell them that's between you and your bishopric, and not in their place to chastise. The Bishop will talk to you if he deems inappropriate. Main thing is you have a sure belief that JS witnessed the Father and son and is anointed the prophet of this church.

[Guest Sachi001]

You might want to double check that:

Now the accounts don't quite match up and the JST removes the discrepancy (making both that they saw a light, but didn't hear) but they all disagree with a characterization that they neither saw nor heard anything (if you want to take seeing no man = seeing a light but not Christ then they all agree they saw a light).

Wow Dravin I never paid attention to that. Good call.

[Guest Sachi001]

Another thing KitCarson is that JS himself did not personally specify if it was literal or spiritual in vision. His words were as following:

“Believing the word of God, I had confidence in the declaration of James—‘If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.’ [James 1:5.] I retired to a secret place in a grove, and began to call upon the Lord; while fervently engaged in supplication, my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon day. They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as His Church and kingdom: and I was expressly commanded ‘to go not after them,’ at the same time receiving a promise that the fullness of the Gospel should at some future time be made known unto me.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith Chapter 38: The Wentworth Letter

Here is another link to the First Vision on the Mormon Channel which includes talks from GA's and JS accounting. Starts with the apostasy that leads to the First Vision. Then JS account at the 9:00 minute mark. It's 22 minutes long of podcast.

Playlist

[apexviper13]

If you go by the book of Moses you'd be correct Kit.

Moses 1:11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

Going by this your physical eyes are just that, your own eyes. And if it was through his physical eyes then no doubt others would have seen the vision as well. According to Moses the natural eyes cannot see God or that person would die. The glory of God was granted unto Moses for that time so he could see God through his spiritual eyes.

Regardless of you and the sister disagreeing on the exact way it happened she shouldn't have gotten so uptight about that and just realize that both of you believe in what happened in the First Vision. I know I believe what happened.

[rameumptom]

This is a nuanced argument. Whether one sees a person with regular eyes or spiritual eyes, the point is that the Father and Son were seen. We need to be careful not to nit-pick the gospel to the extent that we cause contention or disbelief. You are free to see a difference, but for Joseph Smith there was no difference. He had seen God in a vision, but it was an actual seeing nonetheless. Later, in D&C 76 he would testify of Christ, because he and Sidney Rigdon saw Christ standing on the right hand of God. For them, this was an actual event, regardless of whether we play around with terminology.

So, when members say that Joseph Smith literally saw the Father and Son, they mean it. And they are correct, even though a more technically correct statement would be to say they saw them in vision.

[NeuroTypical]

Someone should make a poll:

Pick one:

O Joseph's first vision involved him seeing things with his spiritual eyes only. I will lose my testimony and leave the church if I die and go to heaven and find out he really saw with his mortal human eyes.

O Joseph's first vision involved him seeing things with his mortal human eyes only. I will lose my testimony and leave the church if I die and go to heaven and find out he really saw with his spiritual eyes.

O I don't care which set of eyes Joseph saw with during his first vision. If I make it to heaven when I die, I'll probably fall down at the feet of my master and wet his robe with my tears, regardless of which eyes Joseph was using at his first vision.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Someone should make a poll:

Pick one:

O Joseph's first vision involved him seeing things with his spiritual eyes only. I will lose my testimony and leave the church if I die and go to heaven and find out he really saw with his mortal human eyes.

O Joseph's first vision involved him seeing things with his mortal human eyes only. I will lose my testimony and leave the church if I die and go to heaven and find out he really saw with his spiritual eyes.

O I don't care which set of eyes Joseph saw with during his first vision. If I make it to heaven when I die, I'll probably fall down at the feet of my master and wet his robe with my tears, regardless of which eyes Joseph was using at his first vision.

What about the choice that the mortal eyes are quickened by the spirit and therefore in that state referred to as "spiritual eyes". "Spiritual eyes" meaning mortal eyes that are quickened by the spirit momentarily to withstand the presence of God and be able to directly communicate with him in his mortal but transformed (quickened) body.

The reason that choice 3 is not a satisfactory choice is because I think it is important that Joseph still interpreted and understood the experience with his mortal mind, he also remembered it with a mortal brain and the neuronal pathways that lay down memory were activated in that way. This wasn't a 'behind the veil' experience.

[Guest gopecon]

I know that Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son in the grove that morning. How that happened is not worth arguing about or losing sleep over for me. There are lots of things I don't understand the mechanics of (the creation and the Atonement being two large examples), yet I trust that they happened in some way and that God will reveal the details in His own due time.

I don't think it's wrong to think about this type of issue, we just need to keep it in perspective and not contend over things that will not affect our salvation.

[apexviper13]

Whether Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ with his natural or spiritual eyes isn't important. Either way he literally saw them.

[Blackmarch]

I'm a recent convert and have understood that Joseph Smith's vision of the Father and Jesus Christ was a spiritual experience. Alot like the brother of Jared's vision of the Finger of the Lord and then His image. Ether 3:6 says, "And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord;"

I have been very surprised by the number of long-time church members that truly believe that the First Vision was a literal, "with human eyes", human-to-God experience. Every testimony meeting members state, "I believe Joseph Smith saw Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father." I hear Stake Presidents, Bishops, Seventies, Apostles, and even the church Presidency use those words.

When I shared my beliefs about the First Vision later, a sister in my ward was very aggressive that my belief was incorrect and that all LDS believed it was a literal "seeing". Later, I talked to a long-time seminary teacher and was told that my understanding was corrrect. That it was a "vision" seen through spiritual eyes.

So if it was a spiritual "unveiling" to allow JS to see them, why do church members and leaders routinely say that he "SAW THEM" instead of "SAW THEM IN A VISION?" Obviously, everyone's understanding of the event is not the same. Has the abbreviated testimony "SAW" instead of "SAW IN VISION" confused alot of people?

Joseph Smith himself NEVER claimed to have a literal sighting but a VISION, at least, in all I've read in my short time as a church member.

Would love to hear some of you more seasoned members comment on this.

how would an individual be able to seperate vision and actuality? Are they always seperate?

Beholding in vision does not always mean a dream 100% of the time.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Whether Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ with his natural or spiritual eyes isn't important. Either way he literally saw them.

Spiritual eyes provide no further witness than the fact that we all saw God and Christ with our spiritual eyes before this life began. We have all witnessed Them both, in fact, fought for that side to be able to come here. If Joseph only saw God through his spiritual eyes than his witness would be just as solid as my belief that I saw God once with my spiritual eyes. It would be no better than him simply saying "I remember the pre-mortal life and I saw God the Father and the Son". The difference here is that he saw God and the Son with his mortal quickened eyes so that it is witnessed in the flesh (quickened flesh) and interpreted and remembered without the block of the veil after the experience was over. Otherwise, the experience could only be remembered as far as the veil is thin enough to unblock the spiritual eyes memory, just like our memory of the pre-mortal life. I "literally" saw God the Father and the Son too, and so did you.

[Seminarysnoozer]

how would an individual be able to seperate vision and actuality? Are they always seperate?

Beholding in vision does not always mean a dream 100% of the time.

I would say that the way we use the words vision and dream, never really mean the medical definition of dream or REM sleep. By definition, memories are not laid down during sleep. We remember bits of a dream when we wake from a dream and stay awake for more than a few minutes to keep the memory from just being in the operational memory circuitry.

This has been tested many times over. They have done things like spray water in peoples faces when they are dreaming and the dream incorporates the spray by interpreting it as rain, or swimming or taking a shower etc. But it is only remembered if the person is awoken within minutes of the act. If it is later than a few minutes than the dream is not recalled in that way. So, most of what we describe as "dream" is the quick, within minutes, awake interpretation of the operational memory left over from the dream. The description of the dream is at best a vague summary of what the thought process was a few minutes before waking and not everything the brain experienced during the dream. Sometimes people believe they remember the whole dream, but this is not true.

[HiJolly]

how would an individual be able to seperate vision and actuality? Are they always seperate?

I hesitate to answer... but... No, they are not always separate. The brain's sight center is stimulated either way. Or, both ways simultaneously.

Beholding in vision does not always mean a dream 100% of the time.

True that. There are visionary dreams, and there are waking visions, and I hear there are ecstatic visions, such as what Peter experienced in Acts.

HiJolly

[Traveler]

Every once in a while I post something and I am not sure anyone actually understands. We take in information through our senses. Vision is not really what many think. Allow me to explain.

We really do not see anything. Light passing through our eye is focused on our retina. The reality is that the image is inverted. Our retina is sensitive to certain wavelength of light and this information is all sent to our brain. Our brain creates (from two dimensional images) a three dimensional “model” of what it think is providing data. Based on sensory data (from any of our 5 senses) the brain may add or delete “things” that it deems appropriate. Sometimes certain “things” are difficult for the brain to make sense of and thus an “optical illusion” is often created.

I believe that if it were possible for all of us to walk into that grove with Joseph on that spring morning that many would not experience what Joseph experienced. In addition I submit that there would be a rather confusing and wide range of experience. This is because our brains would react differently to the stimuli and would undoubtedly “comprehend” it differently. The Holy Ghost is necessary for two reasons. First: as someone else has already pointed out. Being in the presents of a Celestial being would consume a mortal person. The Holy Ghost acts as a medium (not mediator) for the experience. The second purpose is to provide actual understanding, in order that we are not deceived in any way from the experience.

Bottom line, Joseph experienced not just empirical data - but also spiritual stimulation. This combination left Joseph with no “doubt” concerning what happened. I believe the experience Joseph had is in reality indescribable. I do not think it is possible to comprehend the totality of what happened unless or until we have a compatible experience. Any description would be insufficient.

I am as sure that Joseph communed with G-d as I am anything that I have experienced and know to be real. I was not there but I have received an indescribable manifestation that what Joseph experienced was indeed real.

The Traveler

[KitCarson]

All of you who grew up in the gospel and have a specific interpretation about the First Vision since childhood cannot understand the confusion and angst a new convert experiences when they find that what was taught by the missionaries IS NOT what everyone else in the church believes.

By very definition, a VISION is a supernatural, spiritual event. Study all the accounts in the Bible. Reread all the accounts of JS's later visions. You'll find no evidence to support the interpretation that visions are physical, "in-this-world" experiences. I've studied this extensively since I realized the difference in my beliefs about the First Vision and those of most church members.

Non-LDS have an interpretation of what a vision is based on scriptural evidence. If somebody says an experience was a vision, that is how it will be interpreted. Maybe the missionaries should teach investigators: "Oh, BTW. The LDS believe a vision is not a vision but a real, physical-world experience.

[Guest gopecon]

In the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph described his experience. From his account you can arguably come to both conclusions. It's quite possible that he was not sure of the mechanics of it (spiritual eyes, mortal eyes, etc.) at the time, but he knew he had one of the most amazing spiritual experiences in all of history.

"25 So it was with me. 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."

KitCarson - you are right that many of us who grew up in the Church do not understand your confusion and angst. I think this is because we are essentially dealing with semantics, not principles of the Gospel. Paul and Stephen anciently had similar experiences to Joseph in 1820. They were real, life changing experiences for Paul and Joseph. Worrying about which set of eyes was used is to miss the point. I'm sure I grew up with the understanding that he saw them with his mortal eyes, but when I learned that seeing God was not possible with mortal eyes, my understanding of the First Vision was increased. At no point was that a stumbling block. We believe that our spirits are shaped like our physical bodies - with arms, legs, eyes, nose, etc. If those eyes were necessary for Joseph to see God, then they were temporarily loosed for that to happen.

[Guest gopecon]

SeminarySnoozer - We may have all seen the Father and the Son in our premortal lives, but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He testified to seeing them in 1820, not prior to his birth in 1805. How that was facilitated (spiritual, quickened mortal eyes, etc.) may be up for debate, but I don't think the fact that we all saw them prior to coming here adds anything to the discussion of how he saw them on that morning in the grove.

[Dravin]

All of you who grew up in the gospel and have a specific interpretation about the First Vision since childhood cannot understand the confusion and angst a new convert experiences when they find that what was taught by the missionaries IS NOT what everyone else in the church believes.

I imagine regardless of how they weigh in on the issue most of us consider having angst over the issue to be a curious response. It's not an important doctrinal distinction. That you take a vision to mean something that doesn't include actual physical stimuli and that others think a vision can mean something that includes actual physical stimuli is kind of a non-starter, a rather hefty "meh."

And the reason I say it's not doctrinally important is Doctrine and Covenants 67:11Â* gives the possibility of such happening (and John 1:19 it is important to note has a JST footnote). So believing it did happen that way isn't in conflict with LDS doctrine, nor does believing more in line with your thoughts contrary to doctrine even if it doesn't quite mesh with traditional LDS thought on the matter.

Personally either way I'd say he saw God and quite literally at that. It wasn't something he made up, it wasn't an angel standing in the stead of God relaying his words. He beheld him, either in the flesh while quickened by the spirit, or the type of vision you feel is what happened.

By very definition, a VISION is a supernatural, spiritual event.

And? Not a single person here has been saying it was not supernatural and that it wasn't a spiritual event. Your definition doesn't clash with those who believe that actual physical stimuli occur with the spirit shielding Joseph Smith from celestial presences. The definition you give fits both takes on events.

I think you might be taking statements that he literally saw God and Christ to mean that the spirit wasn't operative and I highly doubt that is the intent of the people making such statements.

You'll find no evidence to support the interpretation that visions are physical, "in-this-world" experiences.

I note that Paul's Vision was beheld by more than him despite your claims to the contrary which means it was either a mass vision or there was an actual 'physical' component to it. Of course there is no way by the text to really know which is the case. Which leaves us in a situation where one can't prove either way if something was either perceived to be happening in some sense in the physical world or if it (to a greater or lessor degree) actually happened in the physical world because it'd be recorded the same. Kinda like if I thought I saw Sasquatch or I did see Sasquatch, both accounts could read identically and at this point in time it's not like we can go check for prints in the mud.

The more pertinent thing is that doctrinally speaking it's possible. And this is probably the great disconnect for you, your doctrinal background says it wasn't possible so of course you automatically fit things so they jived with your preconceptions as they were being taught to you. Just as those who grew up LDS read about how Joseph Smith and others had visions and in some cases (certainly not all) take a physical component in stride with certain literalness that most other Christians, for doctrinal reasons, cannot accept.

It's a case of religious cross talk (like how LDS and a Baptist mean different things by "hell" but it's not because of duplicity, the doctrinal background for the word is just different).

Maybe the missionaries should teach investigators: "Oh, BTW. The LDS believe a vision is not a vision but a real, physical-world experience.

If the event occurred without any physical stimuli or if it occurred in the more traditional (to LDS ) perceived manner (physical stimuli present with the spirit) I'd call either happening a vision. You're making a distinction that I imagine most members don't.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Dravin