The First Vision

[KitCarson]

You find it CURIOUS that I feel ANGST and CONFUSION about this? Others feel it is a NON-ISSUE. Maybe not to you. The very foundation of accepting The Book of Mormon, the unique doctrines of the LDS Church, and modern revelation DEPEND on a person's belief in the First Vision and subsequent visions received by JS. I feel DUPED!!!!

[Dravin]

The very foundation of accepting The Book of Mormon, the unique doctrines of the LDS Church, and modern revelation DEPEND on a person's belief in the First Vision and subsequent visions received by JS.

Which is predicated upon the testimony received by the Holy Ghost that it happened not upon a distinction of visions with physical component or visions with no physical component. It does not matter which concept is factually closer to the truth and despite your inclination to feel so, you weren't duped by the missionaries. You're making a distinction that probably never occurred to them that you make. If you'd asked them as you're asking us here they would have freely shared their concept of what took place.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest gopecon]

KitCarson - if the first vision happened as Joseph said it did, why does the "how" of it matter so much? As Dravin said, we may be getting lost in religious cross talk where different things are meant by identical terms. The most important question is "Were the long sealed heavens opened to Joseph Smith in 1820?", not "what was the process by which he saw Them?"

[mordorbund]

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.

Ah yes, I remember meeting you. We were at the stadium watching the big game. You were standing in front of me. "Excuse me," I said, "would you mind sitting down? You're blocking my vision."

You replied, "My apologies, I didn't realize you were having one!"

[Seminarysnoozer]

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

I am not sure what you think other people think vision is. Any basic biology class goes over what you explained, in fact my daughter in 8th grade went over that last year. I don't see what the point is of that discussion of vision. You can say the same thing about all senses, touch, sound, taste, etc. Even memory itself is a made up summary of an event that depends on it's emotional significance. The brain assigns a certain emotional significance to an event and it is remembered in a different way or not remembered at all. Our memory is not a video tape of the event but a basic feeling of what happened. ... so what is the point of that, I am not sure. Because, after the event it still has to be interpreted by the brain.

A purely spiritual event is no different than what we experienced in the pre-mortal life. I see no difference, there is nothing gained by that experience. But to experience it through the brain's thought process of reason and couching it into the agency we have makes a difference. I agree with it being a spiritual experience but mostly through the etching the body has on the spirit in this life. It is a molding, refining and experience model when it is taken in through the manipulation of the mortal brain and stored away in the spirit. Directly to the spirit without the molding of the mortal brain is no different of a learning experience than what we had in the pre-mortal life. If it is different, tell me how. Eventually, one would have to say that is dealt with in the mortal existence, that is how it is valuable. .... exactly, it is eventually interpreted through the mortal brain. If it is received through the spirit, then the veil is thin, if it is received through the brain first and then onto the spirit it is based in a person's spirituality, i.e - not carnally minded.

[Traveler]

You find it CURIOUS that I feel ANGST and CONFUSION about this? Others feel it is a NON-ISSUE. Maybe not to you. The very foundation of accepting The Book of Mormon, the unique doctrines of the LDS Church, and modern revelation DEPEND on a person's belief in the First Vision and subsequent visions received by JS. I feel DUPED!!!!

The issue should not be between you and anyone else but between you and G-d. None of us were present - therefore all we can offer is our opinions. Since G-d was present, I would suggest you take up any issues or question you may have with him. I am confident G-d will give you insights as you seek understanding.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

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.

You may not think so, but I think it supports the idea that he had to interpret the vision through physical eyes. That is what makes it significant. Otherwise, recalling what had happened in the pre-mortal life would be good enough.

He could have seen a vision in 1820 of his pre-mortal life, why not? I know that is not what happened, God the Father and His Son visited Joseph, not the other way around. Because it was important that Joseph attempt to describe the experience physically, this is part of the testament of their physical existence not just spirits. I think that is very important to this discussion given many now and even of that day believed that God was some spirit found everywhere and in everything, not a celestial being in the form of man. Seeing a spirit while in spirit form is not as significant as seeing a dual being in dual being form. ... in my opinion.

[JohnnyRudick]

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.

I hope I say this even half right in the way I mean it.

Mary the mother of the Son of God could not have stood the presence of the

Father without the protection of the Holy Ghost yet the Son of God

became the only begotten of the Father.

Joseph Smith was protected and saw the Father with his spiritual still the job

got done:cool:

[JudoMinja]

Kit, the thing is nobody here knows exactly how it happened. All we have to go off of is the written record, and there are many ways this can be interpreted. We all make sense of it the best way we can, subconsciously filling in the blanks where we don't understand to make it seem more "right" and "believable". The way I describe it will be different from how someone else describes it and so on and so on, because none of us were actually THERE. We are all just interpreting what was written by Joseph Smith about the event (and what many other people who had visions wrote about those events) and trying to understand it.

Just because the way you make sense of it is different from how many others do, does not mean you are wrong or right or that others are wrong or right... We all just have these pieces to go off of. It is no different than when members of a book club share a good book and everyone sees the main character or a particular scene in the book just a little differently. Does that mean the book isn't "true"? Of course not. It just means we all are limited in our ability to understand it.

The reason so many of us find this a moot point is because the exact details do not really matter to our testimony. Who is right and who is wrong doesn't matter. Eventually, we will all come to understand exactly what happened. For now, we just keep striving to do our best to understand the truths we've been given.

[JohnnyRudick]

You find it CURIOUS that I feel ANGST and CONFUSION about this? Others feel it is a NON-ISSUE. Maybe not to you. The very foundation of accepting The Book of Mormon, the unique doctrines of the LDS Church, and modern revelation DEPEND on a person's belief in the First Vision and subsequent visions received by JS. I feel DUPED!!!!

And I just cannot shake my feelings that have bothered me from the time I read your first post.

I think this post of yours adds a lot to the story.

Thanks for that.

You DID say you are a new convert. Right?

[JohnnyRudick]

Ah yes, I remember meeting you. We were at the stadium watching the big game. You were standing in front of me. "Excuse me," I said, "would you mind sitting down? You're blocking my vision."

You replied, "My apologies, I didn't realize you were having one!"

Again.

Still looking for it and cannot fine it.