Page 1 of 2
Question for Shulem
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2026 8:57 am
by msnobody
Question for Shulem or anyone else who wants to chime in.
I was reading a bit in the CK forum your First Vision thread. Did Joseph Smith ever claim to see a physical, like, in person God the Father, like one he could reach out and touch, or was he claiming to see, I guess, in a spiritual sense a God the Father and son Jesus Christ that both appeared as looking to have bodies? I hope my question makes sense.
I’ve often wondered how he would explain that version of the vision (two personages) with what is written in Exodus 33:20 “But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
Re: Question for Shulem
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2026 3:22 pm
by Shulem
msnobody wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 8:57 am
Question for Shulem or anyone else who wants to chime in.
I was reading a bit in the CK forum your First Vision thread. Did Joseph Smith ever claim to see a physical, like, in person God the Father, like one he could reach out and touch, or was he claiming to see, I guess, in a spiritual sense a God the Father and son Jesus Christ that both appeared as looking to have bodies? I hope my question makes sense.
I understand Smith's early theology of his belief in the Father was pretty much the same as any other Christian of his day. The Father was a
personage of spirit as declared in the Lectures on Faith, period. Smith's later doctrine developed theology of the Father having a body of flesh which contradicts the core doctrine expressed in the Lecture and any other lecture he gave prior. Smith's later doctrine focuses on physical manifestation/composition of the Father's person, in addition, if an angel appears we are supposed to
"offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you," to confirm you're actually in the presence of a resurrected angel (D&C 129). The 1832 First Vision account says nothing about the Father only that Jesus mentioned or speaks for him in passing with reference to a prophecy of Christ's Second Coming. Thus that account demonstrates how Christ speaks for his Father who is *not* present in form or image as expressed in visions of God manifesting in the Old Testament.
msnobody wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 8:57 am
I’ve often wondered how he would explain that version of the vision (two personages) with what is written in Exodus 33:20 “But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
Smith's doctrines developed the idea of the
natural man being translated or quickened into a state (D&C 67) wherein one could survive the presence of God and live, otherwise they would perish. The 1830 Vision of Moses relates how Moses was able to see God
face to face because the
"glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence."
I hope that answered your question.
Re: Question for Shulem
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2026 3:54 pm
by Fence Sitter
Adding to Shulem's excellent explanation, it’s worth noting that Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible renders Book of Exodus 33:20 quite differently:
JST Exodus 33:20 wrote:And he said unto Moses, “Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger is kindled against thee also and I destroy thee and thy people. For there shall no man among them see me at this time and live. For they are exceeding sinful, and no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time, that shall see my face and live.”
Re: Question for Shulem
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2026 3:58 pm
by Rivendale
Shulem wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 3:22 pm
msnobody wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 8:57 am
Question for Shulem or anyone else who wants to chime in.
I was reading a bit in the CK forum your First Vision thread. Did Joseph Smith ever claim to see a physical, like, in person God the Father, like one he could reach out and touch, or was he claiming to see, I guess, in a spiritual sense a God the Father and son Jesus Christ that both appeared as looking to have bodies? I hope my question makes sense.
I understand Smith's early theology of his belief in the Father was pretty much the same as any other Christian of his day. The Father was a
personage of spirit as declared in the Lectures on Faith, period. Smith's later doctrine developed theology of the Father having a body of flesh which contradicts the core doctrine expressed in the Lecture and any other lecture he gave prior. Smith's later doctrine focuses on physical manifestation/composition of the Father's person, in addition, if an angel appears we are supposed to
"offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you," to confirm you're actually in the presence of a resurrected angel (D&C 129). The 1832 First Vision account says nothing about the Father only that Jesus mentioned or speaks for him in passing with reference to a prophecy of Christ's Second Coming. Thus that account demonstrates how Christ speaks for his Father who is *not* present in form or image as expressed in visions of God manifesting in the Old Testament.
msnobody wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 8:57 am
I’ve often wondered how he would explain that version of the vision (two personages) with what is written in Exodus 33:20 “But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
Smith's doctrines developed the idea of the
natural man being translated or quickened into a state (D&C 67) wherein one could survive the presence of God and live, otherwise they would perish. The 1830 Vision of Moses relates how Moses was able to see God
face to face because the
"glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence."
I hope that answered your question.
And his backside is okay to gaze upon...
I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.
Re: Question for Shulem
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2026 4:36 pm
by Shulem
Rivendale wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 3:58 pm
And his backside is okay to gaze upon...
I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.
It's part of the whole concept of man being made in the
image of God who is capable of manifesting himself in a manner that is personal and familiar to the earthly senses of one who seeks divine communion. Biblical expressions of seeing God is designed to strengthen faith in a God who lives and understands man intimately and in every way.
Re: Question for Shulem
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2026 1:18 am
by msnobody
Shulem wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 3:22 pm
msnobody wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 8:57 am
Question for Shulem or anyone else who wants to chime in.
I was reading a bit in the CK forum your First Vision thread. Did Joseph Smith ever claim to see a physical, like, in person God the Father, like one he could reach out and touch, or was he claiming to see, I guess, in a spiritual sense a God the Father and son Jesus Christ that both appeared as looking to have bodies? I hope my question makes sense.
I understand Smith's early theology of his belief in the Father was pretty much the same as any other Christian of his day. The Father was a
personage of spirit as declared in the Lectures on Faith, period. Smith's later doctrine developed theology of the Father having a body of flesh which contradicts the core doctrine expressed in the Lecture and any other lecture he gave prior. Smith's later doctrine focuses on physical manifestation/composition of the Father's person, in addition, if an angel appears we are supposed to
"offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you," to confirm you're actually in the presence of a resurrected angel (D&C 129). The 1832 First Vision account says nothing about the Father only that Jesus mentioned or speaks for him in passing with reference to a prophecy of Christ's Second Coming. Thus that account demonstrates how Christ speaks for his Father who is *not* present in form or image as expressed in visions of God manifesting in the Old Testament.
msnobody wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 8:57 am
I’ve often wondered how he would explain that version of the vision (two personages) with what is written in Exodus 33:20 “But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
Smith's doctrines developed the idea of the
natural man being translated or quickened into a state (D&C 67) wherein one could survive the presence of God and live, otherwise they would perish. The 1830 Vision of Moses relates how Moses was able to see God
face to face because the
"glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence."
I hope that answered your question.
Yes, thank you. As always, when you get one question answered many more pop into your head.
So, I’m guessing that Brother Joseph claims to have been translated or quickened wherein he could survive the presence of God, and survive ~1838-1838?
Re: Question for Shulem
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2026 1:59 am
by Shulem
msnobody wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2026 1:18 am
Shulem wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 3:22 pm
Smith's doctrines developed the idea of the
natural man being translated or quickened into a state (D&C 67) wherein one could survive the presence of God and live, otherwise they would perish. The 1830 Vision of Moses relates how Moses was able to see God
face to face because the
"glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence."
So, I’m guessing that Brother Joseph claims to have been translated or quickened wherein he could survive the presence of God, and survive ~1838-1838?
The doctrine of quickening or being translated in order to survive the presence of God was officially explained in 1830 & 1831 revelations. Smith had already previously contemplated these ideas while producing the Book of Mormon in telling how the brother of Jared was caught up in glory.
Moses 1:11 wrote: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.
D&C 67:11,12 wrote:For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God.
Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind.
Now, hold that thought and ask yourself how on earth did thousands of Nephites survive being in the physical presence of resurrected Jesus without withering? That is not explained in the story! But what if the story had included the Father coming down with the Son by which two Persons stood side by side on temple grounds in Bountiful where thousands of Nephites saw the Father and Son together? When you think about it, there is no difference between Smith's 1838 account of seeing two Persons and the idea of the Nephites seeing the same damn thing! That certainly would have made the Book of Mormon far more interesting had Smith utilized the plural doctrine of God while dictating the Book of Mormon. But such a thing had not yet crossed his mind. Not until he got his grubby hands on the papyrus. Before that, Smith embraced the common Trinity doctrine.
Re: Question for Shulem
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2026 3:18 am
by malkie
Shulem wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2026 1:59 am
msnobody wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2026 1:18 am
So, I’m guessing that Brother Joseph claims to have been translated or quickened wherein he could survive the presence of God, and survive ~1838-1838?
The doctrine of quickening or being translated in order to survive the presence of God was officially explained in 1830 & 1831 revelations. Smith had already previously contemplated these ideas while producing the Book of Mormon in telling how the brother of Jared was caught up in glory.
Moses 1:11 wrote: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.
D&C 67:11,12 wrote:For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God.
Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind.
Now, hold that thought and ask yourself how on earth did thousands of Nephites survive being in the physical presence of resurrected Jesus without withering? That is not explained in the story! But what if the story had included the Father coming down with the Son by which two Persons stood side by side on temple grounds in Bountiful where thousands of Nephites saw the Father and Son together? When you think about it, there is no difference between Smith's 1838 account of seeing two Persons and the idea of the Nephites seeing the same damn thing! That certainly would have made the Book of Mormon far more interesting had Smith utilized the plural doctrine of God while dictating the Book of Mormon. But such a thing had not yet crossed his mind. Not until he got his grubby hands on the papyrus. Before that, Smith embraced the common Trinity doctrine.
Hmmmm - that gives me an idea! Thanks, Shulem.
The fact that Joseph encountered two "personages" in the First Vision, without having been "quickened by the Spirit of God", is strong evidence that the personages were, in fact,
not the Father and Son. This explains why the personages did not claim to be Jesus and Elohim, and Joseph did not identify them as such.
Re: Question for Shulem
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2026 11:25 am
by Shulem
malkie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2026 3:18 am
Hmmmm - that gives me an idea!
I have an idea too.
Smith's 1832 First Vision account tells how resurrected Jesus, the
"Lord of glory" (singular person) was said to appear to the boy Joseph and we read about how this Lord of glory also appeared to all the Nephites assembled at Bountiful. Now suppose Jesus had given a different sermon rather than a plagiarized version of the Sermon on the Mount quoted from the Bible. Suppose this Jesus had given a sermon based on doctrine expressed by Book of Mormon prophets about the nature and Person of God who was said to be ONE PERSON:
3 Nephi Jesus using 1830 Edition of Book of Mormon wrote:
And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them;
Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.
Nephi spoke of how I am the "Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"
Remember how Abinadi said to "Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father."
And again, Abinadi said, "God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth" and that "Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man."
Behold, Amulek said, "Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
The Trinity doctrine is what Joseph Smith believed when he recorded his original version of the First Vision in 1832.
Re: Question for Shulem
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2026 1:13 pm
by Shulem
msnobody wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 8:57 am
Did Joseph Smith ever claim to see a physical, like, in person God the Father, like one he could reach out and touch, or was he claiming to see, I guess, in a spiritual sense a God the Father and son Jesus Christ that both appeared as looking to have bodies?
Smith never imagined or contemplated the Father having a body with a swinging penis when recording his 1832 First Vision account.
Heavenly Father did NOT appear to Joseph Smith and say,
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."
Smith publicly and personally sustained the Lecture on Faith as
official doctrine published by the Church:
Not a personage of physical flesh.