The First Vision

[Shulem]

Has President Nelson seen God?




This man talks the talk but does he walk the walk?

I don’t think so. The excuse given by Mormon apostles and prophets that special spiritual experiences are too sacred to talk about and therefore they cannot testify of them is because they don’t actually receive them and they don’t want the members to know that. But were these spiritual experiences too sacred for Joseph Smith to talk about? No, they were not! Smith bore testimony and he marked with emphasis that the most important thing he could ever testify is that God lives for he saw him!

Has President Nelson seen God? I don’t believe he has. Neither do I believe he has felt the prints of the nails in the hands and feet of a resurrected Jesus. I don’t believe that Nelson has experienced any kind of grand vision that Smith claimed to have. He talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. Does that make him a hypocrite? I believe it does and am not ashamed to say that the pious apostles and prophets of Mormonism have been putting on airs and their testimonies are a show with little substance.

No, President Nelson has not seen God. Nor has he seen his body of flesh and bone. The scriptures testify that when prophets see God they are to record the witness and testify of that event. But Mormon prophets have been hiding behind their failures and calling it all too sacred because they are unable to justify or excuse their failures.

[Shulem]

A new podcast featuring Radio Free Mormon and Bill Reel on the First Vision accounts was released on Mormonism Live: First Vision Apologetics

They touch upon apologetics and some key differences between the visionary accounts described by the prophet Joseph Smith. The show is worth watching for those who have interest in understanding First Vision apologetics.

HOWEVER, I was sorely disappointed because this podcast failed to mention supporting evidence presented in this thread which shows how Smith's vision changed when he got the 1835 papyrus and contemplated the plurality of the gods. I've brought this up to RFM's personal attention several times but it seems to have had no effect on him because he doesn't mention Smith's later address about the papyrus in the podcast. Nor does he show how the papyrus by Smith's own admission is what brought him to the knowledge that God is plural in the physical sense.

So, I was disappointed, for sure.

[Shulem]

Bumped for Elizabeth to help her understand how Joseph Smith was playing God and that everything he ever said was always about him and how great he is in saving his people from their sins.

Yes, Joseph Smith became the NEW Jesus Christ manifested in mortal flesh for all to behold.

THAT is what Mormonism was all about.

[Shulem]

A new podcast featuring Radio Free Mormon and Bill Reel on the First Vision accounts was released on Mormonism Live: First Vision Apologetics

They touch upon apologetics and some key differences between the visionary accounts described by the prophet Joseph Smith. The show is worth watching for those who have interest in understanding First Vision apologetics.

HOWEVER, I was sorely disappointed because this podcast failed to mention supporting evidence presented in this thread which shows how Smith's vision changed when he got the 1835 papyrus and contemplated the plurality of the gods. I've brought this up to RFM's personal attention several times but it seems to have had no effect on him because he doesn't mention Smith's later address about the papyrus in the podcast. Nor does he show how the papyrus by Smith's own admission is what brought him to the knowledge that God is plural in the physical sense.

So, I was disappointed, for sure.

A new podcast presented by Mormon Stories hosted by John Dehlin interviewing the author of LDS Discussions touches on the differences of the First Vision accounts. I think it was a great podcast and I enjoyed it. BUT, again, I was disappointed just as I was with Radio Free Mormon leaving off the confession given by Joseph Smith who publicly admitted to having learned about the plurality of gods by studying the papyrus and the accompanying vignettes.

Again, I’m disappointed how Dehlin and especially RFM fumbled the ball handed off by Shulem. Maybe the Backyard Professor can pick the ball up and run with it? What do you say, Philo? Be the first to reveal it to the world via podcast! Do it and you’ve guaranteed yourself a trip to the First Vision Superbowl. Apologists will then have to find ways to discredit that account and explain how Joseph didn’t really mean what he said.

Touchdown, Backyard Professor!

[Shulem]

Zebedee Coltrin claimed to see Jesus in 1833 while Joseph Smith was officiating in ordinances in the School of the Prophets. The vision is recorded by President Fredrick G. Williams in the official Minutes. He described one person (Jesus) making an appearance. Fifty years later Coltrin embellished the story in saying he saw both Jesus and the Father appear at different times and that Smith told him they were separate Persons. This is an example of describing God who is manifested as both the Father and Son to agree with later doctrine of two separate Persons as described in the 1838 account of the First Vision.

School of the Prophet Minutes, 18 March 1833

After which several exertations were given to faithfulness and obedience to the commandments of God and much useful instruction given for the benefit of the saints with a promise that the pure in heart that were present should see a heavenly vision, and after remaining for a short time in secret prayer the promise was verified to many present having the eyes of their understanding opened so as to behold many things afte which the bread and wine was distributed by Bro Joseph after which many of the brethren saw a heavenly vision of the saviour and concourses of angels and many othe thing of which each one has a reccord of what they saw &c

F G Williams


Zebedee Coltrin attended the above sacrament meeting and witnessed the vision. Fifty years later he offered a detailed account of his experience in seeing the “the saviour” and expressed how the Father and Son are separate persons. But none of that was expressed by Frederick G. Williams who stated that it was the “the saviour” who appeared. Nothing was said about the Father being a separate Person in the 1833 School of the Prophets account.

At one of these meetings after the organization of the school, on the 23d of January, 1833, when we were all togather, Joseph having givan instructions, and while engaged in silent prayer, kneeling, with our hands uplifted each one praying in silence, no one whispered above his breath, a personage walked through the room from east to west, and Joseph asked if we saw him. I saw him and suppose the others did, and Joseph answered that is Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother. Afterwards Joseph told us to resume our former position in prayer; which we did. Another person came through; He was surrounded as with a flame of fire. He Bro. C experianced a sensation that it might destroy the tabernacle as it was of consuming fire of great brightness. The Prophet Joseph said this was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I saw Him.

I did not discover His clothing, for He was surrounded as with a flame of fire, which was so brilliant that I could not discover any thing else but His person. I saw His hands, His legs, his feet, his eyes, nose, mouth, head and body in the shape and form of a perfect man. He sat in a chair as a man would sit in a chair, but His appearance was so grand and overwhelming that it seemed I should melt down in His presence, and the sensation was so powerful that it thrilled through my whole system and I felt it in the marrow of my bones. The Prophet Joseph said: Brethren now you are prepared to be the Apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son, and know that They exist, and that They are two separate Personages.

I point out that Coltrin did not claim to see two persons at the same time but saw them appear separately in-between the prayers of the ordinance. The first person comes and goes and the second person makes an appearance. They do not appear together because Smith asked those present “if we saw him” implying that he came and went. Then after prayers, a vision of another person is mentioned in which fifty years later Coltrin said he was informed it was the Father.

1. “a personage walked through the room from east to west, and Joseph asked if we saw him. I saw him and suppose the others did”

2. “Joseph told us to resume our former position in prayer”

3. “Another person came through; He was surrounded as with a flame of fire”

[Shulem]

Compare the original revelation of D&C 76:1 in blue type to the change made later in August of 1835 in red type for the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants.

A Vision of Joseph and Sidney

Hear O ye heavens & give ear O earth & rejoice ye inhabitants thereof for the Lord he is God & beside him there is none else

Revelations printed in The Evening and the Morning Star, edited by William W. Phelps.

A VISION.

HEAR, O ye Heavens, and give ear, O earth, and rejoice ye inhabitants thereof, for the Lord he is God, and beside him there is none else

Compiled by Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams

A Vision.

1 Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, and rejoice ye inhabitants thereof, for the Lord is God, and beside him there is no Savior

A copy of the revelation describing the Vision shows how Joseph Smith redacted the original handwriting of Frederick G. Williams of “none else” to “Savior”:

for the lord he is God and beside him there is none else Savior

So what’s the big deal? Why bother pointing this out? It seems it could be construed that there is a difference between God saying beside him there is “none else” (Isaiah 45:5,6) compared to saying he is the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11). The Jews believed in only one God but the Christians came along and introduced an additional person in Christ who became their Savior. Therefore, the redaction makes the statement less Jewish and more Christian but in doing so it detracts from the concept of God being one Person and one Person ONLY. Thus it helps make way for the doctrine of the plurality of gods which is exactly what Joseph Smith was contemplating while viewing the “representation of the god-head-three” in the vignette of the papyrus he acquired the previous month before publishing the change in the D&C.

[Shulem]

Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon had no inkling or idea of the Father and Son being two separate Persons having bodies of flesh and bone during their visionary experience of the three degrees of glory. Nothing to that effect was said or manifest. The visionary testimony given in 1832 is expressed in typical Christian fashion patterned after the Bible. Nothing is said about TWO PERSONS having bodies. The description is typical of the Father & Son being one and manifesting themselves together as one Being -- the living God. The doctrine of the plurality of gods was not something Joseph had conceived of in 1832 or in any other of his previous visionary experiences.

By the power of the Spirit our eyes were opened and our understandings were enlightened, so as to see and understand the things of God

It is proposed by some that this would have been a visionary experienced induced by entheogens in order to hallucinate and experience God in a supernatural way.

Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning;

Smith is equating God as being from the beginning which in biblical terms means from everlasting (Psalms 90:2). Therefore, the Christian expression of one God consisting of the Father & Son is from everlasting -- even Jesus “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2). Neither member of the Godhead precedes the other or is older than the other! They are one in the same!

Of whom we bear record; and the record which we bear is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son, whom we saw and with whom we conversed in the heavenly vision.

Who did they claim to see? In whom did they claim to converse with? There is only one answer given: Jesus. They did not see the Father as a separate Person. They did not converse with the Father separately from Christ as Smith later claimed in his 1838 First Vision account when he came up with the idea of the Father standing next to Jesus and pointing at him as a separate Being. None of this is expressed in the 1832 grand and glorious vision of the three degrees!

And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;

This is a typical Christian expression of the biblical God, nothing less and nothing more. Nothing is said about God being a separate Person having a body of flesh and bone. That all came later.

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

This is the nail in the coffin. Note the testimony is given as “he” lives. If the testimony was in conformance with Smith’s later teachings of the Godhead he would not have said that. He would have born testimony that they live! A clear distinction would have been given that the Father & Son were really two separate Persons having bodies of flesh and bone. But such is not the case. Smith and Rigdon did NOT testify of that. Their testimony was based on the typical beliefs expressed by Christianity in general: Christ is God and God is Christ.

[bill4long]

The excuse given by Mormon apostles and prophets that special spiritual experiences are too sacred to talk about

Interesting that Paul the Apostle had quite the opposite view of this. He shouted his experiences from the rooftops. But, of course, the Mormon leaders have never had much respect for Paul. Ironic that Paul basically invented what Christianity was to become.

At any rate, the Mormon leaders often say that Joe's "first vision" was the most important and sacred event that has happened in the modern age. So why do they not hesitate to talk about that most sacred event? But they say their own hangouts with Jesus are too sacret to reveal.

Now, I can almost understand why they might not want to talk about such things with outsiders. But when asked about meeting Jesus at solemn firesides consisting of TBM Mormons, they give the same lame response: too sacred to talk about, can't throw pearls before swine, etc, etc. What? Are the faithful Mormons swine too?

It's almost like I'm listening to some used car salesmen speaking with forked tongue.

[bill4long]

Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon

Sydney Rigdon was the cause of almost all the errors which were introduced while he was in the church ... Rigdon would expound the Old Testament scriptures of the Bible and Book of Mormon (in his way) to Joseph, concerning the priesthood, high priests, etc., and would persuade Brother Joseph to inquire of the Lord about this doctrine and that doctrine, and of course a revelation would always come just as they desired it. --David Whitner, And Address to All Believers in Christ

[Moksha]

What of the apologetic that all this was preparatory for the current Latter-day Saints understanding that Joseph Smith was part of the Council of Gods who approved of the creation and plan of salvation, as well as spending time serving as the Holy Ghost?