Some people make a big deal out of the “First Vision” using the word vision, and not visitation. These are mostly detractors, who want to make it out that Joseph Smith really just had a dream like experience, and not an actual visitation. I’m not sure if this really makes a difference. If God wanted to communicate a message through Smith, would it really matter if He made him dream it, or he visited him personally?
It seems that this distinction has gotten under the skin of some apologists, as they have taken to defending the word “vision”, but insisting it was an actual visitation. One tried to use the definition of vision to prove the point by using first (most common) definition at Merriam-Webster:
the special sense by which the qualities of an object (such as color, luminosity, shape, and size) constituting its appearance are perceived through a process in which light rays entering the eye are transformed by the retina into electrical signals that are transmitted to the brain via the optic nerve
This is obviously just talking about the common use of vision, when light hits the optic nerve, and he argued that this is what happened, the light from God hit Joseph’s eyes, ergo a vision!
But in a religious context, when the normal person hears “vision”, (not that apologist are not normal), I think that they feel more confortable using the 2nd and 3rd diffintion at Merriam-Webster
2: something seen in a dream, trance, or ecstasy especially: a supernatural appearance that conveys a revelation
3: the act or power of imagination
I don’t see anything wrong with these definitions, and why apologist would need to refute them. Well, maybe that 3rd definition could be used against Joseph.
The church, in a recent YouTube Video uses the words “vision” for most of the presentation, then uses “visitation” after it talked about God and Christ visiting Joseph. I think they want to drive home that it was a real visitation by actual exalted deity, and not just a dream he had.
So what do you think. Is this much ado about nothing? Does it matter if it was a dream/trance or a real visitation? Would anything in the church change if they came out and said it was a dream?
Wheat & Tares 
I take it not as sparring over dictionary definitions but as myth making. A visitation is an epochal event. A millennial event. An Abraham and Moses and even Jesus-Joshua-Yeshua kind of event. A vision, on the other hand, is a human lifetime kind of event. Thinking back to Sunday School and Seminary and Mission lessons, Joseph Smith was not just the most important religious leader of the 19th century, but the key religious leader of the Common Era. That’s what “visitation” communicated.
Back when I taught both primary and youth Sunday school the then curricula materials used the first vision as visitation to demonstrate the reality of Heavenly Father and Jesus as separate beings. Under the heading of what are the important things the first vision teaches us.
Big difference. I could have a vision of Superman but I can’t have a visitation from Superman. A visitation is evidence of existence whereas a vision is not. The stakes are raised given that the Book of Mormon conflates dreams and visions as well.
If Joseph Smith intended to describe it as a visitation, a conversation with actual physical being it beings, depending on the account, that makes all the difference.
It doesn’t matter whether we or the church or Joseph Smith himself use the word visitation or vision. I think that it’s clear the church treats it as a visitation, and from my memory of the original accounts, Smith did, too.
I think the word choice is interesting. It does seem to me that it was always taught as a visitation even though it was always called a “vision”. Joseph Smith seems to have used the word, “vision” from what I can recall. But I know that people experiencing these types of visions/visitations were somewhat common where Joseph was growing up. I wonder if the term that everyone around him was using was “vision” and he just adopted that word as it seemed natural from those around him.
This was something that caught my interest years ago because I wonder how Joseph would know the difference if he had a vision or visitation…? Or if he was seeing an actual physical God vs how his brain interpreted something he was seeing that he was incapable of understanding. At the end of the day, I put this on the shelf of ‘no way to know and those that say they do are giving opinions (often biased to support a larger belief system) rather than fact.’ But it’s fun to talk about.
I don’t think you need a real visitation of God and Jesus to make the first vision any more credible.
You have more problems with not having a real Peter, James and John, real Moroni, real John the Baptist, real Moses, real Elias, and a real Elijah. If these were not real resurrected men who came down in the flesh and laid their hands on the head of Joseph Smith to give him priesthood keys or deliver some other important message like the Book of Mormon written on real gold plates, that really hurts the restoration story as we have taught it.
Does any of this help? From Noah Webster’s 1828 American dictionary:
“VISION, … The act of seeing external objects; actual sight. .. Something imagined to be seen, though not real; a phantom; a specter. … In Scripture, a revelation from God; an appearance or exhibition of something supernaturally presented to the minds of the prophets, by which they were informed of future events. …”
“VISITATION. … In Scripture, and in a religious sense, the sending of afflictions and distresses on men to punish them for their sins, or to prove them. Hence afflictions, calamities and judgments are called visitations. … Communication of divine love; exhibition of divine goodness and mercy.”
I did a fairly deep dive into the First Vision accounts. It was the first “wrinkle” I noticed in my previous black/white view of Church history. I think that the historical record shows that the Church has pinned a lot of doctrine on a physical visitation (nature of godhead being one of them, as is the opening of floodgates of truth that had been corrupted). In some ways, the actual physical visitation is needed to support some of these doctrines – though the Church can now point to later doctrines or teachings for independent support, I guess. In addition to setting doctrines and creating a historic unparalleled moment, a visitation is needed to separate Joseph’s experience with the other fairly common similar theophanies that were published and known in Joseph’s day (some being had by relatives of Joseph himself). However, even a cursory study of the development of the LDS concept of godhead casts raises the significant question of how could Joseph’s understanding of the nature of God change so much (modalism-trinitarianism-binitarianism – up to King Follett) if he in fact saw with his physical eyes, God and Jesus. For example, why would he allow (his role is debated) the Lectures on Faith to teach that God is a spirit, if he had literally seen God in the flesh. I personally don’t think a literal visitation of it can be supported by the historical record. I personally resolved my questions and concerns viewing it as a spiritual experience closer to what Joseph wrote by his own hand in the earliest 1832 account, which has subsequently been re-interpreted and re-cast in various times and for various purposes by Joseph and later leaders.
As to why a visitation experience is important to the Church, consider the following:
“A new truth, a concept not understood by the myriads of people on the earth, burst forth, and in that moment (first vision) there was only one man on the face of the whole earth who knew with absolute assurance that God was a personal being, that the Father and Son were separate individuals with [glorified] bodies of flesh and bones [and that he] had been created in their image. As the Son was in the image of his Father, the Father God was the same kind of image as the Son.” “Chapter 21: The Prophet Joseph Smith,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball (2006), 226–35; see also the following which is taught to primary children, “Joseph Smith Learned Many Things from His Vision – Ask the children what Joseph Consider the following statements:
President George Q. Cannon: “There was no man scarcely upon the earth that had a true conception of God…. But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of … God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph…. The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the God-head … Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that he had feet; that He had a face and a tongue for which to express his thoughts’ for He said until Joseph: “This is my beloved Son’ – pointing to the Son – ‘hear him.’” Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24, p. 371-72
President George Q. Cannon – “We know that [God] is a Being – a man – with all the component parts of an intelligent being – head, hair, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, cheek bones, forehead.” Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24, p. 371-72
Dallin H. Oaks, “The Godhead and the Plan of Salvation,” General Conference, April 2017 (“In his First Vision, Joseph Smith saw two distinct personages, two beings, thus clarifying that the then-prevailing beliefs concerning God and the Godhead were not true.”);
“Godhead”, True to the Faith (2004), p. 73-74 (“The true doctrine of the Godhead was lost in the apostasy that followed the Savior’s mortal ministry and the deaths of His Apostles. This doctrine began to be restored when 14-year-old Joseph Smith received his First Vision (see Joseph Smith—History 1:17). From the Prophet’s account of the First Vision and from his other teachings, we know that the members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22));
Robert D. Hales, “Gaining a Testimony of God the Father; His Son, Jesus Chris; and the Holy Ghost”, General Conference, April 2008 (“Joseph Smith knew the nature of the three members of the Godhead by personal experience. As a 14-year-old boy he wanted to know which of the many Christian churches he should join. In the Bible, in the book of James of the New Testament, he read, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God.”3 Obediently he knelt in prayer and was visited by God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. He described Them as “two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above [Joseph] in the air. One of them [God the Father] spake unto [him], calling [him] by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”);
L. Tom Perry, “The Articles of Faith”, General Conference, April 1998 (“How grateful we are for a knowledge of Supreme Beings that rule and govern this world. Our belief does not come from the speculations of men about the existence and nature of God, but from firsthand experience from the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove. His experience clarified for mankind the existence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Thus to the world came the vision that three personages comprise this great presiding council of the universe and have revealed themselves to mankind as three separate beings, physically distinct from each other as demonstrated by the accepted records of their divine dealings with mankind”).
“A new truth, a concept not understood by the myriads of people on the earth, burst forth, and in that moment (first vision) there was only one man on the face of the whole earth who knew with absolute assurance that God was a personal being, that the Father and Son were separate individuals with [glorified] bodies of flesh and bones [and that he] had been created in their image. As the Son was in the image of his Father, the Father God was the same kind of image as the Son.” “Chapter 21: The Prophet Joseph Smith,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball (2006), 226–35
As was pointed out by someone else, such visions were not uncommon in Joseph Smith’s time and culture. If those were described as a vision where Jesus appeared and informed them of something, would that be a vision or a visitation? I presume more is at stake because Joseph went on to found the LDS church. But since Joseph’s vision came much earlier in the sequence of events, the question remains: what is the difference between Josephs experience and the others that were recorded?
I’ve no wish to offend, but I generally find the arguments of most LDS apologists appallingly poor. In this case, I think there is some definite light that can be shed on nineteenth-century terminology by looking at the use of the word “vision” if not the dictionary definition. Wilford Woodruff often used “visions” to refer specifically to “night visions”, or dreams. (See Brian Stuy’s article in the Spring 2000 issue of Dialogue for a further exploration of this). It’s conjectured by Stuy that Woodruff’s so-called “visions” might have been dreams that he had and then interpreted them or spoke of them as if they were visions. The terminology is certainly confusing. Martin Harris has been quoted as seeing an angel and the golden plates while being “entranced”. There are also some sources talking about Harris and others seeing things in early Mormon history with “the eyes of faith” or “second sight” which, if I understand that usage, would have been more like how we use the term “imagination” today. I think all of this is interesting and can be brought to bear on the subject of the first vision, but I also think Zach is right that there are actually far greater problems in the church’s founding narrative. This issue, of course, highlights the tension between individual revelation and church orthodoxy that still exists today. We are free to “find out the truth for ourselves”, but if that truth deviates even slightly from the church’s official narrative, then our own experiences are marginalized, either by the assumption that we’re mistaken, have fallen victim to our imaginations (like Woodruff?) or have been duped by Satan. So we champion early leaders for their individuality and originality of religious thought even while we denigrate the contemporary experiences of thousands (millions?) of folks who may pray about something church-related and get a slightly different answer than the party line. It is a bit odd, to say the least.
Maybe someone can help me out because I am not a scriptorian…but in the recesses of my mind, it seems there is a scripture in the D&C that says something to the effect that man has to have the priesthood in order to see God? Just wondering…help me out.
Ally, You are likely thinking of D&C 84:
19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
Good luck trying to make this both coherent (in English — rather than current Mormon-speak) and consistent with the later versions of the First Vision and the Church’s priesthood and ordinance restoration narrative. Kinda depends in part on the antecedent of “this” in v. 22. Some read it to be “power of godliness”; some read it to be “ordinances”; some may read it to be “authority of the priesthood”. But “authority of the priesthood” seems to some to be connected to ordinances by an inappropriate conjunction “and” when instead it means ordinances “performed with” the authority of the priesthood. Otherwise, it seems under Church practice to exclude women entirely, though maybe that is solved if “man” in v. 22 is not read inclusively.
The published headnotes to Section 84 put it in late September 1832. The Joseph Smith Papers put Joseph’s early, handwritten telling of the First Vision “circa Summer, 1832”). That version says nothing about having seen divine beings other than “the Lord” who is by context identified as Christ.
I wonder if the problem meshing the current Church narratives and Section 84 doesn’t arise in part out of the assumption(s) that in writing Section 84 Joseph was acting as stenographer for a God announcing principles that are eternal (both back and forward in time).
One of the questions is what it means for the “power of godliness [to not be} manifest unto men in the flesh.” I suspect v. 22 attempts to restate what that was supposed to mean. But the only part of that clause I think I grasp is that “power of godliness” in v.21 does not mean what “power of godliness” meant in the New Testament. Maybe “godliness” and “the power thereof” also don’t mean what the concept seems to be in the 1838 account in the Pearl of Great Price: ““they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”” Indeed, in some current Mormon-speak comments on this section, the writer’s have substituted the phrase “power of God” for “power of godliness.” In others, e.g. “Lesson 25: Priesthood: ‘The Power of Godliness’” Doctrine and Covenants and Church History: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual (1999), 140–44, there is no attempt at all to deal with what “godliness” is or what it’s power may be.
It does not seem likely to me that Section 84 will be of any real help in coming to a conclusion on vision v. visitation, assuming one defines those words in ways that make a difference anyway.
Raskolnikov’s Successor cites a number of Church leaders’ teachings tying doctrine on the nature of the Godhead to the First vision, by which they mean the 1838 account. Maybe they are reporting what they learn from that account. It does not seem to be what Joseph learned from the First Vision, or it just wasn’t important enough to include in his earliest account (1832). If it had been learned by Joseph from his First Vision and if it were all that important to him, one also wonders why the First Vision was not used in the Church’s early missionary work.
I wonder if Section 84 does not so much resolve the vision/visitation question as it raises a host of additional questions.
I think a lot of it really does come down to semantics. I think because so many of the revelations Joseph Smith received were communicated to the mind’s eye only, in the form of visions, the saints in general have collectively grouped all visions and actual visitations under the descriptive term of “visions.” Although I think the distinction is easy to be made, I suppose laziness in describing each could account for not making it a little clearer.
Interestingly enough, my own testimony of the first vision/visitation has been bolstered by feeling the Spirit while hearing an account of a man who had a vision of Joseph having the first vision/visitation. It seemed a very sacred experience in its own right.
Of course, even the first “visitation” itself might be kind of a misnomer. I’ve heard it theorized that while the Son may condescend to come among men, the Father wouldn’t, so that when Joseph was transfigured to withstand the presence of God, he was in fact transported to the place where Heavenly Father resides, perhaps to a similar grove of trees on that world (if they all looked like they were on fire or nearly afire, I imagine it would be hard to tell the difference). This would make Joseph the actual “visitor,” rather than the Father and the Son. It’s kind of interesting food for thought, but who visited who matters less to me than the purpose of the visit itself.
Oh, boy…the First Vision…how is it possible that I’ve only been an investigator for less than six months, and I’ve heard The Problems With The First Vision so many times??
I figure there are two ways to look at this: Joseph made the whole thing up, in which case we might as well just pack it up and go home. Sorry, guys, it was a good run, but you’ve been had for 200 years.
Or he was telling the truth about having some sort of supernatural experience, in which case, why are we trying to apply the rules of logic to it? If he actually saw God, if it was real, then any description of that experience is going to sound absolutely bonkers.
“Was Joseph awake or was he asleep?” seems like the least of our worries at that point. I think we could find scriptural precedent for either, the primary difference being that waking experiences tended to knock people right off their donkeys (e.g., Saul/Paul). In that sense, perhaps dreamtime appearances are a kindness on God’s part.
The one I keep hearing most often is that there are at least four different versions of the First Vision account. As if he were reciting this story for the police and his credibility rests on keeping the details consistent. “Ah-ha! You threw in an extra personage that time, Joseph! BUSTED!”
It’s possible he made the whole thing up, although I would argue that it doesn’t fit the pattern of other instances where we know he was being dishonest. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume for a moment that he was telling the truth. He would have had to have at least considered the possibility that he had gone completely Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. I don’t think hallucinating was a good sign in the 19th century any more than it is now.
How distracting would it be to wonder if your mind had cracked? How would you ever explain that experience to anyone else? Would you even try? And if your mind was as blown as it probably would be, would you necessarily remember all the details, or even know how to describe them? How does one describe the ineffable?
When I first committed to investigating, I had a friend who tried to save me from myself by giving me the CES Letter. I read it. He makes many good points. I don’t think the First Vision stuff is one of them though. Because all First Vision criticism relies on the idea that having a direct experience of God would be a linear event that you could later recount in the same way you might describe a trip to the zoo. (“Well, first we saw the monkeys. And then we walked past the lion cage, but we didn’t stop there, because I had to go to the bathroom, but first we stopped for cotton candy…”)
If Joseph was telling the truth, then I think four versions is on the low side when you factor in the need to make sense of the experience. Did that really happen? What exactly was that? What does it mean? If we believe Joseph had a tangible experience of God, then it only makes sense that such a thing would be extremely hard to describe, the details would probably vary in the retelling, and for someone like Joseph—who had been making money off lying about supernatural things—the real thing would probably have rattled him to his core.
I always imagine the First Vision a little bit like the Whoopi Goldberg character in the movie “Ghost.” She’d been ripping people off for money with her seances. Then, when Patrick Swayze’s ghost actually contacts her, she runs screaming and stammering from the room, utterly unable to process what just happened.
Ever thought it may have been a message meant for him and him alone…like so much of our personally revealed things are meant to be sacred and PERSONAL?
Ally. Sure. Read the 1832 version.