My new site at www.mormondefense.net is currently under construction. Feel free to take a look at what I've got so far!

Thursday, April 10, 2014

1 Timothy 6:16 and the First Vision



            By: Michael Flournoy

            Bring up the fact that Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son, and many Christians will turn to 1 Timothy 6:16 which says no man has seen, or can see the Father.  While we as Latter-day Saints can sidestep the first half of this argument by virtue of Joseph’s vision happening after the verse was written, Paul’s assertion that no man can see the Father puts Joseph’s account in a tough spot.

            Here are three possible reconciliations between the First Vision and 1 Timothy 6:16.

1.      Transfiguration: 1 Timothy 6:16 is a natural rule that God in his omnipotence can defy by temporarily endowing a human being with the ability to see Him and live.  While not explicitly stated, the Bible does imply this happened to Stephen.  In The Acts 7:55-56 we read: But he, “being full of the Holy Ghost” looked up into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.  And said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” 

Many Christians will argue that this verse says Stephen saw God’s glory, and not the Father, but a careful look at the grammar in these verses will reveal otherwise.  It states that Stephen saw the glory of God,
(see that comma?) AND (emphasis mine) Jesus standing on the right hand of God.  Stephen knew exactly where Jesus was standing in relation to the Father.  Why?  Because he could see the Father clearly.  Of course I’ve had people explain to me that you can see someone talking to someone else around a corner without ever actually seeing the other person, but this explanation is a bit of a stretch in regards to Stephen’s vision.  There is no mention that the Father was hiding around a corner, in fact, it says Stephen was looking straight up and the heavens were “open”.

2.      Joseph Smith and Stephen did not technically see the Father, the Holy Ghost saw Him for them.  In Mark 13:11 Jesus tells his disciples that when they are delivered up they should not plan what to say, but should speak whatever is given them because it is not them speaking, but the Holy Ghost.  It would be their mouths moving and their voices sounding out the words, but in the most technical sense it would actually be the Holy Ghost speaking.

In The Acts 7 we read that Stephen was filled with the Holy Ghost before seeing the Father and the Son.  It stands to reason that since the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, he can see the Father.  After all, in Matthew 18:10 Jesus claims that angels “always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven”.  It shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that technically the Holy Ghost saw God through Joseph’s eyes.   

3.      Joseph Smith saw God indirectly through a vision.  Joseph’s account states that the Father and the Son appeared before him in a pillar of light and spoke to him face to face.  However, verse 20 of Joseph Smith-History confesses an interesting ending to this visitation.  Says Joseph, “I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven…”  Some Latter-day Saints have suggested that Joseph Smith’s vision was just that: a vision, a dream.  Truly, the experience of finding oneself often happens upon waking. 

Of course, this is where critics will chime in and support the idea that the First Vision was a dream… of the fictional variety.  But assuming that Joseph was honest in his account, this cannot be so, since he describes the light fading away after coming to himself.

 

3 comments:

  1. (Said with the utmost love and respect for you, Michael :-) No hate here homie'...yeah you read that right...I said "homie")

    "Stephen knew exactly where Jesus was standing in relation to the Father. Why? Because he could see the Father clearly. Of course I’ve had people explain to me that you can see someone talking to someone else around a corner without ever actually seeing the other person, but this explanation is a bit of a stretch in regards to Stephen’s vision."

    I don't think it's a stretch at all. I think every person here has had this experience once in their life, which is why the analogy works so effectively.

    "Joseph Smith and Stephen did not technically see the Father, the Holy Ghost saw Him for them"

    So, did Joseph Smith see the father or not? This seems like a "have your cake and eat it too" kind of scenario. Either he did, or he didn't.

    "Some Latter-day Saints have suggested that Joseph Smith’s vision was just that: a vision, a dream. Truly, the experience of finding oneself often happens upon waking."

    Again my rebuttal: Was the first vision a physical, historical event where Joseph Smith where he actually saw the father? If so, I believe the consistent LDS theologian is forced to reject the plain reading of 1 Timothy 6:16. If not, then there is a HUGE rewriting of LDS history occurring. From everything I have read in LDS history (which, granted, ain't a whole lot) it has always been portrayed as an actual event, not just a dream or vision.

    So, while I appreciate your thoughts on this, I remain unconvinced. Love you, Michael...just completely disagree with you on this one. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Neil,

    I'm not surprised you disagree with me, in fact I'd be shocked if you didn't!

    I know you believe 1 timothy 6:16 is very clear, but if it's as straightforward as you say it is, and Stephen's vision is as straightforward as I think it is, then we have a contradiction my friend. Something has to give. Either paul forgot to mention that Stephen saw the Father, or Luke forgot to say Stephen didn't actually see the Father on Christ's left.

    Also Josephs visitation has been called the first VISION as long as I can remember, so how is it rewriting history to call it a vision? Also, if God speaks to us in a dream, does that make his communication to us any less real?

    Michael Flournoy

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'Either Paul forgot to mention that Stephen saw the Father, or Luke forgot to say Stephen didn't actually see the Father on Christ's left."

    Or Stephen didn't see the Father, rather just his glory and both statements are accurate as they stand. :-)

    Take care buddy!

    ReplyDelete