<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Shouldn&#8217;t the &#8220;First Vision&#8221; be changed to the &#8220;First Visitation?&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://askgramps.org/shouldnt-first-vision-changed-first-visitation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://askgramps.org/shouldnt-first-vision-changed-first-visitation/</link>
	<description>Moral answers to everyday concerns, curiosities, and uncertainties.  Gramps considers all questions on all topics from all sources.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2021 03:15:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Robert Harrison		</title>
		<link>https://askgramps.org/shouldnt-first-vision-changed-first-visitation/#comment-35382</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Harrison]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 23:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://en.elds.org/askgramps-org/?p=35406#comment-35382</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://askgramps.org/shouldnt-first-vision-changed-first-visitation/#comment-34930&quot;&gt;Horace Mann&lt;/a&gt;.

Horace,
Thank you for your explanation to my original question. On thinking about it somewhat, I believe that you are right in stating that it is immaterial as to whether it was a vision or an (As I asked) an actual physical visitation. The fact is if we believe in what Joseph claimed to have seen was true.
How many of us have come up with different versions of some event in our lives, yet all meaning the same thing.
Respectfully
Robert]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://askgramps.org/shouldnt-first-vision-changed-first-visitation/#comment-34930">Horace Mann</a>.</p>
<p>Horace,<br />
Thank you for your explanation to my original question. On thinking about it somewhat, I believe that you are right in stating that it is immaterial as to whether it was a vision or an (As I asked) an actual physical visitation. The fact is if we believe in what Joseph claimed to have seen was true.<br />
How many of us have come up with different versions of some event in our lives, yet all meaning the same thing.<br />
Respectfully<br />
Robert</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Horace Mann		</title>
		<link>https://askgramps.org/shouldnt-first-vision-changed-first-visitation/#comment-34930</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Horace Mann]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://en.elds.org/askgramps-org/?p=35406#comment-34930</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Maybe God the Father and Jesus Christ weren&#039;t literally present. Consider the vision of Saul on the road to Damascus. Those who were with him saw a light, but heard no voice, like Saul heard. We can infer that Jesus wasn&#039;t literally present in that vision. Does that diminish the value of the Vision? No. Ezekiel saw God in a dream, but that doesn&#039;t mean the vision was less valuable than if God had come to him in person. Lehi&#039;s dream was a dream, but that doesn&#039;t mean it was a spiritually inferior experience than when Nephi has a vision and is shown the dream and its interpretation. 

Is there a citation by Joseph Smith that he gave 100% certainty that the First Vision was a literal experience? It doesn&#039;t really challenge our doctrine or our faith if Jesus and the Father were actually there, or if it were just a Vision, as it is called. 

If this were really a Vision instead of a Visitation, it would explain why Joseph tells some slightly different accounts of the First Vision, because the meaning and nature of the Vision would become more clear to him as he spiritually matured.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe God the Father and Jesus Christ weren&#8217;t literally present. Consider the vision of Saul on the road to Damascus. Those who were with him saw a light, but heard no voice, like Saul heard. We can infer that Jesus wasn&#8217;t literally present in that vision. Does that diminish the value of the Vision? No. Ezekiel saw God in a dream, but that doesn&#8217;t mean the vision was less valuable than if God had come to him in person. Lehi&#8217;s dream was a dream, but that doesn&#8217;t mean it was a spiritually inferior experience than when Nephi has a vision and is shown the dream and its interpretation. </p>
<p>Is there a citation by Joseph Smith that he gave 100% certainty that the First Vision was a literal experience? It doesn&#8217;t really challenge our doctrine or our faith if Jesus and the Father were actually there, or if it were just a Vision, as it is called. </p>
<p>If this were really a Vision instead of a Visitation, it would explain why Joseph tells some slightly different accounts of the First Vision, because the meaning and nature of the Vision would become more clear to him as he spiritually matured.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
