Mme Curie – Valoel’s avatar is actually a drawing that is from the Jungian archetype of the Wise Old Man/Woman. So, I nodded to Valoel, who was nodding to Jung. If you do a google image search, you get Valoel’s avatar.

Thanks for the props on the post!

I think this post is a great example of one way we can move beyond the founding stories of the LDS church to remain a viable religion despite the historical contradictions.

Prove this. I reject the Jungian interpretation because I reject the premise.

Visions can be dreams, but visions are not always dreams. In fact, your use of “often” refutes the implication made by the previous sentence that visions are categorically dreams. I am aware of Lehi’s saying I dreamed a dream, or in other words saw a vision. However, I don’t believe the FV can be classified as one where Moroni’s visit could be considering the circumstances. The FV came outside, while he was doing physical work, and during open prayer while wide awake. Probably the most offensive idea is that dreams aren’t real, visions are dreams, and therefore visions are hallucinations. Moroni’s visits could have been dreams, but they were as real as any scientific experience. I see divine visions as no different than watching a recording played back on a VCR, just in our minds.

I wholeheartedly agree with with this. When asked to give a SM talk on the First Vision recently (the first time I’ve actually been assigned a topic in a long time!) I did a lot of research. One of the most interesting things that I found was that Joseph rarely cited the First Vision, and never as evidence for anything doctrinal. Early missionaries recounted the story of Moroni’s visitation rather than the FV (which testifies more of the BoM). When Joseph discusses the corporeal nature of God and Christ in the Lectures on Faith and asks, “How do we know?” he doesn’t reply “Because I saw them, that’s why!” He responds: “By the scriptures.”

The intro to the 1832 account references Joseph’s progressive major experiences in the restoration of the Church, describing the FV as: “firstly he receiving the testamony from on high”. The FV was first and foremost a sacred and moving personal testimony of divinity for Joseph (in whatever form it came), and I think history shows he reverenced it as such. Our modern emphasis on repeating it frequently and using it as the basis for other doctrinal justification is, I agree, a tenuous proposition.

…??? No. I didn’t think it was that outrageous a statement.

“LOADS of people have had what they believed were heavenly visitations over the centuries. Catholicism is riddled with these types of experiences. ”

I was specifically thinking of *scriptural* occurances. Apologies for vagueness.

“It may be easy for us as Mormons to dismiss the image of Jesus on a piece of toast as wishful thinking, but Catholics tend to accept the FV because these types of experiences are very common to their history. I think they are on better ground in accepting all rather than rejecting all but their own as some LDS prefer to do.”

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I was talking about the difference between a vision and a visitation in the way that I thought you described in the original post – namely that a vision isn’t physical. (In a vision you see something that isn’t physically there – but can neverless still be true revelation, whereas in a visitation, you are…well…visited)

“And the FV was simply not known to the early members of the church.”

Again, sorry for being vague, I wasn’t trying to argue that. I was just saying that we use the First Vision as shorthand for Joseph Smith being a prophet (I was going to mention the Book of Mormon as well but decided it wasn’t necessary!). When someone says that the foundation of the church rests on the First Vision, it’s really about Joseph Smith being called as a prophet during it. That’s what I was saying the early church agreed with, even if they didn’t know when or how that call occurred.

This is the way I currently lean as well. In any case it was a vision.

“And the FV was simply not known to the early members of the church. JS didn’t share that experience until later.”

This is what I was going to say. Early members dedication to, and acknowledgment of Joseph Smith as a prophet seemed to be based on The Book of Mormon, and the revelations he received. At least that was my reading of Rough Stone Rolling.

Fraggle: “In any case I don’t see how you can differentiate between a vision of God and a visitation *from* God short of physical contact (and even that’s problematic), which off the top of my head I don’t think has occured in any recorded appearance of deity except Christ’s appearances following his resurrection.” You’re kidding, right? LOADS of people have had what they believed were heavenly visitations over the centuries. Catholicism is riddled with these types of experiences. It may be easy for us as Mormons to dismiss the image of Jesus on a piece of toast as wishful thinking, but Catholics tend to accept the FV because these types of experiences are very common to their history. I think they are on better ground in accepting all rather than rejecting all but their own as some LDS prefer to do.

And the FV was simply not known to the early members of the church. JS didn’t share that experience until later. I don’t believe that indicates that it didn’t happen, just that it was personal and important to him and not necessarily intended for others.

I don’t because they did. Not in the sense that they necessarily cared about the First Vision specifically, but that they accepted Joseph Smith’s claim to be a prophet of God. It is as a proxy for that concept of ‘prophetness’ that today it’s said that the foundation of the church rests on the Vision. I agree it’s not strictly correct, but it’s certainly not incorrect.

In any case I don’t see how you can differentiate between a vision of God and a visitation *from* God short of physical contact (and even that’s problematic), which off the top of my head I don’t think has occured in any recorded appearance of deity except Christ’s appearances following his resurrection.

I favor your definition of “vision”, maybe defining it as an “exalted dream”. It is hard to image that it takes on the physical nature of an exchange that three earthly people might have. The same goes for Moroni’s visit. The Smith family was still in the small cabin, waiting for the completion of the house that Alvin was constructing. Joseph shared his sleeping quarters with some of his brothers. If his vision took on the physical qualities – bright light, personage entering the room, verbal instructions – that we normally equate with an everyday activity, others in the room would surely have been aware.

Hawk – I am not an expert of Jung, so correct me if I am wrong. But there is a sense that some symbols or images have an archetypal quality in that reside in a collective unconscious. If we are apply to apply Jungs views to the FV, then perhaps seeing it as an archetype, allows us to see it in that context. I mean seeing it from a Jungian perspective is not how Joseph would have understood it, but using that frame, if anything, allows us to take it out of his 19th Century context and place in an universal one. But I really liked your post.

One of the things I like about Jung is that he said that people tend to assume that dreams are literal (e.g. if something happpens to a person it means that thing will literally happen to that person), which is not the case. For example, pharoah’s dreams that Joseph interprets are not “face value” dreams – they are full of symbolism and require an understanding of symbolism to interpret. The subconscious can communicate to us what we need to do, but it’s subjective and personal. It’s not always literal and obvious.

David titles his Article – “I don’t have a testimony of the history of the Church.” he emphasises what a testimony really is to him and this allows him the manage his expectations.

if our expectations are well measured then we can gain useful information from the Jungian perspective whether you believe the first visit to be literal or not.

whether literal or not it clearly demonstrates this young man’s desire to find truth.

Jung’s analysis seems a useful starting point (among others) for analyzing the First Vision, but it shouldn’t begin and end with his categories and interpretive classifications. To turn it around in a Nibleyesque sense, this type of vision-experience is the source, not the derivative, of archetypal analysis.