Jungian dream analysis includes several underlying assumptions:

• that dreams are subjectively meaningful for the individual
• that people, objects, animals, and events in the dream are representative of the dreamer’s inner life (and not to be taken at face value or literally)
• that a proper interpretation of dreams can lead the dreamer to great self-awareness and to understanding the psychological direction of his/her life at a given time
• that some themes, events or characters in a dream are archetypal or representative of collective spirituality, not just reflective of personal meaning

So, to apply Jungian dream interpretation to the First Vision, we would consider the following elements:

People.  In Jungian perspectives, people in dreams are almost always a manifestation of a part of the person dreaming.  There are seven archetypes one may encounter in a dream:

1. The Persona is the image you present to the world in your waking life. It is your public mask. In the dream world, the persona is represented by the Self. The Self may or may not resemble you physically or may or may not behave as your would. For example, the persona can appear as a scarecrow or a beggar in your dream. However, you still know that this “person” in your dream is you.
2. The Shadow is the rejected and repressed aspects of yourself. It is the part of yourself that you do not want the world to see because it is ugly or unappealing. It symbolizes weakness, fear, or anger. In dreams, this figure is represented by a stalker, murderer, a bully, or pursuer. It can be a frightening figure or even a close friend or relative. Their appearance often makes you angry or leaves you scared. They force you to confront things that you don’t want to see or hear. You must learn to accept the shadow aspect of yourself for its messages are often for your own good, even though it may not be immediately apparent.
3. The Anima / Animus is the female and male aspects of yourself. Everyone possess both feminine and masculine qualities. In dreams, the anima appears as a highly feminized figure, while the animus appears as a hyper masculine form. Or you may dream that you are dressed in women’s clothing, if you are male or that you grow a beard, if you are female. These dream imageries appear depending on how well you are able to integrate the feminine and masculine qualities within yourself. They serve as a reminder that you must learn to acknowledge or express your masculine (be more assertive) or feminine side (be more emotional).
4. The Divine Child is your true self in its purest form. It not only symbolizes your innocence, your sense of vulnerability, and your helplessness, but it represents your aspirations and full potential. You are open to all possibilities. In the dreamscape, this figure is represented by a baby or young child.
5. The Wise Old Man /Woman is the helper in your dreams. Represented by a teacher, father, doctor, priest or some other unknown authority figure, they serve to offer guidance and words of wisdom. They appear in your dream to steer and guide you into the right direction.
6. The Great Mother is the nurturer. The Great Mother appears in your dreams as your own mother, grandmother, or other nurturing figure. She provides you with positive reassurance. Negatively, they may be depicted as a witch or old bag lady in which case they can be associated with seduction, dominance and death. This juxtaposition is rooted in the belief by some experts that the real mother who is the giver of life is also at the same time jealous of our growth away from her.
7. The Trickster, as the name implies, plays jokes to keep you from taking yourself too seriously. The trickster may appear in your dream when you have overreach or misjudge a situation. Or he could find himself in your dream when you are uncertain about a decision or about where you want to go in life. The trickster often makes you feel uncomfortable or embarrassed, sometimes mocking you or exposing you to your vulnerabilities. He may take on subtle forms, sometimes even changing its shape.

Setting.  This includes the mental state of the dreamer as well as the dream setting.

Action.  This refers to the events that occur in the dream, and the actions of the person the dreamer identifies as the self.

Objects or Symbols.  These could be archetypes (symbols common to all cultures) or symbols with unique personal significance to the dreamer.

Emotions.  These reveal information important to the interpretation of the dream.

Animals.  These represent our basest human instincts.

In considering the various accounts of the First Vision, the elements that have a Jungian significance are:  the Persona (with a possible link to the Divine Child given the age of the dreamer), the Shadow, the Wise Old Man, and consideration for setting, action, and emotions.  There are no versions in which the vision included female figures or animals, so those elements will be considered irrelevant for this analysis.

Setting.  JS was yearning for forgiveness of his sins (1832 version) and spiritual enlightenment (all versions).  He sought “wisdom” from God directly.  He was also obsessed with his personal welfare and salvation.  This setting (pre-vision) carried into the dream state.

Immediately, JS is confronted by a Shadow type.  Based on Jungian analysis, this Shadow is JS’s repressed negative side, his weaknesses and subconscious flaws.  These flaws “bind” his dream self (the Persona), making it impossible for him to move (to progress) or speak (to represent his own interests).  IOW, in order to continue to seek enlightenment, JS had to confront and overcome his own flaws that were holding him back and making any progress impossible.  (Often, dreams make funny little puns like this.  You are “wrestling with your demons” figuratively in life, so in your dream state, you do so literally).

When he is released from his Shadow side, he finds the enlightenment he seeks in the form of light and a visit from either an angelic messenger (1832) or God the Father & the son (1838).  Regardless, these are familiar archetypes for the Wise Old Man/Woman:  an authority (what bigger religious authority could he envision?) who gives direction or wisdom or advice.  He petitions for forgiveness of his sins (1832) and to know how to obtain salvation/which church to join (1838).  Of course, these archetypes also represent parts of our own personality.  IOW, Jung might say that JS has tapped into his inner wisdom, his internal wellspring of creativity and enlightenment.

We all know the specifics of the answer he was given as recorded in the 1838 version.  Consider that advice from a Jungian perspective, and there is a subtle change.  JS asks which external source of truth is right for him to follow.  He is told to stop looking outside himself for enlightenment because those sources of wisdom are not correct and are corrupted by others’ perspectives.  He is left to wait for further inspiration (or to find wisdom from within as Jung would see the God figure as a manifestation of JS’s spiritual side).

This is a classic hero myth: the quest for spiritual wisdom.  The hero must first reconcile his double nature (the Shadow and Persona) in order to transcend and achieve enlightenment.  Interestingly, one could also see the endowment as another telling of this same story, personalized for attendees – one’s progressive quest for spiritual wisdom and enlightenment, with a similar culmination.

So, what do you think?  Is a Jungian view of the First Vision useful?  Does this add meaning for you?  Do you consider dreams and visions too similar for this type of approach to be of value?  Discuss.

Let’s start with faith.  There are many definitions of faith, and each religion seems to place a slightly different emphasis on faith and its meaning.  From Wikipedia: “faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.”  In Christianity faith is an act of trust or reliance on Deity.  In this way it is distinguished by the object of its faith rather than the faith itself [1].  In Islam, faith is a complete submission of will to Allah.  In Hinduism it means an unshaken belief and purity of thought.  In Buddhism faith connotates a feeling of conviction, specifically a conviction that something is, a determination to accomplish one’s goals, and a sense of joy deriving from these two.

There is another important aspect of some people’s faith – fideism.  Fideism is the idea of having faith for the sake of having faith.  That is to say, it does not rely on logic, or reason of any kind.  It is independent of reason, and even holds that reason and faith are diametrically opposed.  This may lead us, in the church, to shun intellectualism and focus instead on faith.  For many TBMs, faith trumps logic.  Some believe that the events of the restoration were physical, external realities.  This can result in viewing our own spiritual experiences as evidence of external realities.  We are taught from a young age that the “Spirit” will direct us, put thoughts in our head, prompt us to do things, not do things, comfort us, and even tell us what is “true.”

Intellectualism (rationalism, reason, logic, etc.) is “any of a number of views regarding the use or development of the intellect . . .”  It is sometimes synonymously viewed with “rationalism” the idea that knowledge is derived through reasoning [2].

In my life I have had thoughts come into my head, felt comfort, and felt promptings.  However, it has never been clear to me, since some of these thoughts were wrong and uninspired, how to distinguish “spiritual promptings” I should heed, from just plain ‘ole regular thoughts.  In other words, my “thoughts,” or “promptings” or “experiences” have not always been a manifestation of external truth or reality.

Science is often the “poster child” for intellectualism.  But it indeed has a strong track record.  It is repeatable, reliable, and effective at describing the physical realities that surround us.  Although science is imperfect, its mechanisms are very good, indeed inspired.  On the downside, science is not spiritual.  Science doesn’t write poetry, compose music, paint pictures, or do other activities meet humanity’s spiritual needs.  Science is a utility.  It is one of many tools in the toolbox of life.  It complements faith.

Faith, on the other hand, inspires us, makes us happier, makes us feel good.  It serves as a guide to help us know right from wrong.  It gives us comfort, something to rely upon, and hold to.  I believe that faith is the soul’s innermost desire to express itself, to be born, to come out, to manifest itself in the world around us.  Arguably most importantly, faith moves us to action, and that action is a manifestation of the spiritual being within.  There is great worth in this concept.  It is in this sense, that I believe that faith, like science, is a tool in our toolbox of life.

Having said this, why is it that so many view intellectualism as mutually exclusive to faith?  Might I suggest one possible cause; that religions and people have a psychological affinity for treating the spiritual as physical realities.  Studies have shown that people who have sleep-paralysis, after having an episode, associate the events with reality.  They literally are unable to distinguish the fact that it was a dream.  Is it possible that this happens at the subconscious level even while awake?  Certainly for some people this will be more pronounced than for others.  This can help explain why Joseph had many visions, revelations, etc. which he deemed external realities, yet many, and even most, prophets after him have not.  Joseph was a visionary, for whatever reason.  That does not necessarily mean that his experiences were literal, external, physical realities.  And what if, indeed, they weren’t?

This does not, in my mind, diminish the idea that the metaphorical ideas shared through these experiences can help us in our lives.  Nor does it mean that the organization that he started was worthless even if it’s origins were slightly less miraculous than we like to tell.  Muhammad had visions, and conversations with the angel Gabriel which were eventually written down to form the Quran.  The idea that Muhammad wrote that book himself is heretical to a Muslim.  Yet if it really came from the angel Gabriel should we not heed the teachings contained therein?  But in Mormonism we don’t.  In fact, we don’t give it a second thought.  My solution to this conundrum is the same as that of Joseph.  Muhammad was a visionary.  He even wrote a beautifully inspired book that is every bit as sacred, special, and inspired as the Book of Mormon. However, I would suggest that the truths therein, and even his conversations with the angel Gabriel were internal experiences and metaphors.

This viewpoint makes it a lot easier for me to have faith in Joseph’s teachings, Christ, God, etc.  I have internalized these concepts.  They are metaphors for my spirituality.  I don’t need to reconcile them with science.  I don’t need to reconcile them with reason, or logic, or rationalism.  And I don’t need to reconcile them with any specific brand of religion as they all have metaphors that can help me in my life.  I can have the celestial kingdom right here, right now in my life, by being humble, kind, loving others, etc.  If we will live the way He advocated, we can unleash the inner god and in this way have a testimony of the doctrine.  This, I believe is what Jesus meant when he said “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”  (John 7:17)

Is faith in an external reality necessary for spiritual growth?  If faith moves us to action, is faith in metaphorical ideas as powerful as faith in physical realities?  Does intellectualism present a problem for faith in external realities?  Is that problem reduced if we only have faith in metaphorical ideas?

Discuss.

[1] Wikipedia article on faith.
[2] Wikipedia article on intellectualism

But then, quite unexpectedly, the lesson took a decidedly more interesting turn. The instructor focused on one seemingly minor detail of Joseph’s account that, despite having read it dozens of times, came as a surprise to me: “He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.”  (JS-H 1:20).

To be honest, I had totally forgotten about Joseph’s private conversation with God. Of course, the notion of God forbidding his prophets from writing down something he has told or shown them is not new. But what makes this 15-word passage (which is not mentioned again in the History) particularly interesting is that Joseph never was shy about sharing what he felt had been revealed to him. Furthermore, as far as I know, he never revealed what “other things” God had told him during that experience.

The teacher then posed a question, which I now present for your consideration: what unwritten things do you think God said to Joseph at that moment?

Since that lesson, I have given quite a bit of thought to what God might have told the 14-year old Joseph. As far as I know, Joseph never clarified this ambiguity.  In the absence of such an explanation, here is the best I can do:

For us looking back, the purpose of the First Vision was the restoration of the Gospel — the re-opening of the heavens, the beginning of the last dispensation, the kingdom of God once again on the Earth, etc.  But for Joseph, all of that was well in the future. For him, the experience was of a much more narrow and personal scope — God forgave his sins and answered his prayer (a point made even more prominently in the earliest versions of the experience). What was to come in subsequent years likely was far beyond even his wildest dreams at the time. God, on the other hand, knew what was in the cards for his chosen Prophet. With that in mind, I like to imagine that this “off-the-record” time was a moment when God stepped out of his role of “Restorer” and into his role as “Father.”

I have three daughters and, many times, I can see danger ahead long before they do. Countless times I have pulled their bikes out of the path of approaching cars, yanked their hands out of doorjambs, and scooped them up before they left the sidewalk. I’m no superhero, that’s just part of the job of being a father. Perhaps in that moment, as Joseph stood on the precipice of a brand new life as God’s “chosen one” — a life filled with suffering, loss, and persecution culminating in his murder — God took a brief sidebar to warn his child of the dangers ahead, to express his appreciation for him, and to tell him, “I love you.” Speaking as a father, that makes a lot of sense to me. Speaking as a fellow child of God, that brings me peace.

Your speculation, of course, is as good as mine. What do you think?

To the right is a statue of the First Vision.  Actually, I kind of like this one, although I’m not a fan of the medium the artist used.

This one is from Jesus’ little-known Sermon in Stepford.  Much discussion has been had elsewhere about the problematic placement of the rose and whether this is supposed to be a picture of Jesus with his polygamous wives.  The artist has apparently denied that interpretation, but without an explanation of the phallic rose.

A Moroni tree-topper.  Not exactly art, but kitschy.  It’s almost so bad that it’s good in a Nebraska salt and pepper shaker way.

This Nativity inspired painting is both beautiful and thought-provoking.

This toothy-grinned Jesus is not nearly as good as its unsmiling counterpart.  This picture doesn’t make Jesus look very smart, IMO.  Like he didn’t get the joke, but he’s laughing anyway.

This just looks like it belongs in a mini golf course to me.  Art?  Really?  Was this before wide-spread adoption of the Word of Wisdom?  Just plain weird.

This painting of the sacred grove always looks like it was inspired by the Redwood Forest rather than anything actually growing in upstate NY.  Accuracy aside, though, it’s nice enough with the effect of the light filtering through the trees.

This tattooed man (those are prophets’ portraits on his back) spells one word to me:  “devotion.”  I’d like to see him add one of E. Oaks since the “no tattoos” pronouncement.

I like this more Art Deco version of Moroni, although that trumpet looks a little bit improbable, like a straightened ear horn or gramophone.  Or a yard-long beer.

I have also noticed that many other religions seem to like our Jesus pictures, particularly these two:

 and

So, what do you think?  What Mormon artists do you like and which ones do you not like?  Why is there so much bad taste in Mormon art (kitschy or weird stuff) or is this just true of all religious art?  Is it because that’s what sells or is that blaming the victims?  Or does religious feeling inspire otherwise unskilled and inartistic people to create “art”?

Do you disagree with any of the above artistic assessments (beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all)?

Discuss.

Now that we’ve discussed the nature of the First Vision, what did it mean?

There are many meanings, the most vital being those which each person can discover for herself or himself. Here are those we are most familiar with, because they have been written and spoken about at length in the official media of the institutional LDS Church:

1. The heavens are not closed. Revelation continues in our day.

Closely related to this meaning is:

2. God loves his children.

3. The Father and the Son are physically separate.

Closely related to this meaning is:

4. The Father and the Son are corporeal (have bodies).

5. All churches on the earth in 1820 are corrupt.

Closely related to this meaning is

6. The Restoration has begun

And/Or

7. Joseph Smith is a prophet.

Meaning 1 is quite obvious from Joseph’s account, although a minority interpretation has insisted from the First Vision that the vision itself reopened the heavens, which had been closed since the apostasy. The vision provides no evidence for this view.

Meaning 2 is not stated, but is an implied meaning deduced from 1 and fits with our other beliefs about God’s character. Meaning 3 is also fairly obvious from Joseph’s account, at least his 1838 one.

Meaning 4 I cannot defend based on the accounts Joseph has left us. I believe it is a back-reading from a section of the Doctrine and Covenants which is superimposed on our interpretations of the vision.

Meaning 5 is clear from the accounts Joseph left, especially the 1838 one.

Meanings 6 and 7 I cannot defend from the text, unless one takes Joseph’s statement that “many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time” refers to coming events like the Restoration and his role in it. I cannot defend this interpretation based on subsequent events like Joseph’s account of his 1823 vision of Moroni, wherein Joseph is apparently given his first Restoration “task” with no inkling that he was praying for anything but forgiveness from his sins.

There are other meanings which can be unpacked from Joseph’s accounts, especially when one integrates the earlier accounts with the version published in the Pearl of Great Price:

1. Prophets sin and seek forgiveness.

Closely related to this meaning is:

2. God forgives sins readily.

3. Spiritual experience confirms conclusions we have already reached.

4. Deity speaks in language familiar to the listener (King James English).

Meaning 1 is often trivialized in the LDS Church. The language of sin has fallen into disuse among us. Prophets do not sin. Instead, they have “frailties”, “weaknesses”, “shortcomings”, and make “mistakes.” The First Vision reminds us that all humankind sins.

Meaning 2 is a comforting one. Joseph’s sins are forgiven. He is not told to do works of penance, unless one takes the Lord forbidding him to join any other churches as a punishment for sin. If so, Joseph skirted this commandment, as he attended Methodist meetings in 1828!

Meaning 3 is more interesting, because here Joseph contradicts himself in the various accounts. In the 1832 account, he states that his conviction from reading the scriptures was that the true church could not be on the earth. The 1838 account ,on the other hand, makes it sound as if he believes that God just might tell him, for example, that the Universalists have it right, or that the Presbyterians are God’s church. I tend to believe that Joseph at the very least, strongly suspected that God’s church was not on the earth. He uses the conditional, “if”, to describe the question which drove him into the grove. If Christ’s church is on the earth, which one is it?

Meaning 4 is a comforting one to end on. God will speak to us in language we understand. If my primary reading matter, like Joseph’s, was the Elizabethan English of the King James Version of the Bible, and that is how I believe God speaks, God will speak to me that way. Conversely, if my thought world is informed by 21st-century American English vernacular, seasoned by occasional scientific reading, and a love of music and nature, God may speak to me through those means.

What meanings do you find in the First Vision story?

Do you believe that God the Father, the Son, and maybe even the Holy Ghost visited Joseph Smith in the spring of 1820?

Or did Joseph have a vision of them?

Does the difference matter? Do you base your testimony, your faith in the existence of God, your continued participation in Mormonism, on a visit of Deity to a young farmboy?

Hearing about the First Vision growing up, I thought if only I had a time machine, I could go back to the spring of 1820 to the grove of trees where Joseph had his epiphany and observe the same thing I saw depicted in LDS paintings, stained-glass windows, and Church films about Joseph’s history: Two Men in white descending amidst brilliant light, talking to Joseph.

Now, after reading accounts of other visions Joseph and others had, I think that if Joseph had this experience as he recounted in his final written version, and if I had been able to time travel back to the First Vision, I would have seen Joseph talking into thin air. Why I still believe Joseph Smith told the truth about what he saw has to do with the understanding I now have not only of church history, but of visions in general.

As regards Church history, every primary account I have read of visions occurring in the first generation of the restored Church, including the Angel Moroni visiting Joseph while his siblings were in the same room, has been an entirely subjective one, where others present report not seeing the phenomenon.

As regards visions in general, scientists have performed experiments to determine that visions can be induced from a variety of stimuli, including lack of food or sleep, stress overload, imbibing liquor or other mind-altering substances, schizophrenia, and of course, meditation and prayer!

So, given the different accounts of the First Vision, it’s apparent to me that Joseph had an experience where he saw spiritual beings around the time he said he did. I believe Joseph entered a forest, knelt down, prayed aloud, had oppressive feelings followed by the overcoming of those feelings accompanied by a vision of heavenly beings, whether those beings were angels, Jesus alone, or Jesus and God the Father. That he remembered his vision differently at different times based on later spiritual experiences and theological reflection is very likely.

Now listen carefully to the varying language used to describe this experience by later commentators, who are usually trying to make a theological point (the Father and the Son are separate, corporeal, look alike, etc.) which Joseph never made in his History. “The Father and the Son appeared to the young farmboy”, “God the Father and the Son came down to Joseph”, “Joseph saw God”, etc. These are not all saying the same thing, although life-long Church members have been conditioned to ignore the differences.

In essence, did God the Father and Jesus Christ ride a celestial elevator downwards from Kolob to Palmyra , or did Joseph have a vision? I have no trouble accepting the latter interpretation, especially since the later accounts of heavenly visions followed the same pattern.

I can even accept the possibility that a naturalistic explanation of Joseph’s visions may be valid, in that his experiences may have had physiological roots. God can still be the ultimate cause of these experiences, no matter their immediate trigger.

What do you think?