Your Vision Of The First Vision

[volgadon]

Hey, it was good enough for Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge (1968) -- his published PhD dissertation in anthroplogy at UCLA.

Imagine what a fun lesson we had out in the park by the eternal flame, my translating from Russian between an investigator going on and on about Castaneda and my companion, who knew little Russian...

[Robert F. Smith]

Imagine what a fun lesson we had out in the park by the eternal flame, my translating from Russian between an investigator going on and on about Castaneda and my companion, who knew little Russian...

Which eternal flame? One in Peterburg?

I studied anthropology at UCLA, long after Castaneda was there.

[altersteve]

I believe it was a real physical event. I also believe the version currently published by the Church is the correct one as revealed by God to our modern prophets. I think the Church is under no obligation to discuss or publish the rest. The others could have been rough drafts, ones written out of fear because he didn't know how to describe the events without persecution.... Who knows.

I also believe that if you start second guessing this stuff, you open the doors to more stuff being downgraded. Why not Jesus being a nice symbol. That becomes a true slippery slope.

The Church has discussed the others and, as previously mentioned, is in the process of publishing them, you know. An article somewhere on LDS.org states that we can learn more about the First Vision if we study the other accounts (which, contrary to popular belief, do NOT contradict each other).

Edited August 20, 2012 by altersteve

[happy]

This whole thread is strange. It's unnecessary speculation to resolve a non-existant problem.

[Calm]

The Church has discussed the others and, as previously mentioned, is in the process of publishing them, you know. An article somewhere on LDS.org states that we can learn more about the First Vision if we study the other accounts (which, contrary to popular belief, do NOT contradict each other).

http://www.lds.org/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

[cesc101]

Its amazing how one steps away from a thread for a split-second, only to come back and find it has gone farther than you can catch-up with...

The problem is of course that Paul the Apostle couldn't tell whether he had been transfigured in his great vision (II Cor 12:1-7, including his acceptance of Satan's buffeting of him). The typical phrase indicating transfiguration is "being in the Spirit" (Rev 1:10, D&C 76:11, and other throne theophany visions in which one is caught up into the Divine Council before the Throne of God).

I agree, but Paul's statement also indicated it could have been "in the body" - physical experience.

My point is that the first vision was more of a literal, physical manifestation.

[cesc101]

I have never really been comfortable with the notion that the first vision was a literal visitation of the Father and the Son in woods. Mainly for 2 reasons.

1. It is always called the first vision.

I was under the impression the word "vision" also meant the ability to see?

So what is stopping the first vision from being see[n] physically?

2. Joseph himself states that "when I came to myself I found myself laying on my back".

You seem to forget he mentioned earlier that he was in a struggle with forces of darkness, hence his lying on his back.

BTW, why should i then believe the restoration of the priesthood, was not in the same format as you have me believe the first vision?

Edited August 20, 2012 by cesc101

[volgadon]

Which eternal flame? One in Peterburg?

I studied anthropology at UCLA, long after Castaneda was there.

Novorossiysk, and when I say eternal flame, it went out frequently.

[cesc101]

This whole thread is strange. It's unnecessary speculation to resolve a non-existant problem.

The problem (for me) is that of a "literal" or "visionasy" First Vision of Joseph Smith.

[Jeff Walsh]

I appreciate the reminder from Paul as to why we have our Church leadership. Although, I'm not sure if we have "evangelists" or "pastors" in the church as currently organized. I certainly hope you didn't include that quote because you feel that I as a "marginal mormon" am here to lie in wait to deceive, but hey. you never know. I could be just another dirty apostate.

But was looking for your view of what Joseph Smith said it was, not the others who came later, reading and interpreting what he said.

I wasn't asking what the late Truman Madsen said, but rather, what YOUR Vision of the First Vision is. Both of you answered with a literal answer, and I appreciate and laud your faith in that view.

So I have a question. Given that Joseph "Came to himself" after the vision (JSH v20), and he himself revealed from Moses, between the various versions of the first vision, that "No man can see god in the flesh and live" (Moses 1:11), how do you reconcile that this was actually a physical manifestation to Joseph Smith in the flesh?

Joseph did not leave his body, so I assume he was transfigured just as Peter James and John were on the mount of transfiguration, they and Joseph were able to converse with Deity and had complete recollection when "they came to themselves". They indeed could claim that it was a physical manifestation. Jeff Walsh

[Hamba Tuhan]

The problem (for me) is that of a "literal" or "visionasy" First Vision of Joseph Smith.

What exactly is the difference? One can literally see a vision.

[cesc101]

What exactly is the difference? One can literally see a vision.

Well am not into this whole semantics (and stuffs like it), but if you have been following my posts in this thread, then you'll see that i do not believe that the because the First Vision is so called, that it was visionary - i.e made possible through a lucid dream of the "mind and heart".

Rather, i believe it was a literal, material manifestation - i.e Joseph was quicken by the light which "rested upon [him], some this transfiguration, and thus he was able to see the materialized celestial God in an objective not subjective way.

[Hamba Tuhan]

And how exactly would Joseph had known the difference?

[cesc101]

And how exactly would Joseph had known the difference?

How did know the Priesthood was confered on him?

"Lucid dream", huh?!

[cesc101]

And how exactly would Joseph had known the difference?

How did know the Priesthood was confered on him?

"Lucid dream", huh?!

[USU78]

Define freakin' "literal"

[cesc101]

Define freakin' "literal"

I said earlier on that i wasn't into all that semantics stuffs. But in my lay understanding, it is a common sense comprehension of things; not metaphorical.

[altersteve]

I said earlier on that i wasn't into all that semantics stuffs. But in my lay understanding, it is a common sense comprehension of things; not metaphorical.

As has been explained earlier, the First Vision could have been a spiritual experience (not physical) without being "metaphorical."

[USU78]

As has been explained earlier, the First Vision could have been a spiritual experience (not physical) without being "metaphorical."

Which is why claiming this was a "semantical" objection failed. The question choices are too pregnant with trendy quasi-former-Mo meaning to give adequate voice to people's positions.

[cesc101]

As has been explained earlier, the First Vision could have been a spiritual experience (not physical) without being "metaphorical."

you used the word ¨could¨ which show your stand is speculative (as well as mine is too), but you seem to be putting words in my mouth - i used the word ¨metaphorical¨ to explain ¨literal¨ - i never said the First Vision was metaphorical.

[supersnail]

I just read Mormon Heretic's Wheat and Tares post covering an interview with Richard Bushman's Mormon Stories interview on the topic of Multiple First Vision Accounts. I thought the interview was fascinating, and Richard's comments insightful.

I posted on my blog a response entitled "My Vision of the First Vision".

What is your vision of the First Vision?

This isn't the first time the narcolepsy/sleep paralysis theory has been raised, as open critics of Mormonism have made the same claim.

I think if we want to entertain this kind of thing we could do without anecdotes and talk about this in terms of known sleep conditions and what sleep paralysis actually is. First of all, muscle atonia is a normal part of REM sleep and occurs regardless of dream content. Basically sleep paralysis is when you are aware during atonia. Yes, it is often frightening for various reasons, but if one is still dreaming or has been dreaming the dream is not necessarily a nightmare. When people talk about experiencing scary things during sleep paralysis, what they are usually talking about are things outside a dream, and they usually weren't dreaming (or had stopped dreaming) while conscious of the paralysis and possibly panicking. This is important because it is unlikely that someone with no prior experience of sleep paralysis would go from sleep paralysis to having a pleasant or peaceful lucid dream without waking up in between and then falling asleep again. Joseph Smith would have struggled to open his eyes, move his head, etc.

It is one thing to have a lucid dream and then in the middle of that have sleep paralysis. It is another to start having a lucid dream in the middle of sleep paralysis, which is not just atonia. You said you experienced sleep paralysis while "still within the dream state." In Joseph Smith's description of his vision, it is clear that "darkness" came before "light," implying an order that is the reverse of yours. This is very different from having some sleep paralysis episodes and then one day having a lucid dream with white light. It is not usual to go from sleep paralysis to lucid dreaming uninterrupted and involuntarily. Sleep paralysis isn't ordinary atonia or how atonia is ordinarily experienced.

I would be a little less skeptical of what you're saying if Joseph Smith were a known narcoleptic who was able to quickly fall asleep in the morning under the bright sun and enter REM sleep right after doing so. I was unable to find a substantiated reference to the prophet ever being a narcoleptic or having any kind of sleep problem other than occasional restlessness that we all experience. The idea that he had a one-time episode of sleep paralysis that coincided with the first time he tried to pray vocally is unlikely.

Even if Joseph Smith was given to napping or falling asleep suddenly, and had frequent sleep paralysis, that would actually take away from the uniqueness of what he reported experiencing, because then the feeling of doom would have been unremarkable. Clearly, Joseph Smith thought his vision was unique even against the backdrop of his own experience.

Joseph Smith saw darkness gather around him -- an event that occurred over some period of time. He did not suddenly sense a darkness that was already there or imagine an engulfing darkness in the night. Remember that this was during the day. When people have sleep paralysis, it is not uncommon for their eyes to be partially open. When surroundings are bright, the sensation of darkness/doom is probably less likely. Perhaps you know from your own experience the difference between sleep paralysis while lying on your back in the middle of the night and sleep paralysis in broad daylight. Some people are even able to see their surroundings clearly during sleep paralysis. Even without any perception/hallucination of darkness, it is extremely distressing, and there is an overwhelming desire to break the paralysis. The last thing an inexperienced person would want to do is surrender to the paralysis.

Note also that Joseph Smith said he regained the ability to speak at one point. Unless he was talking about two different abilities -- the ability to vocalize using his mouth etc. with sound, and the ability to speak inside a dream or vision -- Joseph Smith's initial inability to speak could not have been because of sleep paralysis. If you have sleep paralysis, can't talk, and start dreaming, it's not like you start talking in your sleep. That's not how it works.

Joseph Smith tried to pray out loud, and he had difficulty at first because of the power of the adversary. It's as simple as that. If an improbable episode of sleep paralysis after Joseph Smith had "scarcely" prayed was somehow induced by someone other than Joseph Smith (which you did not claim), that would contradict the idea that the vision was something banal. Despite your reference to D&C 88, I also notice that you didn't claim God induced the alleged lucid dream. You ended up speaking of "the reality of the first vision" as if it were the reality of a naturalistically explained self-delusion, rather than a vision, of divine origin, brought about by making use of natural mechanisms.

Edited August 20, 2012 by supersnail

[wayfarer]

Which is why claiming this was a "semantical" objection failed. The question choices are too pregnant with trendy quasi-former-Mo meaning to give adequate voice to people's positions.

interesting, but unuseful allegation. I have been active all my life, and a TR holder for the past 37 years. what I find interesting is the rapidity with which you make a conclusion that anti-mormon trends had anything to do with my post. I have had my own spiritual manifestations in harmony with the Gospel, as well, I have studied these cognitive states in depth. that is where i am coming from. please do not impute any anti intent: i find that extraordinarily offensive and CFR any basis for your accusation.

my purpose and intent is to find dialog to probe the phenomenology of the first vision, so that we can understand better why a spiritual/mystical experience tends to have a less deterministic explanation than a physical event that abides by the rules of nature. I take bothe the first vision for EXACTLY the way JS explained it in the 1838 account, and can see that there is no way that we can make a phenmenological, evidence based conclusion that it was a physical event. it does not preclude that it could be physical, and in my personal, faith based belief is that it is both physical in some way and spiritual, but it could have been just spiritual. it certainly could not have been a physical-only event, for joseph's doctrine at the time would have rejected that.

Edited August 21, 2012 by wayfarer

[volgadon]

please do not impute any anti intent:

While I can't speak for USU- he is articulate enough to do so himself- I'm not seeing any accusations of that sort.

[supersnail]

I'm going to copy and paste the last few paragraphs of the blog post linked in the OP in case there is some question about what was said.

The use of the past perfect tense "have seen" once we become quickened in D&C 88 indicates that event of seeing god was already completed before we have the point in time experience of being 'quickened'.

So...to sum up, I believe the events show the first vision to be characterized by the following:

1. It was a lucid dream, not a physical event.

2. In memory of the lucid dream, Joseph was trying to put into words that which defies language, hence verbal descriptions (a) do not accurately portray a lucid dream, and (b) morph over time.

3. As time goes on, the added details of the dream progressively serve the agenda of establishing the validity of the 'one true church'. This does not have to be a conscious, deceptive process, but rather, a natural cognitive feature of the neurology of memory.

4. Given the nature of memories of remote, past emotional events, relying upon the first vision account to create a doctrinal pronouncement of the nature of godhead is imprudent at best.

In short, it's a vision, a lucid dream, and should not be a source of doctrine, either of the "one true church" polemic, nor of the nature of Godhead. I would add that there is no intential deception in this.

The last sentence there is all very generous. However, you are still suggesting that there is a falseness to the vision. The disagreement over the encounter being spiritual vs. in-person (a false dichotomy as others have pointed out) is less important than the suggestion that the alleged falseness or ordinariness of the vision, or the inherent falseness of Joseph Smith's verbal description or likely falseness of his memory, makes the First Vision an unsuitable basis of our belief today. It is true that millions of people experience sleep paralysis and lucid dreams every day. I have explained why it is unlikely that Joseph Smith had a sleep attack with quick-onset REM sleep and sleep paralysis, during which he hallucinated a darkness, followed by a lucid dream of the opposite mood. It is not outside the realm of possibility, but since you did not say that God could have induced the lucid dream, the sense in which you are saying that the First Vision was still "spiritual/mystical" seems to be neutral. Merely using the word "spiritual" to describe experiences does not mean one accepts their truthfulness in any way. Atheist anthropologists who are skeptics may similarly use the words "spiritual" and "mystical" simply as analytical categories.

We also need to understand that the idea of a naturalistically explainable spiritualism of which Mormonism is just one manifestation among others is a kind of critique of Mormonism -- not a new one I might add. For example, critics have claimed that the Book of Mormon is an example of automatic writing no more special than specimens in other traditions.

Edited August 21, 2012 by supersnail

[wayfarer]

I'm going to copy and paste the last few paragraphs of the blog post linked in the OP in case there is some question about what was said.

The last sentence there is all very generous. However, you are still suggesting that there is a falseness to the vision. The disagreement over the encounter being spiritual vs. in-person (a false dichotomy as others have pointed out) is less important than the suggestion that the alleged falseness or ordinariness of the vision, or the inherent falseness of Joseph Smith's verbal description or likely falseness of his memory, makes the First Vision an unsuitable basis of our belief today. ...

We also need to understand that the idea of a naturalistically explainable spiritualism of which Mormonism is just one manifestation among others is a kind of critique of Mormonism -- not a new one I might add. For example, critics have claimed that the Book of Mormon is an example of automatic writing no more special than specimens in other traditions.

this is one final insult to my testimony on this board. i have been patient and respectful when most hurl insults and malintent at my simple attempts at participating. Because i am known to come from a considered, middle way position, you and others seem to apply your prodigious confirmation bias to interpret that i believe or have said that the first vision is false in any way. i merely proposed one approach, consistent with my faith in Joseph's revelation in section 88, that god works through and is bound by natural law. I meant no criticism, but I do not see the need to make supernatural and magical the workings of God in this world.

the prejudice you "apologists" reflect toward those not cowtowing to your cabal is pathetic and wrong. absolutely wrong. insultingly wrong. i now know from personal experience why those facing faith crisis find this specific group of apologists to be a hostile voice and a dominant nail in the coffin of their remaining faith.

my testimony is secure, for i have my sure witness of the truth, and do not need literal belief to know god. for others who mistakenly wander here thinking they can get answers to their questions: your example, lack of charity, and choice of divisive polemics to ridicule those who question in good faith is an embarrassment to the church and puts a lie to the name "Latter-Day Saint".

"I say unto you be one, and if you are not one you are not mine".

Edited August 21, 2012 by wayfarer