- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Has anyone else here read Jung? I picked up a battered old copy of this book and might wear it out reading it. As the title suggests, it is a look back on his life, but it also presents a lot of the important psychological concepts he developed. At several points while reading it I have thought to myself “what would he make of Mormons and their doctrines?” I haven’t found any mention of him even knowing we existed, but he did write a great deal about mainstream Christianity. His respectful treatment of religion and scientific rigor have helped me work out some very satisfying and exciting understanding of the beliefs that a lot of us might feel like we’ve outgrown as we get away from the childish notions that carried us through primary.
Today I was reading this and thought about the Temple:
“There is no better means of intensifying the treasured feeling of individuality than the possession of a secret which the individual is pledged to guard. . . . The secret society is an intermediary stage on the way to individuation. . . . Such collective identities are crutches for the lame . . . but they are equally shelters for the poor and weak . . . and a mother providing nourishment and growth. It would therefore be wrong to regard this intermediary stage as a trap . . .” (pages 342-343)
I also highly recommend his
Psychology and Religion— the expanded edition that is part of his collected works, although to be honest I still have not been able to get through “Answer to Job.” One of these days. Yes, indeed I have. Very interesting, although you should bear in mind that Jung changed and sanitised certain details. Such as his extra-marital affairs. Last month, I read two biographies about Jung. One was called the Aryan Christ, and very anti-Jung. Very unfair on him, despite his faults. And the other was A Life of Jung by Hayman.
In Hayman’s book, someone accused Jung of being a Mormon, because he believed in polygamy!
Ha, that’s funny about the polygamy. At one time it would have disappointed and outraged me to learn of his extramarital affairs but now I feel no inclination to pass any judgment about it. Riceandbeans wrote:Ha, that’s funny about the polygamy. At one time it would have disappointed and outraged me to learn of his extramarital affairs but now I feel no inclination to pass any judgment about it.
To be fair, he didn’t keep it a secret from his wife, although some accounts say Emma was not entirely happy. (That’s Emma
Jung, by the way!) Riceandbeans wrote:Has anyone else here read Jung?…At several points while reading it I have thought to myself “what would he make of Mormons and their doctrines?” I haven’t found any mention of him even knowing we existed, but he did write a great deal about mainstream Christianity…His respectful treatment of religion and scientific rigor have helped me work out some very satisfying and exciting understanding of the beliefs that a lot of us might feel like we’ve outgrown as we get away from the childish notions that carried us through primary.
I have read some of Jung’s comments about various paranormal experiences that he called “meaningful coincidences.” I was especially interested in this topic because some unusual and extremely unlikely experiences like this that a few people I know have had are one reason why it was so hard for me to finally let go of the Church’s claims about having special authority and knowledge basically because I thought these “spiritual” experiences were explained much better by Mormon theology than by atheism which was really the only other option that I actaully took seriously for many years. It was only after I saw that many non-Mormons have also reported having similar experiences without ever being inspired to convert to Mormonism that I realized that the LDS Church and atheism could easily both be wrong at the same time and I started to doubt that anyone really knew for sure what exactly these experiences mean and how they work.
Quote:I have read some of Jung’s comments about various paranormal experiences that he called “meaningful coincidences.”
Synchronicity, he called it, I believe. Which is where the Police got a title of one of their albums from.
One of Jung’s interesting concepts was about the trinity, and the feminine component of the trinity, which he said was so obviously lacking.
Early on, he suggested that the Holy Ghost was the feminine component, as Hagia Sophia, or the Holy Knowledge of the ancients.
Later on, he talks about Mary, and how he thought that the RCs were right to elevate Mary into the divine sphere.
One thing he didn’t mention, and which came up in a discussion with a friend of mine, is the feminine component of God the Father. Now, our heavenly father has a body, is (presumably) not androgynous… and yet, in the scriptures, one of the most striking examples of HG in a feminine poise, is when he talks about taking chicks under his wing like a hen (the original says a “female bird”, I looked up the Greek). That’s repeated in the Book of Mormon too, at greater length, and Jesus himself says it.
Right. His treatment of the trinity vs. quaternity archetypes is very thought-provoking. But you’re right, SamBee, about that one omission. Ha – when I was young and prudish it was inconceivable to me that God could have naughty bits and I envisioned him as a de-sexed man. Hasn’t there been some discussion about this elsewhere here?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.