Sons of God

[Uncle Dale]

...

It seems to me that LDS marriage in fact has strong similarities to the traditions you

are mentioning.

...

Yes -- but other than a few rarities such as yourself, I'm not sure

that my saying such a thing would draw anybody's attention. There is a

juicy PhD dissertation in comparative religion, just waiting to be

written, by the first student of Tantric Mormonism. No doubt such a

production could go all the way back to Nauvoo.

But exterior "similarities" are not the same, in this case. I merely

mentioned the merging of genders as one example of transcending opposites.

The notion that a person must join his/her "right brain-left brain," or

male and female aspects, seems to me to be works-oriented philosophy.

I'm not into works -- or accumulation of merit, or any of that stuff.

My basic point is that "sons of God" can be rendered "children of God,"

and I think that is an important point in this discussion -- that we do

not get out of balance by paying too much attention to the masculine

term "sons." I know what I argue isn't Mormonism; but I'm not a Mormon.

I think the notion of being "one flesh" with one's wife and ultimately

with the "body of Christ" is virtually the same with what you have mentioned.

Superficially, yes. We might spend a good deal of time discussing Christ

as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride. There is a whole body of

RCC literature on this tenet -- which overlaps the Song of Songs, as

viewed in Christian theology.

But, I'm not a Christian either. I recognize the similarities that can

be pointed out -- recognize some value in discussing them, as well. But

my major focus is upon theosis in transcendence -- not upon comparative

religion. All I can relate is that is does not matter to God whether

we are male, female, both, or neither -- our basic nature is Divine and

eventually that becomes apparent, to those who have "ears to hear."

[/pontificating]

UD

[Ron Beron]

Yeah, which is why I called it archaism. I've not read parpola, but I wouldn't be surprised if he used Lurianic kabala. Perhaps not, perhaps i'm being unfair, but I'm sure its zoharic rather than the bahir.

Aside from his kabbalistic writings you should look at his straight Assyriological writings. BTW, he uses sephirot (I guess that is Lurianic, eh?) which he equates to the Tree of Life in Assyrian history.

[Ron Beron]

Yes -- but other than a few rarities such as yourself, I'm not sure

that my saying such a thing would draw anybody's attention. There is a

juicy PhD dissertation in comparative religion, just waiting to be

written, by the first student of Tantric Mormonism. No doubt such a

production could go all the way back to Nauvoo.

UD

My academic experiences with tantric 'anything' has shown that by the time one gets to tantricism the religion or social condition has become corrupt. Such corruption within Mormonism would more than likely end in excommunication.

[volgadon]

Aside from his kabbalistic writings you should look at his straight Assyriological writings. BTW, he uses sephirot (I guess that is Lurianic, eh?) which he equates to the Tree of Life in Assyrian history.

Depends ohow he's using them.

[Uncle Dale]

My academic experiences with tantric 'anything' has shown that by the time one gets to tantricism the religion or social condition has become corrupt. Such corruption within Mormonism would more than likely end in excommunication.

Well then, I suppose that my hypothetical future LDS grad student

will have to be confined to mere academic library research --

Pity, that.

UD

[WalkerW]

Thanks for the critique. I can see where he has been criticized by others given his referral to the Kabbalah, but I have noticed a common thread consistent with the views he holds for the singularity of God in ancient cultures. As to his supposed hypostasis I not as throughly convinced. It seems a bit anachronistic. There is an excellent discussion of his views given in One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World, ed. Barbara Nevling Porter. Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, Vol. 1, 2000, pp. 165-209. A portion of which I copied below...

Thanks for posting the article, Ron.

[mfbukowski]

But exterior "similarities" are not the same, in this case. I merely

mentioned the merging of genders as one example of transcending opposites.

The notion that a person must join his/her "right brain-left brain," or

male and female aspects, seems to me to be works-oriented philosophy.

I'm not into works -- or accumulation of merit, or any of that stuff.

Well ultimately I agree that all that depends on still having an ego. So I think no one can really speak of it without getting it wrong. If we are to be merged with another, what is it that gets merged? It seems inherently contradictory, but that is a fault of language.

[/pontificating]

UD

[mfbukowski]

My academic experiences with tantric 'anything' has shown that by the time one gets to tantricism the religion or social condition has become corrupt. Such corruption within Mormonism would more than likely end in excommunication.

Practically speaking, this could be true, but I don't think there is anything that makes it inevitable if you are truly exploring the spiritual aspects of it. Such spiritual exploration might happen within marriage.

[Ron Beron]

Practically speaking, this could be true, but I don't think there is anything that makes it inevitable if you are truly exploring the spiritual aspects of it. Such spiritual exploration might happen within marriage.

I am primarily basing my opinion on Hindu Tantricism which involved ultimately the cult of the Tuggee (Thug), violence, rampant sexual deviancy, etc. My psychology is rusty, but I remember something Freud once said something to the effect that humans crave excess...

Excess is Freud's theme.

Our desire, he tells us, is way in excess of any object's capacity to satisfy it

; the meanings we make are in excess of the meanings we intend; our desire for death can be in excess of our desire for more life. Freud's influence, many people now think, has itself been excessive. It is as though we can't help but read now through the glasses he has given us - we are all Freud readers now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jan/28/society

(Bold mine)

I fear that Tantricism is such a thing.

BTW, I have been looking for Whitehead's book for awhile and forgot the author and title. I looked at your signature and there it was. Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

I am primarily basing my opinion on Hindu Tantricism which involved ultimately the cult of the Tuggee (Thug), violence, rampant sexual deviancy, etc. My psychology is rusty, but I remember something Freud once said something to the effect that humans crave excess...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jan/28/society

(Bold mine)

I fear that Tantricism is such a thing.

Well you know how those "anti's" can be! We all know what has been said about Mormons and polygamy and Mountain Meadows too. Put it all together and perhaps that is the equivalent of what you have seen. But after all, I am a Mormon and NOT a Hindu for very real reasons! But there is definitely some truth there we can learn from.

BTW, I have been looking for Whitehead's book for awhile and forgot the author and title. I looked at your signature and there it was. Thanks.

It is not exactly a "quick read", but it can be a life-changer. Reality may never quite look the same if you can finish it. It gives you an alternate way of seeing reality. But imo every thinking Mormon should read it if they can make it through it. It was what gave me a "testimony" the minute I saw the church. I had been a "closet Mormon" philosophically 15 years before I found the church.

[Ron Beron]

'mfbukowski' writes,

Well you know how those "anti's" can be! We all know what has been said about Mormons and polygamy and Mountain Meadows too. Put it all together and perhaps that is the equivalent of what you have seen. But after all, I am a Mormon and NOT a Hindu for very real reasons! But there is definitely some truth there we can learn from.

I did some graduate work in Hinduism and while it has certain aspects that are interesting it is very definitely in a terminal stage. Even though Judaism is about as old it seems to lack the same vitality. Just an opinion.

It is not exactly a "quick read", but it can be a life-changer. Reality may never quite look the same if you can finish it. It gives you an alternate way of seeing reality. But imo every thinking Mormon should read it if they can make it through it. It was what gave me a "testimony" the minute I saw the church. I had been a "closet Mormon" philosophically 15 years before I found the church.

I read it a few years ago and loaned it to a friend and have since forgotten its importance. Some of it sounds similar to Shintoism and the vivacation of all matter.

[mfbukowski]

I did some graduate work in Hinduism and while it has certain aspects that are interesting it is very definitely in a terminal stage. Even though Judaism is about as old it seems to lack the same vitality. Just an opinion.

I think Hinduism is older, but I agree that it is in a terminal stage.

I read it a few years ago and loaned it to a friend and have since forgotten its importance. Some of it sounds similar to Shintoism and the vivacation of all matter.

Well there are definite affinities to eastern philosophy, but there is a lot more there. I think there are major implications for eternal progression and humanism, and even science. It is a little tough to get beyond his vocabulary which seems intentionally obscure, but it has been an incredibly influential work.

[Uncle Dale]

...

work in Hinduism

...

Hopefully with actual Hindus in their own environment. I tried that for a few

years in South Asia. Learned Devanagri, but did not make much progress in

Sanskrit. Had a lot of interesting interactions with rural villagers who

seemed to be a mixture of the various Vedic traditions.

What I came away with, has been an empathy for the devotees of Krishna and

similar folk. I felt very comfortable with them. But as far as spirituality

goes, I found the "higher levels" of Vedic religion a rarity -- something

not well known and certainly not widely taught.

The Advaita Vedanta of Shankara came the closest to my own realizations --

but, as I said, it was not widely known, even places like Benares. Shankara

essentially responded to the Buddhism of his day, by emphasizing Ishvara --

the personal God. I look at Vedanta as a devotional Buddhism, in which the

Buddha image is replaced with God Almighty. A minor adjustment, so far as

philosophizing goes -- but also radical change in practice. The equivalent

of replacing yoga with the life of prayer, or Works salvation with Grace.

Probably not too many people would see a correspondence with Ishvara and

YHWH. But for the experienced practicing mystic, they can be One in the same.

Uncle Dale