Baal Shem Tov And Joseph Smith

[wayfarer]

As I understand it, and I'm sure that volgadon will correct my understanding here, Baal Shem Tov, "Besht" for short, was an 18th century mystic, kabbalist, and founder of hasidism. In my opinion, Besht was to Judaism what Joseph Smith was to Christianity: he had mystical experiences, and turned Judaism upsidedown, fighting against the moribund rabbinical talmudic scholars as Joseph Smith fought against the creeds and orthodoxy.

Of all things last night, his name kept coming up in my dreams. So, reading this morning the wikipedia entry about Baal Shem Tov this morning, I read about his teachings about god and man. Here are some excerpts:

He declared the whole universe, mind and matter, to be a manifestation of the Divine Being; that this manifestation is not an emanation from God, as is the conception of the Kabbalah by Mitnagdim, for nothing can be separated from God: all things are rather forms in which God reveals Himself. When man speaks, said Besht, he should remember that his speech is an element of life, and that life itself is a manifestation of God

Whoever does not believe that God resides in all things, but separates God and them in his thoughts, has not the right conception of God.

(wikipedia)

In Doctrine and Covenants 88, Joseph Smith states the same thing: that god, or at least the power of god is everywhere. Joseph Smith thought of god as being everywhere in the beginning of his teachings, but towards the end said unequivocally, that god is a man, with material flesh and body. Besht is panentheistic in a way that LDS might not accept, yet if we accept that the Holy Ghost dwells within us, then at least the HG is physically resident in us. As for panentheism, consider these two verses:

D&C 88:13

The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

Moses 6:

63

And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

My feeling is that Joseph Smith was a mystic, and did not fully comprehend his own thoughts and revelations about the integral nature of god and man. He came as close as any Christian had done until that time, and by bringing god out of the ex-nihilo idealism of plato, Joseph Smith did much to move the needle. Perhaps JS did understand, fully, this mystical vision, but at the time, the Saints were only ready for a conventional definition of god. Milk before meat.

It is equally fallacious to think of a creation in time: creation, that is, God’s activity, has no end. God is ever active in the changes of nature: in fact, it is in these changes that God’s continuous creativeness consists.

(wikipedia)

Again, in section 88, the idea that the power of god is god and that it is the laws of nature within its respective kingdom. Besht had identified three dimensions of reality similar to three kingdoms of glory.

Besht's concept of eternal creation is a marvellous concept. Getting away from a physical point-in-time creation narrative, this idea that the act of creation, the garden of eden story as taught in temples, is not merely an historical event, but the ongoing creation narrative as humans deal with god and the world here and now.

The first result of his principles was a remarkable optimism. Since God is immanent in all things, all things must possess something good in which God manifests Himself as the source of good.

(wikipedia)

This as well characterizes LDS thinking: Rather than the totally depraved world of the Calvinists and Catholics, LDS believe in the divine nature of creation, the world, and humans. We are inherently optimistic (or at least should be).

For this reason, the Besht taught, every man must be considered good, and his sins must be explained, not condemned. One of his favorite sayings was that no man has sunk too low to be able to raise himself to God. Naturally, then, it was his chief endeavor to convince sinners that God stood as near to them as to the righteous, and that their misdeeds were chiefly the consequences of their folly.

(wikipedia)

This is a lesson many of us should realize in the church, especially on the topic of church discipline, and on how to treat those who don't share the TBM point of view.

From the very beginning Besht fought against that contempt for the world which, through the influence of Isaac Luria’s Kabbalah, had almost become a dogma among the Jews.

Again, back to the idea of the sacredness of creation. This concept of the world's inherent goodness puts perspective on the hasidic concept of tikkum olam/repair of the world into context -- we should be caring for the world, treating it with utmost respect -- an inherently green viewpoint so needed today. Not sure I see that attitude, politically, in LDS thinking, although many prophetic teachings speak of caring for the land.

He considered care of the body as necessary as care of the soul; since matter is also a manifestation of God, and must not be considered as hostile or opposed to Him.

(wikipedia)

This is doctrinally identical to LDS thinking. All spirit is matter. And it adds life to the idea that the Word of Wisdom, in its original intent and not current interpretation, is to care for the body.

...he fought the rigidity and sanctimony that had accreted to strict Talmudic viewpoints while not abrogating a single religious ceremony or observance. His target was the great importance which the Talmudic view attaches to the fulfillment of a law, while almost entirely disregarding sentiment or the growth of man’s inner life.

(wikipedia)

I sense that Besht was a bit of a Middle Way Jew.

While the rabbis of his day considered the study of the Talmud as the most important religious activity, Besht laid all the stress on prayer. “All that I have achieved,” he once remarked, “I have achieved not through study, but through prayer”. Prayer, however, is not merely petitioning God to grant a request, nor even necessarily speaking to God, but rather (“cleaving”, dvekut)— the glorious feeling of ’Oneness with God Almighty’, the state of the soul wherein a man or woman gives up their consciousness of separate existence, and join their own selves to the Eternal Being of God Supreme. Such a state produces indescribable bliss, which is the foremost fruit of the true worship of God.

(wikipedia)

This. I cannot say more or better than the above. This is the essence of the mystical experience -- that which is achieved through revelation. Joseph Smith said that all members "who receive the holy ghost receive revelation, for the holy ghost is a revelator" -- thus to 'receive the holy ghost' upon confirmation, is to seek revelation daily in one's life as befitting one who has received the gift of the holy ghost. Sometimes revelation comes in words, but only rarely. The mystical experience is a oneness with god that cannot be described in words.

I believe Joseph Smith was a mystic like Baal Shem Tov. Besht lived a longer life, and his followers picked up much more of the mystical message than Joseph's successors, who were more inclined to create the more traditional Christian LDS church that we have today. I, for one, love to embrace Joseph's original mysticism as a pattern for my own spiritual journey.

[volgadon]

I look forward to reading this in more detail later today.

Edited September 8, 2012 by volgadon

[Kevin Christensen]

Interesting and very useful comparisons. Though I wouldn't comprehensively characterize Joseph Smith as just a mystic, but rather that his spiritual experiences encompassed that kind of thing. Mark Koltko's Sunstone essay “Mysticism and Mormonism: An LDS Perspective on Transcendence and Higher Consciousness,” Sunstone 13/2 (April 1989): 14–19, was key in turning my views away from Nibley's chapter in The World and the Prophets, that emphasized differences. (I hear that Nibley changed those views.)

So while I agree that there is overlap between Joseph Smith and various mystics, there is also the issue of accounting for the numinous in Joseph Smith's experience and in scripture.

In a classic study, The Idea of the Holy, Rudolf Otto studied the characteristics of a type of religious encounter that he named the numinous.[1] Ninian Smart sums up numinous experience as “a mystery which is fearful, awe-inspiring, . . . and fascinating.”[2]

But above all, the sense of presence which confronts a person in the numinous experience is majestic: marvelous in power and glory. In their rather different ways, the experiences of Arjuna, Isaiah, Job, Paul, and Muhammad are all numinous in character.[3]

Ian Barbour emphasizes the “sense of otherness, confrontation and encounter” when “man is aware of his own dependence, finitude, limitation, and contingency.”[4] This experience usually occurs in institutionalized worship situations involving personal models of God. The worshipper often bows to show humility, acknowledging inferiority and distance, and feels contingency and a moral demand. Worship involves sacrifice and petition.

Upon reading descriptions of numinous experience, those familiar with LDS scriptures should immediately think of Joseph Smith’s first vision, of the vision of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, of Lehi’s vision of the throne of God, of the climactic moments of Benjamin’s sermon, and of the manifestations at the Kirtland Temple. To a degree, at least, the Mormon experience partakes of the numinous.

[1] Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, trans. John Harvey, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford, 1950).

[2] Ninian Smart, Worldviews: Cross Cultural Explorations of Human Beliefs (New York: Scribners, 1983), 63–64.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms, 54.

While reading Ninian Smart's book Worldviews, I changed upon passages that seem to me to explain the relationship of Joseph Smith to both mystical and numinous experience:

Commenting on the numinous and the mystical, Ian Barbour writes: “The polarity of withdrawal and approach, or distance and identity, seems to be present within the experience of the sacred, though for different individuals, one aspect or the other may be more prominent.”[1]

I see the experience of the sacred in Mormonism as bridging the numinous and the mystic. After a numinous theophany, Moses announces, “for this cause I know that man is nothing” (Moses 1:10). Yet a few verses later, changing perspectives, he makes a declaration amounting to intimate identity. “For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten.” The tension of distance most evidenced in Joseph Smith’s first vision, D&C 76, Moses 1, Benjamin’s coronation speech, and Alma’s conversion, resolves towards a profound intimacy:

And then shall ye know that I have seen Jesus Christ, and that he hath talked with me face to face and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language concerning these things” (Ether 12:39).

But such intimacy in Mormon thought, even when described as Oneness is typically associated with a personal deity.

Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound.[2]

The implications of this bridging of kinds of experience go beyond a license to make historic and scriptural parallels. According to Ninian Smart, the numinous and mystic poles of experience influence patterns of doctrine.

If you stress the numinous, you stress that our salvation or liberation (our becoming holy) must flow from God the Other. It is he who brings it to us through his grace. You also stress the supreme power and dynamism of God as creator of the cosmos. If, on the other hand, you stress the mystical and non-dual, you tend to stress how we attain salvation and liberation through our own effort at mediation, not by the intervention of the Other… If we combine the two, but accent the numinous, we see mystical union as a kind of close embrace with the other—like human love, where the two are one and yet the two-ness remains. If the accent is on the mystical rather than the numinous, then God tends to be seen as a being whom we worship, but in such a way that we get beyond duality.[3]

Here, I believe, is an essential distinguishing characteristic of Mormonism—the blend of the numinous and the mystic. This explains the Orthodox discomfort with the Mormon idea of deification (something quite unthinkable to one caught up in a purely numinous tradition), as well as the Eastern discomfort with our literalism and personal God (again, something quite unthinkable to one caught up by the emptiness of pure mysticism). For the same reason, the blend in Mormonism explains Nephi’s insistence on combining grace and works— “By grace we are saved after all we can do.”[4] Our need for grace offends the self-reliant mystic, and our effort towards perfection offends those who depend on pure grace. By pointing out the experiential roots behind such doctrinal disagreements, I feel that we have much to gain. Against the background of comparative world religion, Mormonism appears as the more comprehensive and inclusive faith.

[1] Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms, 81.

[2] D&C 88:50. cf. John 15: 3; Nephi 19:23; D&C 88:41. Also compare Hugh Nibley, “The Meaning of the Atonement,” in Approaching Zion, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol 9 (Salt Lake City and Provo; Deseret Book and FARMS, 1989), 554–614. Eugene England, “Shakespeare and the At-onement of Jesus Christ.” in Why the Church is as True as the Gospel (Salt Lake City; Bokcraft, 1987), 31-51.

[3] Smart, Worldviews, 71-72.

[4] 2 Nephi 25:23.

Quoted from my Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience essay, linked on my profile.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited September 8, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[volgadon]

Much of the wiki article is based on the faulty assumptions of researchers before Rossman's book on the Besht, which absolutely revolutionised the way we view the Besht. Here is a portion of his book. http://www.hasidicstories.com/Articles/Background_and_Sources/rosman1.html All I've time for til later tonight.

[wayfarer]

Interesting and very useful comparisons. Though I wouldn't comprehensively characterize Joseph Smith as just a mystic, but rather that his spiritual experiences encompassed that kind of thing. Mark Koltko's Sunstone essay “Mysticism and Mormonism: An LDS Perspective on Transcendence and Higher Consciousness,” Sunstone 13/2 (April 1989): 14–19, was key in turning my views away from Nibley's chapter in The World and the Prophets, that emphasized differences. (I hear that Nibley changed those views.)

So while I agree that there is overlap between Joseph Smith and various mystics, there is also the issue of accounting for the numinous in Joseph Smith's experience and in scripture.

I have read your paper (you linked it in another post), and I appreciate and agree completely with Mark Koltko's essay. I have lived multiple paths in this, and have followed advaita vedanta, daojia, and other paths, although it's hard to relate to some.

In your Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience, I don't see a polar difference between the numinous and the mystical, although some of that would depend on the tradition. As you and Mark point out, there are profoundly mystical evidences in section 88 and elsewhere, as well as clealry numinous experiences. but there is a fundamental difference in the Joseph Smith mysticism, where materialism remains evident -- one does not get to the nonthingness/emptiness of some of the zen buddhist and other traditions.

I had a two year period serving with Hugh Nibley in my ward in provo, and got to know him a bit towards the end of his career. I don't know if his attitudes on mysticism changed -- iirc, he remained opposed to the pop-culture mysticism of TM (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi) and others -- and I agree with him there. As well, I don't think mechanistic meditation qualifies as mysticism... definitions, i guess.

I like the idea of a mormon mystical model as laid out by Mark K. I agree with the conclusion that mysticism cannot stand alone as a replacement for religion, but in fact, it complements it -- one cannot remain in the state of mystical enlightenment, obviously. It's like, though, that there is a common mystical experience to which all traditions point. The idea of oneness with the divine cannot be divided: a sufi, mormon, christian, hasid may in a sense share a common experience, but frame it in different terms. In the day-to-day walk, however, we walk a specific path.

[wayfarer]

Much of the wiki article is based on the faulty assumptions of researchers before Rossman's book on the Besht, which absolutely revolutionised the way we view the Besht. Here is a portion of his book. http://www.hasidicst...es/rosman1.html All I've time for til later tonight.

thanks for the link, and I look forward to further analysis.

I more or less ignore the hagiographic stories and miraculous accounts of holy men. What interests me is what they teach, and how that relates to a common mystical/spiritual experience in this case.

After reading the rosman article, I was not clear, at all, whether the author was trying to dispel the hagiography, or was there a problem with the prevailing teachings attributed to Besht? From the pieces I snipped form the wikipedia article, I find a clear, agreeable message. If this didn't come from Besht, whoever wrote these ideas was somehow enlightened in a way. Was it Besht? Does it matter?

It's fascinating that Besht, then, was also treated hagiographically just like Joseph Smith. It raises to me the question as to whether the history of the man matters at all. A myth may teach, if the lesson resonates and is found to be of sustaining value.

And...a plug from a wikipedia author here...if you disagree with an article on wikipedia, then you can change it, as long as you have references to back up your changes. why not improve the article?

[Avatar4321]

God reveals his will to many people. I dont think that makes Joseph Smith a mystic, much of his teachings were very temporal.

interesting nonetheless.

[Bill Hamblin]

thanks for the link, and I look forward to further analysis.

I more or less ignore the hagiographic stories and miraculous accounts of holy men. What interests me is what they teach, and how that relates to a common mystical/spiritual experience in this case.

After reading the rosman article, I was not clear, at all, whether the author was trying to dispel the hagiography, or was there a problem with the prevailing teachings attributed to Besht? From the pieces I snipped form the wikipedia article, I find a clear, agreeable message. If this didn't come from Besht, whoever wrote these ideas was somehow enlightened in a way. Was it Besht? Does it matter?

It's fascinating that Besht, then, was also treated hagiographically just like Joseph Smith. It raises to me the question as to whether the history of the man matters at all. A myth may teach, if the lesson resonates and is found to be of sustaining value.

And...a plug from a wikipedia author here...if you disagree with an article on wikipedia, then you can change it, as long as you have references to back up your changes. why not improve the article?

Reality doesn't matter? Your personal subjective interpretation is all that matters? Really?

[volgadon]

God reveals his will to many people. I dont think that makes Joseph Smith a mystic, much of his teachings were very temporal.

interesting nonetheless.

Not all mysticism ignores the worldly, temporal, and physical.

[volgadon]

thanks for the link, and I look forward to further analysis.

I more or less ignore the hagiographic stories and miraculous accounts of holy men. What interests me is what they teach, and how that relates to a common mystical/spiritual experience in this case.

I'll be happy to go over his actual teachings, as far as we know them.

After reading the rosman article, I was not clear, at all, whether the author was trying to dispel the hagiography, or was there a problem with the prevailing teachings attributed to Besht?

Most historical reconstructions of the man and his teachings are based on faulty readings of the hagiography.

From the pieces I snipped form the wikipedia article, I find a clear, agreeable message. If this didn't come from Besht, whoever wrote these ideas was somehow enlightened in a way. Was it Besht?

The Besht. If you use the acronym, you can't drop the artcile, but this is a minor grammatical quibble. I'll go in some detail into why the "clear, agreeable message" the wiki article presnts doesn't fit the actual sources.

Does it matter?

If you are going to compare two historical figures, yes, it matters.

It's fascinating that Besht, then, was also treated hagiographically just like Joseph Smith.

Trust me, the life of Joseph Smith is incredibly well-documented in comparison to the Besht's. We know who Joseph's parents were, we know the outline of their lives, we know about his siblings, and can reconstruct his life rather well. It is possible to come up with a fairly comprehensive portrait of his Joseph Smith, which cannot be done for the Besht, even with the important material from Polish archives.

It raises to me the question as to whether the history of the man matters at all. A myth may teach, if the lesson resonates and is found to be of sustaining value.

A myth may teach, but the actual story provides deeper insights, being about real people, IMHO.

And...a plug from a wikipedia author here...if you disagree with an article on wikipedia, then you can change it, as long as you have references to back up your changes. why not improve the article?

I have changed articles in the past. For example, I removed the silly reference in the Oliver Cromwell article to the "Sin of Achan." I later removed it once more. I checked again today, it is back in all its ill-founded glory. I don't think I'll bother a third time.

Edited September 9, 2012 by volgadon

[supersnail]

After reading the rosman article, I was not clear, at all, whether the author was trying to dispel the hagiography, or was there a problem with the prevailing teachings attributed to Besht? From the pieces I snipped form the wikipedia article, I find a clear, agreeable message. If this didn't come from Besht, whoever wrote these ideas was somehow enlightened in a way. Was it Besht? Does it matter?

Having said that, may I ask what you think of this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

[wayfarer]

God reveals his will to many people. I dont think that makes Joseph Smith a mystic, much of his teachings were very temporal.

interesting nonetheless.

Labels are funny things -- sometimes they make things clear, whereas other times... I can see where labeling joseph smith as a 'mystic' can confuse....

I think the type of mysticism shared in the OP is more materialist than nihilist. Even a mystic lives in the real world, and often teaches things relevant to the temporal state of being. As well, I don't see that Joseph's mysticism, really only part of his complex personality, was all that well developed.

yes, it is interesting, thanks.

[wayfarer]

Reality doesn't matter? Your personal subjective interpretation is all that matters? Really?

(sigh).

Bill, asking questions does not indicate negation, and I said nothing about personal interpretation.

There is a 'teaching' associated with the Besht. There are 'teachings' associated with Joseph Smith. Those teachings exist, and that they exist is not a matter of personal subjective interpretation. I was comparing the teachings of two people revered by two traditions as founders. It was also clear from my first post, that I don't know a lot about the topic of the Besht, and fortunately, we have someone here on this forum, volgadon, who does. I respect those who post meaningful replies to my questions, even when they point out my errors. Your reply is not in that category. I'm not trying to argue, but learn something here.

[wayfarer]

Having said that, may I ask what you think of this article?

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Neoplatonism

It's long, although interesting, and will take some time to get through -- why do you ask?

[wayfarer]

Most historical reconstructions of the man and his teachings are based on faulty readings of the hagiography.

The Besht. If you use the acronym, you can't drop the artcile, but this is a minor grammatical quibble. I'll go in some detail into why the "clear, agreeable message" the wiki article presnts doesn't fit the actual sources.

A myth may teach, but the actual story provides deeper insights, being about real people, IMHO.

Thanks for your corrections and feedback - I look forward to a more accurate understanding of what he taught. I agree that it is important if we're comparing real people, although I'm more interested in 'real teachings' and the source of those teachings. To that extent, tracing the origin of teachings may be critical, if at all possible,

My premise or hypothesis comes from 2 Ne 29, that god speaks to all the nations; and as we find teachings throughout 'the nations', we can discover common threads of understanding. More particularly, a common, independent experience to the divine is multiple, non-corroborative witnesses to that divine -- powerful stuff. There are parallels between sufi, christian, and eastern mystics: and to the extent that they are independent parallels, then the verses in 2 Ne 29 bears out as 'true', that the god of mystical understanding, does indeed reveal the mystical experience throughout. for the record, I am not equating the totality of Joseph's prophetic insight to others, nor placing on these other 'founders' the same prophetic role -- only that there is a consistent pattern.

Joseph seems to be a truly original heretic (positive meaning -- one who thought for himself and did not rely upon the prevailing orthodoxy to reveal truth). If the Besht was an original thinker as well, with some of the same insights, then it is interesting -- it demonstrates the pattern I've hypothesized. If, on the other hand, the origin of the Besht's alleged thinking is unoriginal, derived, and accreted over time -- if the the Besht's alleged teachings are to uphold the later derived thinking of hasidic orthodoxy, then we have a distinct situation -- it doesn't uphold the hypothesis.

For an example -- and I'm simply guessing here -- It would be really interesting if the 'three dimensions' of the Besht, of which I know so little as to be dangerous, was an independently-created thought, and that the 'three degrees of glory' of Joseph Smith's teachings was also independently created. However, since Emanuel Swedenborg, who taught similar concepts, is a contemporary of the Besht, and Joseph may well have had some influence from Swedenborg, then the 'three degrees' or 'three dimensions' may be a derived teaching from the same source and not an independent witness to some revealed truth. this might particularly be the case if the Besht did not teach such things, but rather, some later disciples, influenced by Swedenborg, retroactively placed on the Besht the teaching. I'm not saying this is the case, only that this might be one possibility, and I'm interested in whether the teaching is original or derived.

As Kevin has pointed out, Joseph had both numinous (an independent entity speaking or revealing himself as the 'other' to Joseph, as well as mystical (the feeling of oneness with god) experiences -- a broad tableau of spiritual, revelatory experience. While there may have been influences in Joseph Smith's life, he appears to be an original thinker and much of the revelation appears original. How did the Besht receive his insight? From other mystics? from his own original experience? I think you're saying we really don't know, and cannot tell.

[Robert F. Smith]

As I understand it, and I'm sure that volgadon will correct my understanding here, Baal Shem Tov, "Besht" for short, was an 18th century mystic, kabbalist, and founder of hasidism. In my opinion, Besht was to Judaism what Joseph Smith was to Christianity: he had mystical experiences, and turned Judaism upsidedown, fighting against the moribund rabbinical talmudic scholars as Joseph Smith fought against the creeds and orthodoxy.

I disagree.

The BESHT (Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer, the Baal Shem Tov) may have been the pietistic, magical, effervescent founder of 18th century Hasidism, but in doing so he remained an Orthodox Jew -- not the founder of a new Jewish sect, nor the restorer of primitive Judaism.

The BESHT was to Judaism what the Wesleys (Methodism) were to the staid Church of England, what Pentecostalism (Holiness Christianity) was to mainstream Protestantism, what Bhakti Yoga was to Vedanta (Hinduism), i.e., they are revitalization movements which inject new life into what has become organized and bureaucratized. All satisfy charismatic needs.

See Stephen Sharot, Messianism, Mysticism, and Magic: A Sociological Analysis of Jewish Religious Movements (1982).

Besht is panentheistic in a way that LDS might not accept, . .

Correct. There is nothing pantheistic about LDS theology or experience.

My feeling is that Joseph Smith was a mystic, and did not fully comprehend his own thoughts and revelations about the integral nature of god and man. He came as close as any Christian had done until that time, and by bringing god out of the ex-nihiloidealism of plato, Joseph Smith did much to move the needle. Perhaps JS did understand, fully, this mystical vision, but at the time, the Saints were only ready for a conventional definition of god. Milk before meat.

Nonsense. There is nothing mystical about Joseph Smith.

The first result of his principles was

a remarkable optimism

. Since God is immanent in all things, all things must possess something good in which God manifests Himself as the source of good.

(wikipedia)

This as well characterizes LDS thinking: Rather than the totally depraved world of the Calvinists and Catholics, LDS believe in the divine nature of creation, the world, and humans. We are inherently optimistic (or at least should be).

Optimism, yes, but not in which God is the immanent source of all good, since we are also individual, non-contingent actors on that stage of existence, quite capable of good.

This is doctrinally identical to LDS thinking. All spirit is matter. And it adds life to the idea that the Word of Wisdom, in its original intent and not current interpretation, is to care for the body.

...he fought the rigidity and sanctimony that had accreted to strict Talmudic viewpoints while not abrogating a single religious ceremony or observance. His target was the great importance which the Talmudic view attaches to the fulfillment of a law, while almost entirely disregarding sentiment or the growth of man’s inner life.

(wikipedia)

One might well criticize rigidity and sanctimony and call for socio-political broadening, but mysticism has nothing to do with that, and LDS doctrine shares no part of what you are suggesting here.

This is the essence of the mystical experience -- that which is achieved through revelation. Joseph Smith said that all members "who receive the holy ghost receive revelation, for the holy ghost is a revelator" -- thus to 'receive the holy ghost' upon confirmation, is to seek revelation daily in one's life as befitting one who has received the gift of the holy ghost. Sometimes revelation comes in words, but only rarely. The mystical experience is a oneness with god that cannot be described in words.

I believe Joseph Smith was a mystic like Baal Shem Tov. Besht lived a longer life, and his followers picked up much more of the mystical message than Joseph's successors, who were more inclined to create the more traditional Christian LDS church that we have today. I, for one, love to embrace Joseph's original mysticism as a pattern for my own spiritual journey.

I see nothing at all mystical about dialogic revelation, nor any similarity at all between the BESHT and Joseph Smith -- even if some early Mormons tended to become somewhat Pentecostal at times (they got that mostly from the Methodism of the day).

See A. J. Simmonds, "John Noah and the Hulets: A Study in Charisma in the Early Church," paper presented May 26, 1979, at the Mormon History Association annual meeting in Lamoni, Iowa (copies circulated by Utah State Univ. Library, Logan, Utah).

Cherel Jane E. Olive, "Mazeway Reformulation and Revitalizaton Movements: The Wallace Model as Applied to the Development of Mormonism," master's thesis (Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas, Aug 1977).

Samuel S. Hill, Jr., "A Typology of American Restitutionism: From Frontier Revivalism and Mormonism to the Jesus Movement," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 44 (1976), 65-76.

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting and very useful comparisons. Though I wouldn't comprehensively characterize Joseph Smith as just a mystic, but rather that his spiritual experiences encompassed that kind of thing. Mark Koltko's Sunstone essay “Mysticism and Mormonism: An LDS Perspective on Transcendence and Higher Consciousness,” Sunstone 13/2 (April 1989): 14–19, was key in turning my views away from Nibley's chapter in The World and the Prophets, that emphasized differences. (I hear that Nibley changed those views.)

So while I agree that there is overlap between Joseph Smith and various mystics, there is also the issue of accounting for the numinous in Joseph Smith's experience and in scripture.

Ian Barbour emphasizes the “sense of otherness, confrontation and encounter” when “man is aware of his own dependence,

finitude, limitation, and

contingency

.”

[4]

This experience usually occurs in institutionalized worship situations involving personal models of God. The worshipper often bows to show humility, acknowledging inferiority and distance, and feels

contingency

and a moral demand.

While reading Ninian Smart's book Worldviews, I changed upon passages that seem to me to explain the relationship of Joseph Smith to both mystical and numinous experience:

Quoted from my Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience essay, linked on my profile.

Kevin Christensen

The fundamental problem with the notion of a mystical Joseph Smith is (as we might surmise from Barbour) the claim of finitude and contingency which he emphasizes, both of which are anathema to Mormonism, since we are necessary beings who are coeternal with God.

[wayfarer]

[The] Besht is panentheistic in a way that LDS might not accept,

Correct. There is nothing pantheistic about LDS theology or experience.

Robert, there is a world of difference between "pantheism" and "panentheism". I'll repeat what I said before:

As for panentheism, consider these two verses:

D&C 88:13

The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

Moses 6:

63

And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

While the latter verse describes that all things are a manifestation (witness) of god, the first verse, in Section 88, clearly lay out that at least at that time, Joseph Smith stated a distinctly panentheistic comment:

D&C 88:13

...who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity,

who is in the midst of all things

.

One cannot so easily dismiss this comment in saying "there is nothing pan[en]theistic about LDS theology or experience", although I agree that there is no pantheism in mormonism -- big difference.

Nonsense. There is nothing mystical about Joseph Smith.

That depense upon the definition of 'mystical' one uses, wouldn't that be the case?

I see nothing at all mystical about dialogic revelation, nor any similarity at all between the BESHT and Joseph Smith -- even if some early Mormons tended become somewhat Pentecostal at times (they got that mostly from the Methodism of the day).

There is nothing mystical about 'dialogic' revelation, but is all 'revelation' dialogic? Where do D&C sections 8 and 9 come into play?

First, I started this parable because i thought there might be parallels in an aspect revelatory processes between the Besht and Joseph Smith, for reasons I note in a thread, above. Perhaps some think those parallels don't exist -- I'm just trying to sort thing out. In the process of doing so, I'm exploring the complex sentiments expressed in the revelations of Joseph Smith. Section 88 appears quite mystical to me, and perhaps others, for I have lived within some very mystical traditions, and I find parallels -- positive, uplifting, worthwhile parallels. To dismiss the parallels because of a label seems, to me, a big unwarranted, but what do I know?

So questions back to you, Robert:

- Do you see a difference between pantheism and panentheism?

- How do you explain 88:13 if there are no panentheistic sentiments at all in the Church?

- Was Joseph Smith so rigid in his doctrine so as to declare a formal, creedal orthodoxy whereupon we can declare with certainty he was neither a mystic (at least in part) nor having panentheistic statements in his doctrine?

[supersnail]

It's long, although interesting, and will take some time to get through -- why do you ask?

You wrote, "If this didn't come from Besht, whoever wrote these ideas was somehow enlightened in a way. Was it Besht? Does it matter?" I asked what you thought about the Neoplatonism wikipedia article because it looked like you were open to the idea that others are more relevant than the Besht to what you think Joseph Smith taught. I was suggesting ignoring the "Neoplatonism" label for now and seeing where a neutral exploration of ideas would take you. (By neutral, I mean having no preference for a Jewish thinker versus a Platonism-influenced Christian or Greek with similar ideas, but whom Mormons would be less inclined to associate themselves with. ) I think it would take you to a place that Joseph Smith had moved Christianity away from. As you said, Joseph Smith brought "god out of the ex-nihilo idealism of plato."

The idea that God continuously creates everything that exists may actually bring us back to the creatio ex nihilo paradigm. In Platonic Christianity, if God did not constantly sustain existence, existence would vanish. To the extent that you are making a distinction between being and becoming (you quoted "God is ever active in the changes of nature: in fact, it is in these changes that God’s continuous creativeness consists"), it should be noted that the idea that becoming has a sustaining cause comes from Plato.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Besht was a Platonist. I don't know anything about him. But we can know what Plato and Neoplatonists said, and perhaps some of the people who edited the wikipedia article on the Besht were influenced by Platonism, which is pervasive. More to the point, if we can find Platonism-influenced Christian mystics saying the same things, maybe there is no need to get into what the Besht said or did not say or his influences.

Edited September 9, 2012 by supersnail

[Bill Hamblin]

Robert, there is a world of difference between "pantheism" and "panentheism". I'll repeat what I said before:

While the latter verse describes that all things are a manifestation (witness) of god, the first verse, in Section 88, clearly lay out that at least at that time, Joseph Smith stated a distinctly panentheistic comment:

D&C 88:13

...who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity,

who is in the midst of all things

.

One cannot so easily dismiss this comment in saying "there is nothing pan[en]theistic about LDS theology or experience", although I agree that there is no pantheism in mormonism -- big difference.

That depense upon the definition of 'mystical' one uses, wouldn't that be the case?

There is nothing mystical about 'dialogic' revelation, but is all 'revelation' dialogic? Where do D&C sections 8 and 9 come into play?

First, I started this parable because i thought there might be parallels in an aspect revelatory processes between the Besht and Joseph Smith, for reasons I note in a thread, above. Perhaps some think those parallels don't exist -- I'm just trying to sort thing out. In the process of doing so, I'm exploring the complex sentiments expressed in the revelations of Joseph Smith. Section 88 appears quite mystical to me, and perhaps others, for I have lived within some very mystical traditions, and I find parallels -- positive, uplifting, worthwhile parallels. To dismiss the parallels because of a label seems, to me, a big unwarranted, but what do I know?

So questions back to you, Robert:

- Do you see a difference between pantheism and panentheism?

- How do you explain 88:13 if there are no panentheistic sentiments at all in the Church?

- Was Joseph Smith so rigid in his doctrine so as to declare a formal, creedal orthodoxy whereupon we can declare with certainty he was neither a mystic (at least in part) nor having panentheistic statements in his doctrine?

88:13 does not say that God is inside each individual thing as a panentheist would. It says God dwells in the sacred center of the Cosmos, that is, in the middle of the universe. The mythos of the Sacred Center--symbolized by the holy of holies of the temple--is quite different from the panentheistic mythos. The Light of Christ (Jn. 1:9, 8:12; Moro. 7:18; DC 88:7-12) motif is quasi-panentheistic. But the Light of Christ is not God; it "proceedeth forth from the presence of God" (DC 88:12-13). The panentheist says God is the essence of all things, and that is all God is.

[Bill Hamblin]

There is a fundamental problem that arises when dealing with neo-mystics like Wayfarer. There is no such thing as "mysticism." Mysticism is an esoteric religious response to a specific exoteric religion. Thus, while one can speak of a Hindu mystic, or a Muslim mystic, or Greek Orthodox Christian mystic, one cannot speak of a pure mystic or of pure mysticism.

Since the rise of comparative religious studies in the late 18th century--which developed as European colonialists studied the language and religions of the people they colonized--scholars began to see similarities between certain practices and beliefs of different religions. One type of religious practices and beliefs were designated as "mysticism." But it is really not a real thing. It is a scholarly construct.

Things we call mystical cannot be understood if they are divorced from a specific exoteric tradition. Islamic mysticism is inherently Islamic, and cannot be divorce from, for example, esoteric interpretations of the Qur'an. While it is true that many mystical traditions share a concept of intense love of God, there are many differences in the ways that God is understood, how the love of God is manifest, rituals and practices to explore the love of God, etc. Furthermore, all mysticism is historically contextualized and changes through time.

The problem with calling JS a mystic is quite similar to the problem with calling him a magician. First, the terms are extraordinarily vague and multivalent, and second, JS never called himself a mystic or a magician. (It is not clear that JS even knew what mysticism was. Can one be a mystic without knowing it?) JS called himself a prophet, not a mystic. His behavior and practices fit clearly and fully within the Judeo-Christian prophetic tradition.

[supersnail]

My feeling is that Joseph Smith was a mystic, and did not fully comprehend his own thoughts and revelations about the integral nature of god and man. He came as close as any Christian had done until that time, and by bringing god out of the ex-nihilo idealism of plato, Joseph Smith did much to move the needle. Perhaps JS did understand, fully, this mystical vision, but at the time, the Saints were only ready for a conventional definition of god. Milk before meat.

The idea of a finite God co-eternal with matter that is neither evil nor good -- which is what I believe Joseph Smith espoused (but did not get from anyone else except God) was not conventional in the 1830s-1840s. Nor does it seem consonant with the mysticism you describe in your post. Maybe I am wrong about that. It seems that to arrive at some of your comparisons one would have to minimize much of what was divergent, from traditional Christianity, about Joseph Smith's teachings on matter and also intelligences. In that way, one could try to shoehorn Joseph Smith's teachings into a particular mysticism, even Platonic Christianity. In other words, if we lop off enough, we can interpret "all things" in D&C 88 in those ways. The worlds Jesus Christ created then become all things that exist or are material.

The view of God's immanence that you are describing can be found in mysticism and could be read into D&C 88 (which has been interpreted in various ways) in isolation, I agree, but the idea that matter is evil is also found in much mysticism. You mention moving away from Plato, but actually I think it is interesting how Platonism can be seen as underlying the idea that matter is good because of a divine identity, as well as the idea that matter is evil.

I'm not saying that Plato is any kind of direct influence here, just that I don't see how the Besht is more relevant than some others.

Regarding D&C 88... Even within D&C 88, the idea can be found that God himself is bound by laws. To the extent that God foresaw the consequences of the natural laws of the world (planet, universe, multiple universes, or whatever) he organized directly or indirectly, and those consequences are consistent with his goals, those laws represent his power. However, there is also an aspect of a lack of power to this. How God accomplishes the plan of salvation may be constrained by laws that are not of God's own making. Personally, I am fascinated by this duality of how laws may reflect both God's power, and his lack of power in certain contexts, or his finiteness as a being that is co-eternal with both matter and intelligences.

Edited September 9, 2012 by supersnail

[wayfarer]

88:13 does not say that God is inside each individual thing as a panentheist would. It says God dwells in the sacred center of the Cosmos, that is, in the middle of the universe. The mythos of the Sacred Center--symbolized by the holy of holies of the temple--is quite different from the panentheistic mythos. The Light of Christ (Jn. 1:9, 8:12; Moro. 7:18; DC 88:7-12) motif is quasi-panentheistic. But the Light of Christ is not God; it "proceedeth forth from the presence of God" (DC 88:12-13). The panentheist says God is the essence of all things, and that is all God is.

Thank you. That is a clear, respectful, and useful reply.

[wayfarer]

The idea of a finite God co-eternal with matter that is neither evil nor good -- which is what I believe Joseph Smith espoused (but did not get from anyone else except God) was not conventional in the 1830s-1840s. Nor does it seem consonant with the mysticism you describe in your post. Maybe I am wrong about that. It seems that to arrive at some of your comparisons one would have to minimize much of what was divergent, from traditional Christianity, about Joseph Smith's teachings on matter and also intelligences. In that way, one could try to shoehorn Joseph Smith's teachings into a particular mysticism, even Platonic Christianity. In other words, if we lop off enough, we can interpret "all things" in D&C 88 in those ways. The worlds Jesus Christ created then become all things that exist or are material.

great points. I don't see it useful to shoe-horn joseph smith into mysticism, but rather, the mystical experience held by others is a shadow of the more complete divine experience held by Joseph Smith. The mystical experience, the sense of oneness with the power of the universe, while still maintaining integrity with matter -- this is clearly not the mysticism of the ascetics who mortify the flesh.

I really love your first sentence above -- this singular concept, in my impression, is the divergence from plato: rather than an immaterial infinite god of the ideal, Joseph posed something extraordinarily heretical: a finite god: "God is a man! That is the great secret". It just gives me chills when I read the King Follett discourse -- the clarity he lays forth.

The view of God's immanence that you are describing can be found in mysticism and could be read into D&C 88 (which has been interpreted in various ways) in isolation, I agree, but the idea that matter is evil is also found in much mysticism. You mention moving away from Plato, but actually I think it is interesting how Platonism can be seen as underlying the idea that matter is good because of a divine identity, as well as the idea that matter is evil.

I have studied the ante-nicene fathers, particularly Origen, in quite some depth. While I reject the definition of the ideal, immaterial god, much of what the neoplatonists projected was relatively close to the Plan of Salvation: Origen had much of it right, except he had the wrong spirits coming down to earth as humans.

Regarding D&C 88... Even within D&C 88, the idea can be found that God himself is bound by laws. To the extent that God foresaw the consequences of the natural laws of the world (planet, universe, multiple universes, or whatever) he organized directly or indirectly, and those consequences are consistent with his goals, those laws represent his power. However, there is also an aspect of a lack of power to this. How God accomplishes the plan of salvation may be constrained by laws that are not of God's own making. Personally, I am fascinated by this duality of how laws may reflect both God's power, and his lack of power in certain contexts, or his finiteness as a being that is co-eternal with both matter and intelligences.

I'm very much in agreement, and would like to see more of your writing/thiinking in this area is you're willing to share.

thanks.

[wayfarer]

There is a fundamental problem that arises when dealing with neo-mystics like Wayfarer. There is no such thing as "mysticism." Mysticism is an esoteric religious response to a specific exoteric religion. Thus, while one can speak of a Hindu mystic, or a Muslim mystic, or Greek Orthodox Christian mystic, one cannot speak of a pure mystic or of pure mysticism.

Bill, do you ever tire of labeling and dismissing people you don't agree with? I would never call myself a 'neo-mystic', but a fully faithful latter-day saint. a Mormon. and perhaps a wayfaring fool. I choose the label, not you. Please advise if you have a problem with that.

"No such thing as 'mysticism'?" Really? By very definition, mysticism is an experience of oneness. A hindu, christian, or sufi mystic would never characterize their experience of oneness as an extension of their esoteric tradition. While the mechanism to getting 'there' certainly varies, and involves specific artifacts of the individual tradition, the experience of oneness is quite similar from tradition to tradition, and by definition that experience cannot be considered divided by traditions in any way.

Edited September 9, 2012 by wayfarer