Permissibility Of Abortion

[mfbukowski]

If God creates ex nihilo then God does program.

You know Vance I have to admit I do not read all the details of discussions in which I am not directly involved, but this is an excellent point.

In fact it is an excellent excellent point.

In fact your saying this in this way has helped me figure out a problem that I have been working on now for a while which has had me puzzled- I knew there was a solution which I felt "in my bones" but I was having trouble putting it into words and now I think I have worked it out.

Here is the problem:

If God created us ex nihilo there is no portion of "us" which is beyond God's "programming" and so we are not free, additionally in the Neoplatonic universe all we can know about reality is shadowy illusions or reflections of reality- not reality itself.

This latter confusion has given rise in the history of philosophy, to the whole discipline called "epistemology" which is what I always harp on around here- and what I am talking about when I continually say that the only reality we can know is "appearance" and if there is anything beyond it, we cannot know about it. The philosopher Richard Rorty said it quite succinctly in this passage from Contingency Irony and Solidarity:

http://en.wikipedia...._and_Solidarity

These sorts of arguments by philosophers of language and of science

should be seen against the background of the work of intellectual historians:

historians who, like Hans Blumenberg, have tried to trace the similarities and dissimilarities between the Age of Faith and the Age of Reason. These historians have made the point I mentioned earlier: The very idea that the world or the self has an intrinsic nature - one which the physicist or the poet may have glimpsed - is a remnant of the idea

that the world is a divine creation, the work of someone who had something in mind, who Himself spoke some language in which He described His own project. Only if we have some such picture in mind, some

picture of the universe as either itself a person or as created by a person,

can we make sense of the idea that the world has an "intrinsic nature."

For the cash value of that phrase is just that some vocabularies are better

representations of the world than others, as opposed to being better

tools for dealing with the world for one or another purpose.

To drop the idea of languages as representations, and to be thoroughly

Wittgensteinian in our approach to language, would be to de-divinize the

world. Only if we do that can we fully accept the argument I offered

earlier - the argument that since truth is a property of sentences, since

sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since

vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths. For as long as we

think that "the world" names something we ought to respect as well as

cope with, something personlike in that it has a preferred description of

itself, we shall insist that any philosophical account of truth save the

"intuition" that truth is "out there." This institution amounts to the

vague sense that it would be hybris on our part to abandon the traditional

language of "respect for fact" and "objectivity" - that it would be risky,

and blasphemous, not to see the scientist (or the philosopher, or the

poet, or somebody) as having a priestly function, as putting us in touch

with a realm which transcends the human.

So what Rorty is saying is that if God is the Neoplatonic God, we could never experience Him, nor could we ever experience "reality" for both reality and God are beyond what we can as humans experience.

All we experience is some sort of shadowy representation of a "reality" far beyond our abilities to perceive or understand.

But Rorty would say, this is not the case. We do in fact experience reality- therefore the reality in which God lives, is the illusion and therefore God is dead. He is no longer a factor in human life, because the world in which he lives no longer makes sense to humans. He has become irrelevant to us.

If God created us ex nihilo, then Rorty's argument is completely correct, there is NO transcendent God and NO transcendent reality which we cannot know.

This is what Rorty, an atheist, is saying above.

On the other hand, if God is immanent and our Father, Rorty can be correct ABOUT EPISTEMOLOGY, AND we can be right about God- we can know both God and reality through human experience. But Rorty did not understand that the part about God was even a possibility.

In Neoplatonism there is no part of us which is uniquely "us"- there is no unique portion of the self which has existed forever independently and co-eternal with God, because God created us out of nothing, and programmed our natures. This is pure Neoplatonic philosophy. This has deep ramifications which go far beyond this discussion, but one of them is that in a consistent Neoplatonic view of the world, we can never experience God or his influence because he dwells in a transcendent world far beyond our ability to experience as mere mortals in this shadowy world of illusion. Read Plato's allegory of the cave for a vivid image of what this world would become if indeed the world as seen by Plato is taken as "true". The bottom line is that we could not experience "reality"- just a shadowy image of a reality which lies permanently beyond our grasp. And we could never experience any kind of Theophany- that would be out of the question. So it would be totally impossible for Joseph, or Stephen in the New Testament for that matter, to have seen God.

Just remember that. Consistent Neoplatonism = Joseph could not have seen God, nor can God speak to our spirits. God cannot be experienced by humans. A consistent Neoplatonic, transcendent God based view is just incompatible with the idea of a loving father who interacts with his children.

God cannot be transcendent AND a loving Father.

For God to be a loving father, he must be immanent. This is the revolutionary insight of Mormonism. This turns Rorty's argument against God on its head. In fact Rorty is correct that a transcendnt God could not interact with humanity- but Rorty never considered the possibility that God could be immanent, in other words, Rorty had no conception of a God anything like the Mormon God who is in fact a glorified and idealized, perfected human being who can be our "friend" (as in D&C) and with whom we have what Rorty would call "solidarity"- with whom we could share a community.

In fact that community part is exactly how we become his sons in his throne in John 17- but that is another discussion. Community is exaltation and the Patriarchal order in this context.

Seeing God as Mormons do, squares Rorty's Pragmatic and constructivist views perfectly with the Mormon view of God.

God is immanent and our Father. God organized us from intelligences which were co-eternal with him and we accepted his leadership voluntarily "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" (Job 38:7)

Very late edit: If you have actually read this, there is an expanded version on my blog. You are truly a glutton for punishment! http://theomorphicman.blogspot.com/2012/09/notes-on-rortys-idea-of-contingency-of.html

Edited September 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Peace be with you!

Yeah sure. You just want a Pax to be upon us.

[MiserereNobis]

Yeah sure. You just want a Pax to be upon us.

Har har

P.S. The Catholic God is not the strict neo-Platonic god. The Catholic God is both transcendent AND immanent. I know to the post-modern pragmatic constructivist mind that statement is probably considered meaningless, but such is the mystery and miracle of the Incarnation. By the way, your post linking Rorty to Mormonism was quite well written -- point for you

[Vance]

P.S. The Catholic God is not the strict neo-Platonic god. The Catholic God is both transcendent AND immanent. I know to the post-modern pragmatic constructivist mind that statement is probably considered meaningless, but such is the mystery and miracle of the Incarnation. By the way, your post linking Rorty to Mormonism was quite well written -- point for you

Again, "mystery" is used to cover the contradiction.

[Calm]

What appears to be a contradiction may simply (well, maybe not "simply) involve a higher principle that resolves the two into one, kind of like how having both salt and sweet together yields a taste that is both and neither and better than either alone.

I don't see how there is anything wrong with saying "we don't know" or "it is a mystery".

[Vance]

What appears to be a contradiction may simply (well, maybe not "simply) involve a higher principle that resolves the two into one, kind of like how having both salt and sweet together yields a taste that is both and neither and better than either alone.

I don't see how there is anything wrong with saying "we don't know" or "it is a mystery".

The problem is that it is used to "explain" (I use that term loosely) how two opposites exist in one.

God is not man and never can be.

Man is not God and never can be.

Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

God is transcendent (outside of time and space, having continuous existence outside the created world).

God is immanent (inside of time and space, inborn, indwelling, inherent, intrinsic, hereditary, indigenous).

[MiserereNobis]

What appears to be a contradiction may simply (well, maybe not "simply) involve a higher principle that resolves the two into one, kind of like how having both salt and sweet together yields a taste that is both and neither and better than either alone.

Thanks for the insight and analogy. This is how I often view spiritual paradoxes. The East has a long tradition of using paradox to help break people out of strict conceptual thinking. Mystics say, from their personal experience, that the closer we get to God the less our language is able to describe it, and in the closest encounters with God language and conceptual thinking breaks down all together. That is why the classic mystical treaty from the middle ages is called "The Cloud of Unknowing." God is surrounded by a cloud that strips away our ideas, language, concepts, and images, and leaves us nothing but direct experience. When the mystic returns from this experience, he has to try to describe it using terms that can, at best, be seen as pointers. Most mystics find that paradox works the best.

Here is a classic example from St. John of the Cross (officially honored with the title: Mystical Doctor of the Church):

In order to arrive at having pleasure in everything, Desire to have pleasure in nothing.

In order to arrive at possessing everything, Desire to possess nothing.

In order to arrive at being everything, Desire to be nothing.

In order to arrive at knowing everything, Desire to know nothing.

In order to arrive at that point where you take no pleasure, you must go by a way that gives no pleasure.

In order to arrive at that point where you know nothing, you must go by a way you do not know.

In order to arrive at that point where you are free of possessing, you must go by a way you do not possess.

In order to arrive at that point at which you are nothing, you must go through that which you are not.

In any case, we work all the time with apparent opposites that are really united. Front and back are two opposite ideas, yet you cannot have a book without a front or a back. That is a simple everyday paradox. The nature of God is not simple (in both Catholic and LDS theology), so I would not expect the explanation to be simple.

I don't see how there is anything wrong with saying "we don't know" or "it is a mystery".

Nor do I, but around here it seems to be anathema. Or, actually, I think the line is just drawn differently. There are mysteries and "we don't know" in the LDS theology, but they are just different than the ones in Catholic theology. For example, the idea that things (matter, energy, intelligence, etc) have always existed. This is a mystery that our minds, temporally based and linguistically bound, cannot fathom. We can accept it and believe it but ultimately cannot explain what our intelligences have been up to for, well, forever into the past without any beginning. (Please note: I am not critiquing this idea at all, I am simply pointing out that it, too, is a mystery and as a Catholic, I am fine with something being a mystery).

Another thread linked a talk by a member of a stake presidency. Here is an interesting excerpt:

Forgive me, but I think there are a few too many Mormons who have decided that because the church is true, we therefore have all the answers to all of the questions, all of the theological questions that have plagued scholars and theologians for centuries. Disciples have been breaking their heads open over these questions for centuries, but because we have the gospel, we know every answer and there’s nothing left for us to do but to be perfunctory Mormons.

I like how he doesn't dismiss the theologians who have been working over the mysteries of the Faith for centuries, but instead implies that these are intelligent people who shouldn't be summarily disregarded as dumb, illogical, etc. Some of the best minds of Western Civilization have poured over theological questions and presented complex and intelligent answers.

Perhaps it's not as simple as it all appears, eh?

Thanks again for your post.

Edited September 28, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

Har har

P.S. The Catholic God is not the strict neo-Platonic god. The Catholic God is both transcendent AND immanent. I know to the post-modern pragmatic constructivist mind that statement is probably considered meaningless, but such is the mystery and miracle of the Incarnation.

Yep- finally we agree on something!

By the way, your post linking Rorty to Mormonism was quite well written -- point for you

Thanks- I actually thought about that one as opposed to the way I usually throw stuff out!

[mfbukowski]

What appears to be a contradiction may simply (well, maybe not "simply) involve a higher principle that resolves the two into one, kind of like how having both salt and sweet together yields a taste that is both and neither and better than either alone.

I don't see how there is anything wrong with saying "we don't know" or "it is a mystery".

There's nothing wrong with it at all unless your entire purpose is to come up with a rational explanation, and in that case it simply does not do what you set out to do.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the insight and analogy. This is how I often view spiritual paradoxes. The East has a long tradition of using paradox to help break people out of strict conceptual thinking. Mystics say, from their personal experience, that the closer we get to God the less our language is able to describe it, and in the closest encounters with God language and conceptual thinking breaks down all together. That is why the classic mystical treaty from the middle ages is called "The Cloud of Unknowing." God is surrounded by a cloud that strips away our ideas, language, concepts, and images, and leaves us nothing but direct experience. When the mystic returns from this experience, he has to try to describe it using terms that can, at best, be seen as pointers. Most mystics find that paradox works the best.

Here is a classic example from St. John of the Cross (officially honored with the title: Mystical Doctor of the Church):

In any case, we work all the time with apparent opposites that are really united. Front and back are two opposite ideas, yet you cannot have a book without a front or a back. That is a simple everyday paradox. The nature of God is not simple (in both Catholic and LDS theology), so I would not expect the explanation to be simple.

Nor do I, but around here it seems to be anathema. Or, actually, I think the line is just drawn differently. There are mysteries and "we don't know" in the LDS theology, but they are just different than the ones in Catholic theology. For example, the idea that things (matter, energy, intelligence, etc) have always existed. This is a mystery that our minds, temporally based and linguistically bound, cannot fathom. We can accept it and believe it but ultimately cannot explain what our intelligences have been up to for, well, forever into the past without any beginning. (Please note: I am not critiquing this idea at all, I am simply pointing out that it, too, is a mystery and as a Catholic, I am fine with something being a mystery).

Another thread linked a talk by a member of a stake presidency. Here is an interesting excerpt:

I like how he doesn't dismiss the theologians who have been working over the mysteries of the Faith for centuries, but instead implies that these are intelligent people who shouldn't be summarily disregarded as dumb, illogical, etc. Some of the best minds of Western Civilization have poured over theological questions and presented complex and intelligent answers.

Perhaps it's not as simple as it all appears, eh?

Thanks again for your post.

I've got no problem with this-

If we are sitting in a yoga position meditating this is great. If my legs will do that I am with you.

But if we are talking theology, I have a problem with that attitude. Mysticism is not theology. I totally believe in the "unspeakable" and experience God on a daily basis, but the difference is that I don't try to talk about it

Wittgenstein: The whole sense of the book might be summed up the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.

[MiserereNobis]

I've got no problem with this-

If we are sitting in a yoga position meditating this is great. If my legs will do that I am with you.

Since I began my spiritual journey by focusing on the East, I often still use eastern postures for contemplation. It reminds me of a part in Thomas Merton's autobiography where he is following St. Ignatius's spiritual exercises while sitting in the lotus position and how he thinks that St. Ignatius would probably be surprised at the combination of the two. Heh.

But if we are talking theology, I have a problem with that attitude. Mysticism is not theology.

I see what you are saying, but the demarcation line is not so strict in Catholicism. We actually call mysticism "mystical theology."

I totally believe in the "unspeakable" and experience God on a daily basis, but the difference is that I don't try to talk about it

There are many mystics who don't try to talk about it. However, there are some mystics who return from that direct mystical experience of God and feel compelled to. I think that vocation is a tough one, because it is a vocation of trying to share the unshareable in the hopes of perhaps helping someone along their spiritual journey. The great mystics, like St. John of the Cross, are those who are able to best succeed in speaking of the unspeakable.

ETA: It's like the wonderful contradiction at the beginning of the Tao Te Ching, where Lao Tzu says "the real Tao cannot be spoken of" and then proceeds to give an entire book about the Tao.

Edited September 28, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[ERayR]

I've got no problem with this-

If we are sitting in a yoga position meditating this is great. If my legs will do that I am with you.

But if we are talking theology, I have a problem with that attitude. Mysticism is not theology. I totally believe in the "unspeakable" and experience God on a daily basis, but the difference is that I don't try to talk about it

Some people do have a tendency to be loquacious.

[mfbukowski]

Some people do have a tendency to be loquacious.

I have noticed.

[mfbukowski]

Since I began my spiritual journey by focusing on the East, I often still use eastern postures for contemplation. It reminds me of a part in Thomas Merton's autobiography where he is following St. Ignatius's spiritual exercises while sitting in the lotus position and how he thinks that St. Ignatius would probably be surprised at the combination of the two. Heh.

I actually use a technique which derives I have heard from a Jewish form of meditation which I have adjusted somewhat using the body and breathing to stay "grounded" while clearing the mind from all but what God decides to put there- no mantras or anything like that.

I am beginning to wonder if your first name is Francis and you live in Denver. You remind me of someone I once knew. A PM might be in order if that is the case- you would know me by my name here, but I would not know you by yours. Of course you might want to keep it that way as well.

[MiserereNobis]

I actually use a technique which derives I have heard from a Jewish form of meditation which I have adjusted somewhat using the body and breathing to stay "grounded" while clearing the mind from all but what God decides to put there- no mantras or anything like that.

That is what I try to do in my meditations as well. Sometimes I do use "mantras" but Catholic ones, such as "Lord have mercy" etc.

I am beginning to wonder if your first name is Francis and you live in Denver. You remind me of someone I once knew. A PM might be in order if that is the case- you would know me by my name here, but I would not know you by yours. Of course you might want to keep it that way as well.

Unfortunately, no, I'm not Francis from Denver. Your friend has a great name -- St. Francis is a special saint

[Storm Rider]

That is what I try to do in my meditations as well. Sometimes I do use "mantras" but Catholic ones, such as "Lord have mercy" etc.

Unfortunately, no, I'm not Francis from Denver. Your friend has a great name -- St. Francis is a special saint

I think there certainly is a place in spiritual growth for mantras or short prayers that are repeated. We do not teach such in the Church, yet we are encouraged to be seekers of all truth. The Jesus Prayer was one that I adopted and quickly adjusted it to something that fit more with where my heart is, "O my Father and my God, have mercy on me a sinner, in the name of thy Son, Jesus. Amen" When other words fail me and yet the desire to commune with God remains, this prayer is often on my heart, mind, and lips.

Miserere Nobis, there are some LDS who are rather strict, zealous may be a better word, in their approach and commitment to the LDS Church. This position is one we find in all Churches that feed the Body. However, I hope you will find that there are many more that strive to follow the teachings and understanding of Scripture and the prophets that we all, every child of God, seekers of truth. I am reminded of some quotes:

• "...the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived it's members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time." (The Journal of Joseph: The Personal Diary of a Modern Prophet, p. 203).
  
• "I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it." (Discourses of Brigham Young p. 2)
  
• "We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 316.)
  

I am not sure that those who follow creeds are completely limited from seeking all truth, but I think the principle is true. Those that are so zealous about the truth they have been given are similar to the servant that was given a pound and kept it in a napkin until his lord returned. They keep safe what has been given, but have done nothing with it; they do not recognize the value of that truth. Truth seeks out truth; holds to all truth. We find these type of people in all faiths whether they are lead by creeds or not. May we never think that the truth we have should limit us from seeking all truth that God has revealed.

[Alvino]

Greetings fellow pro-lifers!

Disclaimer: I'm not "pro-life".

From the Catholic perspective, there is no permissibility in these areas. This comes from our belief that life, the creation of the soul, begins at the moment of conception.

To be clearer, you probably meant that the creation of the soul "begins [and ends] at the moment of conception", correct? So, according to your view, why is killing a fully-souled zygote (or fetus) any more wrong than killing a physiologically identical un-souled zygote or fetus (probably a hypothetical for you, but let's conceive it)?

It certainly would be a difficult burden, a difficult cross, for a women to bear the child of her rapist, but it is hard to see why the child's life should be terminated in that case. The same applies for incest.

But you want to talk about the permissibility of abortion here, not whether the child "should be terminated". These little biases in your wording can skew your thinking. No one says the child ought to be aborted but that she can be aborted.

Perhaps in the case of incest the idea as well is that the child runs a chance of being malformed, but this line of thinking seems to open up the path for aborting, say, a fetus with Down's Syndrome.

Let's open it. Why is that impermissible?

In the case of the health of the mother, is the self-defense exemption? We can kill without sin in self-defense. However, from the Catholic point-of-view, the child is not attacking the mother, so the self-defence exemption does not apply.

Self-defense doesn't necessarily imply the other one is consciously trying to kill or harm you.

The standard paper on abortion from a philosophical point of view is Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion", you might want to check it out.

A relevant point in said paper is the following:

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. but now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous

unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers {49} has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you— we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Alvino

[zerinus]

Zerinus, when I think of this issue I strive to understand the value of life, particularly innocent life. It is my impression that the Catholic Church has placed the value of innocent life very highly and I have difficulty finding any fault with that position. What the world does or has done is irrelevant to what it is the correct choice, proper position for a disciple of Christ. It is apparent that the Catholic Church has determined that there are choices that are acceptable that also end the life of the unborn. The LDS Church also has pronounced that there MAY be acceptable choices when rape, incest, and health of the mother are concerned. Neither group is cavalier in declaring their position or in their support for life. However, trying to understand why the life of a child resulting from rape or other horrendous acts can, is some instances, be determined to be of no value, to merit death, is a viable question to contemplate for LDS.

The LDS Church has stated "may" be acceptable choices and counseled that such a choice should only be taken with caution and by direction of the Spirit. Our position can create moral delimmas for our members that faithful Catholics would never need to consider, but that is not a bad thing in and of itself. Our whole life is about learning to follow the will of God rather than our own and this situation would put such a challenge in sharp contrast.

My point was that the Catholic Church tends to take matters to extreme, and I still think that it does. For example, it considers all forms of contraception (whatever the motive) to be a grave sin, even with those whose intention is not cecessarily to limit the number of childer they may have, but to control it in a more managable way. Now I think that that is extreme. I think their stance towards abortion is equally extreme.

As regards rape or incest, my point had been that the woman's views on the matter is also important--if not the most important consideration. We may counsel her according to our wisdom; but who are we to decide matters for her? Surely her feelings towards the matter are more important than anybody else's.

Edited October 1, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I like how he doesn't dismiss the theologians who have been working over the mysteries of the Faith for centuries, but instead implies that these are intelligent people who shouldn't be summarily disregarded as dumb, illogical, etc. Some of the best minds of Western Civilization have poured over theological questions and presented complex and intelligent answers.

Perhaps it's not as simple as it all appears, eh?

I am inclined to agree. Mormons generally don't make good theologians. They like to think that they don't make theologians at all! Unfortunately for them that is not true. You can't help discussing the gospel without being theological. They are theologians while thinking all the time that they are not!---which explains why as a rule they are such bad ones.

Edited October 1, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Since I began my spiritual journey by focusing on the East, I often still use eastern postures for contemplation. It reminds me of a part in Thomas Merton's autobiography where he is following St. Ignatius's spiritual exercises while sitting in the lotus position and how he thinks that St. Ignatius would probably be surprised at the combination of the two. Heh.

I see what you are saying, but the demarcation line is not so strict in Catholicism. We actually call mysticism "mystical theology."

There are many mystics who don't try to talk about it. However, there are some mystics who return from that direct mystical experience of God and feel compelled to. I think that vocation is a tough one, because it is a vocation of trying to share the unshareable in the hopes of perhaps helping someone along their spiritual journey. The great mystics, like St. John of the Cross, are those who are able to best succeed in speaking of the unspeakable.

ETA: It's like the wonderful contradiction at the beginning of the Tao Te Ching, where Lao Tzu says "the real Tao cannot be spoken of" and then proceeds to give an entire book about the Tao.

Talking of mysticism, I think that the Islamic mystics developed the most advanced schools of mysticism of any religion. Mysticism is something that all major religions have in common (except very young religions like Mormonism). But having had some knowledge of it, I think that none rise to the level of spirituality as the Islamic mystics. Their literary output alone outstrips all others, in both quality and quantity.

Edited September 30, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

That is what I try to do in my meditations as well. Sometimes I do use "mantras" but Catholic ones, such as "Lord have mercy" etc.

In Eastern mysticism the "chant" or "mantra" was used as an exercise to enable the student to concentrate or focus the mind and eliminate any wondering thoughts. If you have ever tried to concentrate on one thing, without allowing your mind to wonder to something else, you will realise how difficult it is. The mystics were able through those exercises to learn to control their thoughts to such a degree that they could concentrate on whatever they wanted for any length of time; and that was part of the process of achieving a higher spiritual awareness. Various different chants were used. In Buddhism, the most favoured chant was the monosyllable "om". Google for "om chant," "om mantra," or "om meditation" and see what you get.

In Islamic mysticism, which I happen to be more familiar with, the "chant" or "mantra" is called dhikr in Arabic, which literally means "remembrance". It originates from verses in the Koran in which it is stated that God wants us to "always remember" Him, or He blesses those who will "always remember" Him. That "remembrance" of course means remembrance "in prayer". (These doctrines have parallels in scripture. In scripture we often come across passages such as "pray without ceasing," "pray always and faint not," "not cease to pray in your heart" etc. Similarly, in the LDS sacramental prayers (and other passages of scripture) we are commanded to "always remember" Him etc.) The Islamic mystics took that teaching absolutely literally. They took "always" to mean literally "always". And the purpose of the chant was as a mental exercise to discipline the mind to avoid and shut out all unwanted and distracting thoughts in order to achieve that aim of being able to always "remember" (i.e. in prayer) God every moment of their lives. And they were able to achieve it, and with it extraordinary spiritual advances.

For the Islamic mystic the supreme aim was to achieve "unity" with God, to the point of becoming totally at one with Him. The case of Mansur Al-Hallaj is well known who was executed by secular authorities for blasphemy when he famously declared, in a moment of spiritual ecstasy, Ana al-Haqq, meaning "I am the truth (i.e. God)".

Edited September 30, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

double post

Edited September 30, 2012 by zerinus

[Nathair/|\]

Talking of mysticism, I think that the Islamic mystics developed the most advanced schools of mysticism of any relition. Mysticism is something that all major religions have in common (except very young religions like Mormonism). But having had some knowledge of it, I think that none rise to the level of spirituality as the Islamic mystics. Their literary output alone outstrips all others, in both quality and quantity.

I would argue that mysticism is a part of Mormonism as well. I believe either Joe Swick or Kerry Shirts (It may have been someone else, I don't recall for sure) argued compellingly that Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead fit the classic mystic pattern for example.

The rest of these posts are some of the best stuff I've ever seen from you.

Yours under the sacred oaks,

Nathair /|\

[MormonMason]

You're on to something here -- it is somewhat foreign to the Catholic system, and here is why. We believe in the FALL of Adam, with everything that term connotes. It was a fall from grace, a fall from paradise, a fall from the world God intended us to inhabit. From the Catholic point-of-view, it was better back in the Garden. The Redemption is to bring us back to the Garden.

Sounds like a "Whoops! Now I've got to send my Son to die for these people" scenario rather than one in which God planned for the fall before the earth ever was. (Lamb slain before the foundation of the world like the Bible describes). Would it have been better in the garden? We were never intended to live a static existence, which would have been the case in the garden. And, the reason for the Redemption, according to the old theology and LDS theology, was to make the way for man to be immortal and become united with God, sharing the nature that makes God what he is. Theological redefinition in the wake of Nicaea altered that idea over time and weakened it in Catholic tradition.

Edited September 30, 2012 by MormonMason

[zerinus]

I would argue that mysticism is a part of Mormonism as well. I believe either Joe Swick or Kerry Shirts (It may have been someone else, I don't recall for sure) argued compellingly that Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead fit the classic mystic pattern for example.

The rest of these posts are some of the best stuff I've ever seen from you.

Yours under the sacred oaks,

Nathair /|\

Thank you! On the vision of the redemption of the dead received by Joseph F. Smith, however, I don't think it is qualitatively any different from other revelations recorded in the D&C, notably the vision of the three degrees of glory. There may be a case for arguing that all revelatory experience is essentially "mystical" in nature. The Islamic mystics would have certainly argued that way. But I don't think there is legitimate ground for singling out that particular vision as a mystical experience, different from the other revelations recorded in the D&C.

Edited September 30, 2012 by zerinus