Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[DH]

Will the papers presented at the conference be published?

[pogi]

I agree with harfad,

Christ did not refrain from speaking of "unspeakable" things because they are "unspeakable", in fact he spoke of them quite often, urging his followers to discover them for themselves.

We can certainly speak of the how's and why's, and we can even speak of the what's (which you avoid) using symbology. Example: "the kingdom of heaven is like unto..." Think of all the symbology in our religion, through temples, rituals, ordinances, words, etc. that we use to describe the "unspeakable." It may indeed be "unspeakable", but that does not keep us from talking about it, classifying it, and analyzing it.

Mystic experience to me, is clearly one of those things we must pass over in silence.

So much for every religious institution of learning, the scriptures, missionary work, etc.

Why do you speak of God? Is he not unspeakable? For your methodology or philosophy of language to be useful, it must be applicable across the board. It clearly is not. Again we speak of God using symbols, but sometimes we can use more accurate depictions than just symbols such as his body and spirit, his characteristics, his word, etc.

Agreed - but again notice that what you are speaking of here is a kind of sociology of mysticism not an attempt at classifying or analyzing the experience itself. THAT is what I think cannot be done without distorting the experience beyond recognition.

I can classify the experience, and have done it throughout this thread: A true mystic experience is classified as an experience with, and of, the light of Christ and the Holy spirit of truth by those who are honest seekers of truth, etc. Again, read my definition or description above. I could further analyze this. What is the Holy spirit and light of Christ? Who are the honest seekers of truth? The scriptures are full of analyzations of what these are and how they are experienced.

Edited November 23, 2012 by pogi

[volgadon]

That is what the study of mysticism entails, plus a lot more. Mysticism has had enormous impact on the culture, art, music, literature, architecture, as well as moral values of many nations. A study of mysticism incorporates all of those and more. What Bill is saying is that before we can study mysticism, we have to be able to "define" it; and since we cannot come up with a definition which everyone can agree with, therefore mysticism as a subject in itself is not possible to talk about. That is plain nonsense. It is like saying that unless we can find a common definition of "religion" which everyone can agree with, the study of religion becomes impossible. That is plainly not true. Many universities run courses on "religion". They don't have to start the course with a definition of religion which everyone on the planet can agree with.

Greater love hath no strawman than this, that he lay down his life so you could score victory in your arguments.

One cannot define a universal phenomenon, but one can look at specific mystical traditions. We have been saying that all along.

Edited November 23, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

Will the papers presented at the conference be published?

No idea, but one hopes so.

[mfbukowski]

I agree with harfad,

Christ did not refrain from speaking of "unspeakable" things because they are "unspeakable", in fact he spoke of them quite often, urging his followers to discover them for themselves.

We can certainly speak of the how's and why's, and we can even speak of the what's (which you avoid) using symbology. Example: "the kingdom of heaven is like unto..." Think of all the symbology in our religion, through temples, rituals, ordinances, words, etc. that we use to describe the "unspeakable." It may indeed be "unspeakable", but that does not keep us from talking about it, classifying it, and analyzing it.

So much for every religious institution of learning, the scriptures, missionary work, etc.

Why do you speak of God? Is he not unspeakable? For your methodology or philosophy of language to be useful, it must be applicable across the board. It clearly is not. Again we speak of God using symbols, but sometimes we can use more accurate depictions than just symbols such as his body and spirit, his characteristics, his word, etc.

I can classify the experience, and have done it throughout this thread: A true mystic experience is classified as an experience with, and of, the light of Christ and the Holy spirit of truth by those who are honest seekers of truth, etc. Again, read my definition or description above. I could further analyze this. What is the Holy spirit and light of Christ? Who are the honest seekers of truth? The scriptures are full of analyzations of what these are and how they are experienced.

One cannot speak philosophically about such things- that is the point. One can speak metaphysically all they want, just don't expect your statements to have truth value philosophically, except in a Pragmatic sense. You keep deriding Wittgenstein, one of the greatest philosophers of all time without giving a glimmer of what you would substitute for his positions or even a reference to another philosophy of language which would make the discussion worthwhile. That's your decision.

The scriptures are not philosophy, thank God. But in order to understand them one needs to have a philosophical understanding of what they ARE.

I have mine and have presented it- you have presented nothing. That's fine- just don't pretend you have a well-thought-out view of these issues when you don't.

-Your brother in Christ.

[harfad]

One cannot speak philosophically about such things- that is the point.

I always like speaking scripturally best!

Edited November 24, 2012 by harfad

[pogi]

One cannot speak philosophically about such things- that is the point. One can speak metaphysically all they want, just don't expect your statements to have truth value philosophically, except in a Pragmatic sense. You keep deriding Wittgenstein, one of the greatest philosophers of all time without giving a glimmer of what you would substitute for his positions or even a reference to another philosophy of language which would make the discussion worthwhile. That's your decision.

The scriptures are not philosophy, thank God. But in order to understand them one needs to have a philosophical understanding of what they ARE.

I have mine and have presented it- you have presented nothing. That's fine- just don't pretend you have a well-thought-out view of these issues when you don't.

-Your brother in Christ.

Philosophy of religionis a branch ofphilosophyconcerned with questions regardingreligion, including the nature andexistence of God, the examination of religious experience, analysis of religious vocabulary and texts. (Encyclopedia of philosophy).

How have I not been using philosophy? I have used philosophy to describe how we all experience the same things spiritually using the metaphor of the puzzle (which you pointed is related to the theory of objectivity). Does it prove anything? No, but it is a step in the right direction. I have used philosophy to demonstrate that all true mystic experience would have to be related, demonstrating that neomysticism (or a form of it) is indeed what Mormons believe in.

You don't seem to understand that philosophy proves nothing. It is no more effective in understanding truth than speaking spiritualy, scripturally, metaphysically. We simply don't have access to all of the variables of truth to know if anything is "philosophically" true.

One can speak philosophically about such things, but I don't know why you hold philosophical language in higher regard than any other form of speaking about things. It proves nothing, just like everything else. And I don't understand why you insist that we speak only philosophically on a Mormon dialogue forum. I did not see that rule anywhere.

Heres what I think of Wittgenstein's "unspeakable" words. If things were not unspeakable, philosophy would be a waste of time, as we would all simply understand words such as "reality", and Wittgenstein would have been out of a job. Where did Wittgenstein's philosophies get him? Faithless! He may have been "great" in many respects, but I have higher regard for a 14 year old boy with no concept of philosophy.

I am not deriding Witgenstein. I think that you misunderstand what Witgenstein means by "unspeakable". Witgenstein was surely saying that some things cannot be captured or understood in a word, he was not implying that something cannot be understood through words. If I am wrong, and that is indeed what he was saying, then I reject his premise on the fact that Christ used words to speak about "unspeakable" truths to the understanding of many. If you believe that the unspeakable cannot be understood through word, then you fundamentaly misunderstand scripture and the words of Christ. It is indeed the "unspeakable" word that Christ calls the "seed" that we are to plant in our hearts to find true understanding. We understand the "unspeakable" through word and in spirit. The unspeakable word is God. There, I said it, what would Witgenstein think of me? Would Witgenstein disaprove of poetry on love? Poetry about the taste of salt? While the words themselves may fall short of true understanding, they can certainly assist in better understanding through use of metaphor and symbology, and related experience.

The pure love of Christ is "unspeakable." Can it be better understood through word? Absolutely! Can it be adequately captured in word? Absolutely not, it is understood in spirit. If it were not for Christ's words and the words of the prophets regarding the "unspeakable", the unspeakable would forever be mis-understood.

Why do I get the impression that if this thread was a discussion, description, and analysis of the love of Christ, you would not be so philosophically antagonistic to it? Do you play this same game in every thread on this forum? Because you certainly could. I would be willing to bet that you have attempted to describe or discuss, or analyze the "unspeakable" in other threads, making yourself hypocritical to hold me to some ridiculous "philosophical" standard that you yourself do not hold yourself to.

What is this thing that you claim to have philosophicaly presented? That some things are unspeakable? A little obvious don't you think? We have all agreed on this fact from the beginning. My intent is not to speak the unspeakable, it is rather to better understand the Mormon perspective of mysticism. I would actually much rather discuss what it means to "let oneself hear." That to me would be fascinating to hear different perspectives. But you have reduced this thread to a rather boring and obvious discussion about words.

I do have a well thought out view, please do not accuse me of pretending. I have presented it (in perhaps a not well thought out way). I have experienced it personally. I don't know what you think it is that I am trying to do here that I have not done.

Edited November 23, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

duplicate

Edited November 23, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

don't expect your statements to have truth value philosophically

???

As soon as you can get philosophers to agree on what truth is, then we can talk about what "philosophical truth value" might actually mean, because I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't realize that philosophical truth was more valuable than spiritual truth. Truth is one of those areas that would be categorized as "unspeakable". Careful not to talk about it now!

Edited November 23, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

The scriptures are not philosophy, thank God. But in order to understand them one needs to have a philosophical understanding of what they ARE.

The scriptures are words on a page, I don't need philosophy to figure that out. Philosophy cannot figure out what they "ARE" beyond that. If you are talking about understanding what the words actually mean, well, then you are talking about mingling the philosophies of men with scripture. Yeah, not a good idea!

In order to understand them, we need the Spirit, not philosophy. Unless, you are privy to some new doctrine that I am not aware of.

I think that children have a better understanding of scripture than some philosophers.

Edited November 23, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

You attribute to me things I have never said and have no understanding of Wittgenstein or what I am talking about.

You seem like a really nice person and it seems you have a good understanding of spiritual experience, but I am afraid we don't have much to talk about really at least regarding Wittgenstein and his philosophy of language. There is a difference between philosophical discourse and metaphysical discourse and if you read anything about it you will discover that the trend of philosophy in the last 100 years in the US and Britain is to get away from metaphysical discourse. Religion is about metaphysics.

Wittgenstein did not believe that individual words had "meaning" indeed he believed meaning was found in the context of the discourse- or even situation. It is possible to have wordless communication- and words are only one of the parts of communication.

I really don't want to argue about this- there is no point to it. If anyone wants to give an informed opinion regarding what I have said about Wittgenstein and his notion of the "unspeakable" I would love to discuss it further if anyone can give an informed opinion.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited November 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

One cannot define a universal phenomenon, but one can look at specific mystical traditions. We have been saying that all along.

What do you mean by "define"? One can define a universal phenomenon, it may not be a definition that everybody agrees with, but that does not make it a less accurate definition, if it is based in truth. Please read my next post before answering, then you will understand why I want to define it.

Edited November 24, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

You seem like a really nice person and it seems you have a good understanding of spiritual experience, but I am afraid we don't have much to talk about really at least regarding Wittgenstein and his philosophy of language. There is a difference between philosophical discourse and metaphysical discourse and if you read anything about it you will discover that the trend of philosophy in the last 100 years in the US and Britain is to get away from metaphysical discourse. Religion is about metaphysics.

Thanks, you seem nice too!

I admit, I have not read Wittgenstein, I am only going off what little you have shared, and I may have misunderstood you.

If philosophy has no place in religious (metaphysical) discourse, than it has no place here, in a religious forum. I try not to follow trends, unless of course we are talking about currency trading.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, and there is another branch of philosophy called religious philosophy, metaphysics is part of it. It's all a form of philosophy and reasoning, so I'm not sure what you mean exactly, that I cannot speak philosophically about it. I am really not too terribly interested in the nomenclature of philosophical branches, I am interested in discussing mysticism, and what it means to Mormons, metaphysically, or whatever.

In order to do so, we have to define it from a Mormon perspective, so we all know what we are talking about. I like the definition that I offered, I think that it is fairly comprehensive, it is inclusive and exclusive, I haven't heard any disagreements yet. I think it is understandable to the average Mormon.

Like I said, I am more interested in discussing and hearing how others "let themselves hear" do they practice meditation as Pres. Benson encouraged, if so, how? What teachings are there on the subject? How do others pray? How do other's recognize the spirit over their own thoughts? How do they recognize counterfeit? Have other's had experiences similar to mine during meditation, or meditative prayer? What can we learn from non-Mormon mystic traditions, even from tantric sex? Yes, I dare go there I believe that sex is the ultimate symbol of mystic experience. It is an intercourse (communion) with God, it is a oneness, it is standing exposed to your maker, it is an experience and expression of love (hopefully), it is being accepted, it is accepting, it is giving, it is receiving, it is "knowing" biblically speaking, etc. The only thing it is not is long lasting, in my case anyway

Edited November 24, 2012 by pogi

[harfad]

Religion is about metaphysics.

I don't know about you, but my religion is not about metaphysics.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know about you, but my religion is not about metaphysics.

When you show me some experiments scientifically proving spirit matter I will believe you, and then it will be about physics and not before.

Funny, I take my religion on faith- oddly I thought we were here to accept God on faith and by our own subjective experiences of personal revelation.

Silly me. Since you seem to have scientific evidence for Mormonism, why aren't all the atheists instantly converted? Nevermind- it's not worth carrying this on

[volgadon]

That is not confined to “analysing the experience itself”. The impact of mysticism on some cultures or nations goes beyond “literature and art”. It has influenced their moral values, and how they approach and worship God.

Which I pointed out when showing that mysticism tends to be rather dogmatic.

[volgadon]

What do you mean by "define"? One can define a universal phenomenon, it may not be a definition that everybody agrees with, but that does not make it a less accurate definition, if it is based in truth. Please read my next post before answering, then you will understand why I want to define it.

Consensus is neither here nor there. No universal definition is possible because no single definition can adequately and coherently define mysticism without excluding many traditions, or worse, trying to shoehorn traditions into categories which are foreign to their own experiences.

[harfad]

When you show me some experiments scientifically proving spirit matter I will believe you, and then it will be about physics and not before.

Funny, I take my religion on faith- oddly I thought we were here to accept God on faith and by our own subjective experiences of personal revelation.

Silly me. Since you seem to have scientific evidence for Mormonism, why aren't all the atheists instantly converted? Nevermind- it's not worth carrying this on

According to all the dictionaries I have looked at, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. My religion is not a branch of philosophy. It is a self-revelation of God to man. It tells me (with certainty) what God wants me to know, what he wants me to do, and what promises are mine if I do them.

[Nathair/|\]

M. F. Bukowski,

I thought you might enjoy this.

http://www.turoks.net/Cabana/FrenchIntellectualsJoinTheFight.php

[pogi]

Consensus is neither here nor there. No universal definition is possible because no single definition can adequately and coherently define mysticism without excluding many traditions, or worse, trying to shoehorn traditions into categories which are foreign to their own experiences.

I agree, but perhaps you misunderstand my purpose here. I agree that there is no one definition that can find consensus across the board. The fact is that mysticism is not understood within Mormonism. My point is not to gain consensus but to allow Mormons to have intelligible conversations about mysticism within their own culture, and to allow other religions to understand mysticism within the LDS culture. The OP questioned whether mystic experience was even possible within Mormonism because we believe that God has a physical body. In order to demonstrate that it is possible, we have to know what it means to us first. It is not about excluding traditions or shoehorning traditions, it is about stating what we believe. We have a different definition of the Godhead for example, you can find it on LDS.org. We have never in the history of Mormonism attempted to gain consensus with all traditions, we simply state what we believe and allow others to exclude themselves if they wish.

[pogi]

We don't really need a definition, I suppose, for any other purpose than for discourse. I think we all have an idea of what it might mean within Mormonism, we just need to put that idea into words as I have attempted, without attempting to capture the mystery of it. I believe that Mormonism has a vibrant mystic tradition and history. I also believe that we can learn a lot from other traditions (as Joseph Smith suggested), vise versa, but we need to know what we are talking about first.

[pogi]

I want to hear what Volgadon and Bill think of this argument, they are yet to respond, I know that Bukowski believes the same as me. Think of the analogy of the puzzle and the welding:

God, and God's truth, is objective and absolute. If this statement is correct, than one must experience God and objective truth objectively and absolutely in order to be Gods as he is. If it were not so, we could only subjectively be like him, and thus, subjectively be Gods. Our teachings, so far as I understand, are that we can objectively and absolutely be God's, one with God, one in truth, one in word. In order to be one in truth, we must "know" and "experience" the truth objectively and not simply subjectively, or there would be multiple relative and subjective truths and Gods in the family chain of Godhood, and not one objective and absolute truth. We experience manifestations of God objectively, we interpret those experiences, and our overall impression of him subjectively, and relatively. And we forever will, until we objectively and absolutely see the overall puzzle as he sees it, and as he is.

So, I think we are both right, in that we experience manifestations of God both objectively and subjectively. In other words, we feel the same things with each "puzzle piece", but experience it in relation to our tradition. The ultimate goal of the true mystic, as I see it, and as Joseph described, is to lay down the traditions of men in order to gain a proper perspective of God. It is a combination of sacrifice and seeking. Letting oneself hear is laying down traditions of men (laying down ones life in essence) for communion with God - "pray always". The veil is a thick as our worldly traditions.

This will be my last post, I will let you all have the last words. I think that this thread has exhausted itself before we could get into more interesting areas of Mormon mysticism (if it even exists). Thanks for all of your comments from both sides, I have learned new things from each perspective.

Edited November 24, 2012 by pogi

[volgadon]

I want to hear what Volgadon and Bill think of this argument, they are yet to respond, I know that Bukowski believes the same as me. Think of the analogy of the puzzle and the welding:

God, and God's truth, is objective and absolute. If this statement is correct, than one must experience God and objective truth objectively and absolutely in order to be Gods as he is. If it were not so, we could only subjectively be like him, and thus, subjectively be Gods. Our teachings, so far as I understand, are that we can objectively be God's, one with God, one in truth, one in word. In order to be one in truth, we must "know" and "experience" the truth objectively and not simply subjectively, or there would be multiple relative and subjective truths in the family chain of Godhood, and not one objective and absolute truth. We experience manifestations of God objectively, we interpret those experiences, and our overall impression of him subjectively. And we forever will, until we objectively see the overall puzzle as he sees it, and as he is.

I would answer, except I haven't the foggiest of what you mean by any of those words.

Edited November 24, 2012 by volgadon

[Bill Hamblin]

I want to hear what Volgadon and Bill think of this argument, they are yet to respond, I know that Bukowski believes the same as me. Think of the analogy of the puzzle and the welding:

God, and God's truth, is objective and absolute. If this statement is correct, than one must experience God and objective truth objectively and absolutely in order to be Gods as he is. If it were not so, we could only subjectively be like him, and thus, subjectively be Gods. Our teachings, so far as I understand, are that we can objectively and absolutely be God's, one with God, one in truth, one in word. In order to be one in truth, we must "know" and "experience" the truth objectively and not simply subjectively, or there would be multiple relative and subjective truths and Gods in the family chain of Godhood, and not one objective and absolute truth. We experience manifestations of God objectively, we interpret those experiences, and our overall impression of him subjectively, and relatively. And we forever will, until we objectively and absolutely see the overall puzzle as he sees it, and as he is.

So, I think we are both right, in that we experience manifestations of God both objectively and subjectively. In other words, we feel the same things with each "puzzle piece", but experience it in relation to our tradition. The ultimate goal of the true mystic, as I see it, and as Joseph described, is to lay down the traditions of men in order to gain a proper perspective of God. It is a combination of sacrifice and seeking. Letting oneself hear is laying down traditions of men (laying down ones life in essence) for communion with God - "pray always". The veil is a thick as our worldly traditions.

This will be my last post, I will let you all have the last words. I think that this thread has exhausted itself before we could get into more interesting areas of Mormon mysticism (if it even exists). Thanks for all of your comments from both sides, I have learned new things from each perspective.

I think people experience God in many different ways, but mostly "through a glass, darkly," or, in a modern translation, "through an enigmatic mirror."