Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[Bill Hamblin]

They had the same experience of watching a movie. If watching movies was a supernatural event, they would indeed relate to each other through a common experience, even if God showed them different movies. Who claimed that God has just one movie to show? The fact that they both claim to experience these same "types" of supernatural events is telling.

Not all people who practice rituals have spiritual experiences. There is a difference. I recognize that these spiritual experiences are often tied to ritual, but not always. The fact that they recognize a spiritual experience amidst often benign ritual, shows that they recognize the experience as something separate and unique from the ritual itself. Unless you consider sleep a ritual, or walking down the road on your way to destroy Christians (Paul) a ritual, you can't claim that they never differentiate the two.

And I wouldn't call Paul's experience mystical. It is visionary. Paul certainly didn't claim to be at one with God during his vision on the road to Damascus. More conflation going on here.

[pogi]

And I wouldn't call Paul's experience mystical. It is visionary. Paul certainly didn't claim to be at one with God during his vision on the road to Damascus. More conflation going on here.

OK, I'll give you that. (Even though I consider visions to be mystical experiences. He became one with God as a result of the experience, and claimed "knowledge" of God) That doesn't diminish from my argument.

I just noticed that you posted once before this. Give me a moment to respond.

Edited November 14, 2012 by pogi

[Ahab]

And I wouldn't call Paul's experience mystical. It is visionary. Paul certainly didn't claim to be at one with God during his vision on the road to Damascus. More conflation going on here.

Paul was one with God in that instance, in at least some sense.

What was God doing or thinking that Paul wasn't also experiencing?

If mysticism is all about having a direct unmediated experience with God, as Mis said it was, what part of that expierence was not a direct unmediated experience with God, in your perspective?

[volgadon]

Hmm, more like my reading the Master and Margarita, Bill watching Skyfall, and Pogi listening to NPR, then claiming that we all had the same experience because all three activities involved a mass medium that stimulated neurological functions.

[Bill Hamblin]

To claim that any and every sense of the divine, all visions, each spiritual experience is mystical is such a broad usage of the term as to render it meaningless.

Mystics experiences are one form of encountering God, but not the only way.

[Ahab]

Hmm, more like my reading the Master and Margarita, Bill watching Skyfall, and Pogi listening to NPR, then claiming that we all had the same experience because all three activities involved a mass medium that stimulated neurological functions.

It depends on how nit picky you want to be, I guess.

I think it's quite a stretch to say one experience has "nothing" to do with another experience. At some basic level all things are one already.

[Ahab]

To claim that any and every sense of the divine, all visions, each spiritual experience is mystical is such a broad usage of the term as to render it meaningless.

No, the term mystic or mysticism actually means something, even if all things can be considered one with God in some sense.

Mystics experiences are one form of encountering God, but not the only way.

The form is the form where they become one with God as God is one with all things, and even if you can subdivide that one way into many ways we're still talking about that one way at some level.

[pogi]

I said most traditional mystics don't separate their mystical experiences from the path/ritual that brought them to that experience. That is not to say the two are never distinct.

At any rate, I find it incredibly puzzling that Neomystics insist that differences in the content of the mystical experience is unimportant and even distracting. For most traditional mystics the content is the experience. They can't be separated. It's a package deal. The esoteric teachings, the master, the lifestyle, the ritual, the intellection, the substance of the mystical experience are all inseparably connected. Neomystics want to separate all of these elements because if you take them all seriously as part of an undifferentiatable phenomena, it undermines the Neomystical presuppositions that all mysticism is ultimately one.

I am yet to meet another Mormon with the same spiritual experiences as mine. We have the same "types" of experiences. We can even have fundamentally different views of doctrine and yet belong to the same faith and claim faith in the same God.

I don't see why it is so hard to grasp that until we know God in his fulness (rather than just knowing that he exisits), we will all have different beliefs about Him and His doctrine, even within the same faith.

[Ahab]

I am yet to meet another Mormon with the same spiritual experiences as mine.

Hello, I'm Ahab. Nice to meet you.

We have the same "types" of experiences.

What do you see as the difference?

We can even have fundamentally different views of doctrine and yet belong to the same faith and claim faith in the same God.

Many views and perspectives can be part of the one way we can all experience God. Many levels or degrees, but the one way.

I don't see why it is so hard to grasp that until we know God in his fulness (rather than just knowing that he exisits), we will all have different beliefs about Him and His doctrine, even within the same faith.

I don't find that hard to grasp. What makes you think some people do? And what do you mean by the "same" faith?

[pogi]

Hello, I'm Ahab. Nice to meet you.

What do you see as the difference?

Many views and perspectives can be part of the one way we can all experience God. Many levels or degrees, but the one way.

I don't find that hard to grasp. What makes you think some people do? And what do you mean by the "same" faith?

Nice to meet you too.

I think you are making the same argument as me. It's nice to meet another "neomystic"!

The "differences" that others claim are specific dreams etc. My claim is that while they are not the same exact experience, they are the same "type" of experience (spiritual in nature) coming from the same source.

In this context I meant "faith" as religion.

[Bill Hamblin]

I am yet to meet another Mormon with the same spiritual experiences as mine. We have the same "types" of experiences. We can even have fundamentally different views of doctrine and yet belong to the same faith and claim faith in the same God.

I don't see why it is so hard to grasp that until we know God in his fulness (rather than just knowing that he exisits), we will all have different beliefs about Him and His doctrine, even within the same faith.

Of course.

But that doesn't mean that when Mahadeviyakka has a vision of Shiva it is the same thing as Bernard having a vision of the Virgin Mary.

[Bill Hamblin]

Let me put it this way. Would it have made any difference if Paul had had a vision of the Buddha on the road to Damascus? Would it have made any difference if Vishnu had appeared to the Nephites at the temple at Bountiful?

[pogi]

[

Let me put it this way. Would it have made any difference if Paul had had a vision of the Buddha on the road to Damascus? Would it have made any difference if Vishnu had appeared to the Nephites at the temple at Bountiful?

Not in the eternal perspective of things, if that's the way God wanted it. If that's what God wanted to show Paul, there was a reason for it. But that's not the way it happened, because that's not the way it was supposed to happen, or it would have happened that way. In the end, all beliefs will converge into one, and we will all come to face our maker. He prepares us all individually as we are able to bear it in his own way. I believe that he teaches us eternal truths through what we already know in our own cultures. Perhaps Mahadeviakka was doing more good for the purposes of God as a Hindu mystic than as a prophet of God. In Mormonism, we believe that people of other beliefs and faiths are called and lead by God to bring about his purposes through other means than Mormonism. There were many people led by God to prepare the way for the restoration of the gospel. They will eventually get their chance to be baptized and accept the true God, which they will do becuase they will recognize him from their experiences with Him, not their rituals.

Edited November 14, 2012 by pogi

[volgadon]

Again, you are describing the ritual, not so much the experience. For example: Tantric Hindu mystics physical sex while experiencing oneness with God. Physical sex - ritual. Oneness with God - experience. Medieval Christians and Tantric Hindus thus relate to the experience if not the ritual.

As MFB noted, Medieval Christians would not have related to the Tantric's experience. Due to the means for producing it- physical sex- they would have considered the Tantric's experience demonic.

[pogi]

As MFB noted, Medieval Christians would not have related to the Tantric's experience. Due to the means for producing it- physical sex- they would have considered the Tantric's experience demonic.

The sex was ritual, the experience of God was not. I can experience God during sex, eating food, walking my dog, driving my car, listening to music. The experience of God is the experience of God, not the ritual we happen to be doing at the time.

If medieval Christians asked, what were your experiences besides the normal climactic sensations of sex? The actual experience of God I am sure they could relate with.

[mfbukowski]

[

Not in the eternal perspective of things, if that's the way God wanted it. If that's what God wanted to show Paul, there was a reason for it. But that's not the way it happened, because that's not the way it was supposed to happen, or it would have happened that way. In the end, all beliefs will converge into one, and we will all come to face our maker. He prepares us all individually as we are able to bear it in his own way. I believe that he teaches us eternal truths through what we already know in our own cultures. Perhaps Mahadeviakka was doing more good for the purposes of God as a Hindu mystic than as a prophet of God. In Mormonism, we believe that people of other beliefs and faiths are called and lead by God to bring about his purposes through other means than Mormonism. There were many people led by God to prepare the way for the restoration of the gospel. They will eventually get their chance to be baptized and accept the true God, which they will do becuase they will recognize him from their experiences with Him, not their rituals.

I have no problem with speaking and thinking this way as long as one acknowledges that there is no possible way to show that this is "true" in any sense; it is strictly metaphysical speculation. And I have no problem with that either as long as we know what it is. It is the logical equivalent of pure romantic poetry, which is fine with me. If it allows one to grow closer to Christ then it has value.

Philosophically and logically however, this position is unsustainable. One might say "so what"?

Indeed, so what? It is what it is and should be appreciated for what it is, not condemned for what it is not. The problem arises when one insists that it is what it is not.

Edited November 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If medieval Christians asked, what were your experiences besides the normal climactic sensations of sex? The actual experience of God I am sure they could relate with.

No they could not. To even think this proves that you do not understand anything about the medieval mind.

[volgadon]

Unless you consider sleep a ritual

Not all dreams were considered a revelation or experience of God. Jews, for instance, considered some dreams to be mere dreams, while others were demonic delusions. Those dreams that were a revelation or experience of God tended to be occur in one of two ways. Either the dream was brought about by specific rituals (such as the procedures for the "dream question" which are best seen in the text known as "Responsa From Heaven"), or it was the result of the degree of holiness attained by specific beliefs and rituals, as can be seen by the traditions about the Vilna Gaon and his studies.

[pogi]

I have no problem with speaking and thinking this way as long as one acknowledges that there is no possible way to show that this is "true" in any sense; it is strictly metaphysical speculation. And I have no problem with that either as long as we know what it is. It is the logical equivalent of pure romantic poetry, which is fine with me. If it allows one to grow closer to Christ then it has value.

Philosophically and logically however, this position is unsustainable. One might say "so what"?

Indeed, so what? It is what it is and should be appreciated for what it is, not condemned for what it is not. The problem arises when one insists that it is what it is not.

I think that this position is sustainable on the basis that there is one true God.

Of course, getting us to agree on that basis is another story.

[pogi]

No they could not. To even think this proves that you do not understand anything about the medieval mind.

Who could not? The Christians? You are missing my point. The point is that if the Hindus described their experience without including the normal sensations of sex (or even mentioning the word or act of sex), but only included the experience which was distinct from the sex, the Christians would relate to that experience of God. Which is separate from the sex, or we would all feel that way every time we have sex.

[volgadon]

Who could not? The Christians? You are missing my point. The point is that if the Hindus described their experience without including the normal sensations of sex (or even mentioning the word or act of sex), but only included the experience which was distinct from the sex, the Christians would relate to that experience of God. Which is separate from the sex, or we would all feel that way every time we have sex.

The Christians, though, would be sure to ask how the experience was brought about. They did believe in the idea of demonic counterfeit, so this goes back to what Bill and I were saying. You can't separate the experience from the beliefs and rituals.

[Bill Hamblin]

I happened to be teaching the section on mysticism in my world history class today. I recorded it for those who want to know how I try to explain mysticism to general education undergraduates:

[pogi]

The Christians, though, would be sure to ask how the experience was brought about. They did believe in the idea of demonic counterfeit, so this goes back to what Bill and I were saying. You can't separate the experience from the beliefs and rituals.

I can separate the experience from the beliefs and rituals, that means that others are capable of doing the same.

You are bringing in dogma into the picture which skews the actual experience of God. We recognize the spirit by it's fruits - charity, humility, etc. I think that is pretty universal.

[Nathair/|\]

Where does the prophetic summons before the divine council fit into this situation?

[volgadon]

I can separate the experience from the beliefs and rituals, that means that others are capable of doing the same.

You are bringing in dogma into the picture which skews the actual experience of God. We recognize the spirit by it's fruits - charity, humility, etc. I think that is pretty universal.

I know you can. I could take a baseball bat to a Sevres vase, but should I?

Never let details get in the way of a nice theory, right?