Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

Of course your view of everything as mysticism is, in fact, just as much a dogma as traditional mystics' beliefs. Your view does not transcend its cultural context either.

[Bill Hamblin]

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

It doesn't. It's not mystical in the slightest.

[pogi]

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?

Should I separate rituals from the experience of God? Why not? I still perform the rituals, and I still experience God distinctly. What's the problem here?

[Nathair/|\]

It doesn't. It's not mystical in the slightest.

Can you go into more detail? I don't know nearly as much about this topic as I should.

[pogi]

Of course your view of everything as mysticism is, in fact, just as much a dogma as traditional mystics' beliefs. Your view does not transcend its cultural context either.

Yes, my views of mysticism being from a universal source may be dogmatic, but my experience of God is not. Again, it is something that happens to me, not something that I do. That's the difference. A spiritual experience is separate, from dogma, belief, ritual, etc. We simply interpret those experiences through such devices.

Edited November 14, 2012 by pogi

[harfad]

What passes off, or claims to be, or other people call mysticism is not always such. Tantric sex is not mysticism. That would be like calling Voodoo, sky diving, and human sacrifice all as part of the experience of true religion, just because some people like to call it such, or may have called it such.

[volgadon]

You are bringing in dogma into the picture

As I mentioned before, mysticism is very dogmatic.

[volgadon]

What passes off, or claims to be, or other people call mysticism is not always such. Tantric sex is not mysticism. That would be like calling Voodoo, sky diving, and human sacrifice all as part of the experience of true religion, just because some people like to call it such, or may have called it such.

You don't actually get to decide.

[harfad]

You don't actually get to decide.

I agree, everyone must decide for himself; like everyone must decide for himself whether Mormonism is the right thing for them or not. The fun starts when the day of reckoning come, and we find out who gets the last laugh.

[Ahab]

Yes, my views of mysticism being from a universal source may be dogmatic, but my experience of God is not. Again, it is something that happens to me, not something that I do. That's the difference.

It can be from something you do and still be a mystic experience, though, as you and God become one. That's what the rituals are all about... you putting yourself in a mindset and attitude so that you can experience God as you become one with God. If you meant it's not something you can do alone, then I agree, but you can be involved and actually need to be involved and pursuing that path before you can experience God... or to be more technically correct, before you can realize that you are experiencing God. God is involved with all of us even though some of us may not realize his involvement or the fact that God is involved.

A spiritual experience is separate, from dogma, belief, ritual, etc. We simply interpret those experiences through such devices.

It might help bolster your argument if you point out that everything good is from God... and everything that leads to anything good is from God. Someone may not even use the word "God", or think of the term/name/title "God", and still be experiencing God. God is in everything good, and everything good is of God.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Ahab

[Ahab]

What passes off, or claims to be, or other people call mysticism is not always such. Tantric sex is not mysticism. That would be like calling Voodoo, sky diving, and human sacrifice all as part of the experience of true religion, just because some people like to call it such, or may have called it such.

I think it's more helpful to describe or explain what mysticism is, more than to say what it is not.

As I understand the term it refers to whatever is involved in a direct and unmediated experience of God, who himself is the literal embodiment of everything and everyone who is good. Thus, if someone has any direct and unmediated experience of anything and/or anyone good, they are having a mystic experience with God.

That's what it is, or what it involves, and it is that even if someone says it is not.

[mfbukowski]

I agree, everyone must decide for himself; like everyone must decide for himself whether Mormonism is the right thing for them or not. The fun starts when the day of reckoning come, and we find out who gets the last laugh.

Oddly, that is not Mormon doctrine. We believe that progression continues past the grave and those who didn't learn what was necessary will learn it later.

I kind of find that incompatible with the idea of there even being a "last laugh". Funny, I thought you were LDS.

Edited November 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Oddly, that is not Mormon doctrine. We believe that progression continues past the grave and those who didn't learn what was necessary will learn it later.

I kind of find that incompatible with the idea of their even being a "last laugh". Funny, I thought you were LDS.

Imagine the look on some people's faces when they find out that we ("Mormons") were right after all, though.

I mean, if they can learn later, some will be learning it then, won't they?

No hard feelings, but won't that be worth at least a chuckle... from either them, or us?

I think it may be so obvious then that they'll wonder why it took them so long.

... or is that not the way you see things going, then ???

[Robert F. Smith]

I think it's more helpful to describe or explain what mysticism is, more than to say what it is not.

As I understand the term it refers to whatever is involved in a direct and unmediated experience of God, who himself is the literal embodiment of everything and everyone who is good. Thus, if someone has any direct and unmediated experience of anything and/or anyone good, they are having a mystic experience with God.

That's what it is, or what it involves, and it is that even if someone says it is not.

Surely you jest in proscribing any other definition than your own -- which is false on its face: It has already been acknowledged on this thread that mysticism does not require a god.

A good place to start in defining "mysticism" and closely associated phenomena, would be to read Joel Funk, “Unanimity and Disagreement Among Transpersonal Psychologists,” chapter 1, in Melvin E. Miller and Susanne R. Cook-Greuter, eds., Transcendence and Mature Thought in Adulthood: The Further Reaches of Adult Development (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1994), online at http://lifwynnfounda...elfunkpaper.pdf .

This sort of thing has been carefully examined: For example, every year for over four decades now (since 1969), there has been the Council Grove Conference (Kansas) founded by Elmer & Alyce Green (two people whom I have had the pleasure to hear in person). It has been sponsored by the Menninger Foundation, and has been attended by the best scholars in the world in fields such as religion and psychology, looking into altered states of consciousness (ASC) and related matters. Once when I visited the Conference back in the 1970s, it was billed as a “transpersonal seminar,” lasting several days, and it was a simultaneously academic and experiential retreat with a variety of “heavy” workshops. Nothing there for beginners or the faint of heart.

Some sources which might be helpful include the following:

Bruce W. Scotton, Allan B. Chinen, and John R. Battista, eds., Textbook of Transpersonal Psychiatry and Psychology (NY: Basic Books, 1996).

Igor V. Limar, “Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement: Schrödinger’s Cat ‘Wanders’ Between Chromosomes,” NeuroQuantology Journal, 9/2 (2011):313-321.

Stanislav Grof, Realms of the Human Unconscious (NY: Viking, 1975).

Robert K. C. Forman, Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1999).

Jess Byron Hollenback, Mysticism: Experience, Response, and Empowerment (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996).

Steven T. Katz, ed., Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis (NY: Oxford University Press, 1978).

Nelson Pike, Mystic Union: An Essay in the Phenomenology of Mysticism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992).

Ann Taves, Religious Experience Reconsidered, A Building-Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things (Princeton University Press, 2009).

Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (NY: Schocken, 1954), online at http://www2.trincoll...JM_Lecture1.pdf

Charles T. Tart, Altered states of consciousness, 3rd ed. (Harper, 1990).

Helmer Ringgren, “Mysticism,” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (Doubleday, 1992), IV:945-946.

At the purely secular level, there are many techniques which can be used to induce altered states of consciousness (ASC), including “inner-active” biofeedback machines, as offered at http://www.catanna.c...owilddivine.htm . Others employ a variety of contemplative or meditative techniques, as for yogis, Buddhists, Christians, Sufis, etc. In the ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern region, another means was available: Initiation into a mystery religion.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), online at http://plato.stanfor...ries/mysticism/ , "Mysticism," and “Mystical” come from Greek myō “to conceal,” and were taken to refer directly to secret religious rituals of the mystery religions of the ancient world. This included not only major religions such as Mithraism and the Eleusinian Rites (and many other pagan religions), but Christianity as well. See, especially Hugh M. Riley, Christian Initiation: A Comparative Study in the Mystagogical Writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ambrose of Milan (Wash., D.C., 1974). The initiate was termed a mystes, the one guiding him was the mystagogue.

See also:

Marvin W. Meyer, “Mystery Religions,” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV:941-945.

Marvin W. Meyer, ed., The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook (San Francisco, 1987).

R. E. Brown,The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament, Facet Books, Biblical Series 21 (Phila., 1968).

Joseph Campbell, ed., The Mysteries, Bollingen Series 30, Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks (Princeton, 1955).

Bruce M. Metzger, “Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity,” in Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, NTTS 8 (Leiden, 1968), 1-24.

R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery-Religions, Pittsburgh Theological Monograph 18 (Pittsburgh, 1978).

All this might help to begin to place the work of Margaret Barker in proper context.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[volgadon]

Marvin W. Meyer, ed., The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook (San Francisco, 1987).

Very fond of this one.

[volgadon]

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), online at http://plato.stanfor...ries/mysticism/ , "Mysticism," and “Mystical” come from Greek myō “to conceal,” and were taken to refer directly to secret religious rituals of the mystery religions of the ancient world. This included not only major religions such as Mithraism and the Eleusinian Rites (and many other pagan religions), but Christianity as well. See, especially Hugh M. Riley, Christian Initiation: A Comparative Study in the Mystagogical Writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ambrose of Milan (Wash., D.C., 1974). The initiate was termed a mystes, the one guiding him was the mystagogue.

See also http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/Knowledge/Jaffee.pdf

[harfad]

Surely you jest in proscribing any other definition than your own -- which is false on its face: It has already been acknowledged on this thread that mysticism does not require a god.

The 12th century Islamic mystics were aware of the Eastern traditions of mysticism of the Indian subcontinent (e.g. Buddhism and Hinduism), where one does not have a God, and the other is "pagan" (i.e. believes in a multiplicity of "false gods" who are not the monotheistic God of Abrahamic religions). The book I had previously referred to by Najm Razi makes a passing reference to them without a detailed discussion, and suggests that they were able, through the exercise of mystical disciplines and practices, to achieve a degree of purification of their hearts, or mortification of their souls, to be able to accomplish extraordinary feats; but that it did not take them to the level of achieving communion with the divine which an Islamic mystic would be able to achieve.

By the way, I have ordered the translation of that book by Hamid Algar, and I will let you know if it is any good when I get it. Judging by what I have read of him on the Internet, he appears to be quite an accomplished individual, and should be capable of making a half decent translation. I think I would recommend it to those who are interested in the subject.

Edited November 15, 2012 by harfad

[pogi]

Based on our fundamental beliefs of God and his relationship and bestowal of light too all, aren't all Mormons neomystical by definition?

Here are some quotes and official statements to support my stance that all Mormons are more closely related to neomysticism than any other form of mysticism:

In 1978 the Church's First Presidency issued an official statement that:

• All human beings are children of God and therefore brothers and sisters

• The only way to obtain a fullness of joy is through the gospel as restored to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

• Everyone will have the opportunity to accept the gospel, if not in mortality, then in the life to come

• Great religious leaders of the world received "a portion of God's light".

• These leaders and others were given moral truths by God "to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."

"While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the Universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; he views them as his offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men." - Joseph Smith

Mormons do not believe that they are the only people inspired by God and so have a tolerant attitude to other faiths.

Although Mormons are certain that their Church teaches the true doctrines of salvation, they don't see it as the only teacher of truth.

“God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them.” - Joseph Smith

“God sees the secret springs of human action, and knows the hearts of all living.” - Joseph Smith

"...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) (This journal entry of Joseph Smith demonstrates that he was indeed a neomystic)

"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth. Let it come from where it may." (An American Prophets Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 395.)

"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 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 selected by John A Widtsoe, p. 2)

All fruits of the spirit are from God. We are not the only ones entitled to these fruits, nor are we the only ones who display them. The testimonies of mystics of other beliefs, ritual, dogma, and practice, prove to me that they are experiencing the same fruits from the same source that I am.

Edited November 15, 2012 by pogi

[Bill Hamblin]

The question of whether or not great religious leaders were inspired has nothing to do with mysticism--a word not mentioned in the First Presidency statement IIRC. The problem here, as it has been throughout this discussion--and as I pointed out at the beginning--is the problem of definition. And many people are using their own idiosyncratic definition of mysticism. One says all forms of inspiration are mysticism. Another says only those forms of mysticism that he agrees with are true mysticism. This is obviously going nowhere fast.

But, granting that God inspired many great religious leaders does not mean he inspired all of them. (Some, I am confident, have been religious frauds.) And the fact that many great religious leaders are inspired does not mean everything they taught was inspired. And it certainly doesn't that all their inspiration was mystical, unless one insists on equating inspiration with mysticism--something I absolutely reject. While mystic experience can be a type of inspiration, in by no means implies that all forms of inspiration are mystical. This creates a definition for mysticism that is so ambiguous, amorphous and vague as to be rendered fundamentally meaningless. While mysticism may be a type of inspiration, it is by no means the only type of possible inspiration.

[mfbukowski]

The question of whether or not great religious leaders were inspired has nothing to do with mysticism--a word not mentioned in the First Presidency statement IIRC. The problem here, as it has been throughout this discussion--and as I pointed out at the beginning--is the problem of definition. And many people are using their own idiosyncratic definition of mysticism. One says all forms of inspiration are mysticism. Another says only those forms of mysticism that he agrees with are true mysticism. This is obviously going nowhere fast.

But, granting that God inspired many great religious leaders does not mean he inspired all of them. (Some, I am confident, have been religious frauds.) And the fact that many great religious leaders are inspired does not mean everything they taught was inspired. And it certainly doesn't that all their inspiration was mystical, unless one insists on equating inspiration with mysticism--something I absolutely reject. While mystic experience can be a type of inspiration, in by no means implies that all forms of inspiration are mystical. This creates a definition for mysticism that is so ambiguous, amorphous and vague as to be rendered fundamentally meaningless. While mysticism may be a type of inspiration, it is by no means the only type of possible inspiration.

Exactly!

[pogi]

The question of whether or not great religious leaders were inspired has nothing to do with mysticism--a word not mentioned in the First Presidency statement IIRC. The problem here, as it has been throughout this discussion--and as I pointed out at the beginning--is the problem of definition. And many people are using their own idiosyncratic definition of mysticism. One says all forms of inspiration are mysticism. Another says only those forms of mysticism that he agrees with are true mysticism. This is obviously going nowhere fast.

But, granting that God inspired many great religious leaders does not mean he inspired all of them. (Some, I am confident, have been religious frauds.) And the fact that many great religious leaders are inspired does not mean everything they taught was inspired. And it certainly doesn't that all their inspiration was mystical, unless one insists on equating inspiration with mysticism--something I absolutely reject. While mystic experience can be a type of inspiration, in by no means implies that all forms of inspiration are mystical. This creates a definition for mysticism that is so ambiguous, amorphous and vague as to be rendered fundamentally meaningless. While mysticism may be a type of inspiration, it is by no means the only type of possible inspiration.

Why would one divine inspiration qualify as mystic and another not qualify? Who made the rules? If you think that equating all inspiration with mysticism renders it meaningless, then perhaps we should render it meaningless. I, for one, refuse to qualify one truth as mystic and another truth as merely inspiration, so as to devalue it in some way. One truth cannot survive without the other, it is all one great whole. All truth originates from the same God (from a Mormon perspective). All truth is light. God is truth. If you are telling me that only certain inspiration qualifies as mystic, I reject the whole concept of mysticism as an attempt to divide the light, and thus divide God.

Edited November 15, 2012 by pogi

[Ahab]

Surely you jest in proscribing any other definition than your own -- which is false on its face: It has already been acknowledged on this thread that mysticism does not require a god.

I've been talking in context of the OP, using Miser's idea of mysticism. It includes that too, so you shouldn't be ruling it out.

[pogi]

The problem here, as it has been throughout this discussion--and as I pointed out at the beginning--is the problem of definition. And many people are using their own idiosyncratic definition of mysticism.

What is your definition?

Edited November 15, 2012 by pogi

[Ahab]

Why would one divine inspiration qualify as mysticism and another not qualify?

I don't think that's what he meant. I think he meant some people get inspiration from God and add their own ideas to God's ideas so that what they come out with is a bit from God and a bit from themselves and the bit from themselves may not be what is true, or of God. And as Robert pointed out, some people don't get any inspiration from God on an issue and the thoughts they come up with are false while they still refer ot that as mysticism.

If you think that equating all inspiration with mysticism renders it meaningless, then perhaps we should render it meaningless.

Heh, why do what he wants? If he wants to render it meaningless to him that doesn't mean you should.

I, for one, refuse to qualify one truth as mystic and another truth as merely inspiration, so as to devalue it in some way.

Truth is truth, but not all truth is good or about something good. There is also a lot of truth concerning evil.

One truth cannot survive without the other, it is all one great whole.

Yes but that doesn't mean you need to aborb all truth concerning evil. You can focus on only what is good while knowing evil is simply the opposite.

All truth originates from the same God (from a Mormon perspective). All truth is light. God is truth.

Do you seriously believe truth concerning evil is good, or light, or the way things actually are? Evil is an imitation of good, and not a good imitation. I'm sure Satan would be very pleased to think that you think what he tells you is good, but there is a difference between good and evil and the truth about evil is that it's not good.

If you are telling me that only certain inspiration qualifies as mystic, I reject the whole concept of mysticism as an attempt to divide the light, and thus divide God.

Think of it this way: Mystics can either be involved in gaining knowledge of God, or of Satan, or of only their own thoughts as they ponder and meditate and try to get in touch with either their own self or with God or with Satan. All of that is what is referred to as mysticism, and all of that isn't what I would call good.

[mfbukowski]

My understanding which perhaps coheres with Bill's would be that "mysticism" (the word) covers many many types of religious experiences some of which may be generated by the unconscious, drugs, mental states etc, and some of which might be "from God" and some not. Spiritually one might argue that one might have a "spiritual" experience induced by say, demons and I think that would be the view of some medievals for example about mystics who use sexual rituals.

I think the term "inspiration" is used here to mean "genuine inspiration from God", and indeed I might use it the same way myself. Of course one man's "inspiration" might be another man's "demon possession" and that is the problem which arises.

But I think in terms of definitions only, what is being said is that the word "mysticism" would apply to all forms of spiritual experience reports and is such a vague term as to be virtually meaningless, whereas "inspiration" would refer to a smaller set of experiences within the larger set of "mystical" experiences which would be regarded by the speaker as "genuine" or derived from God.

So "inspiration" means "genuine experience from God" within the speakers context and "mysticism" would be the larger set of experiences alleged to be from God including those from other causes, "genuine" or not.

That is just my understanding of how the definitions are being used.