Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[pogi]

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.

Bill said: "And it certainly doesn't (mean) 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."

Bukowski, it sounds like you are interpreting Bill as saying that all inspiration is mystical, but not all mystic experience is inspiration. That's not what I am understanding from his above quote.

[pogi]

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

Not all truth is good?

I am the way, the truth, and the life, John 14:6

Whatsoever is truth is light, D&C 84:45

The light of Christ is the light of truth, D&C 88:6–7, 40

My Spirit is truth, D&C 88:66

The glory of God is intelligence, or light and truth, D&C 93:36

The Comforter was sent forth to teach the truth, D&C 50:14

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.

Yes, I seriously do believe that the truth concerning evil is good, and light. The truth concerning evil is that it is evil. The untruth concerning evil is that it is good. The truth concerning evil is that it is not truth. The untruth concerning evil is that it is truth.

Edited November 16, 2012 by pogi

[harfad]

What is your definition?

Good question. And thank you pogi for your remaining contributions; a breath of fresh air, as they say.

[volgadon]

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.

Right, yet another nail in the coffin of universal mysticism. Does a Sufi experience God as a mystic, or does he experience God as a Sufi?

[volgadon]

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

How is that an example of mysticism?

[volgadon]

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.

Not a terribly useful definition, either, as many forms of mysticism- particularly those influenced by Neoplatonism- have God mediated by different emanations and such.

[volgadon]

I forgot that I had this book. From the preface to Ahmet T. Karamustafa's "Sufism: The Formative Period," p. vii.

‘Mysticism’ has been a highly popular category in the academic study of religion since the beginning of the twentieth century. During the last few decades, however, the category has come under widespread criticism for its essentialist assumptions. The claim that mystical experiences are at once private, unmediated and ineffable yet universally present in all human religiosity has been exposed as a modern Euro-American construction with a peculiar history of its own, and ‘mysticism was returned to the conditioning webs of history, culture, and language’ by its new critics.1 More recently, the same criticism was also extended to ‘spirituality’, the category that has come to enjoy widespread popularity during the last quarter-century.2 As a result, any historically uncontextualised use of mysticism or spirituality as if these were self-evident, uncontested, and universally applicable categories now appears problematic and even unwarranted, if not downright naive.

But if it is no longer possible to view mysticism and spirituality as general analytical categories abstracted from historical and cultural context, what can be said about the study of the ‘mystical and spiritual dimensions’ of individual religious traditions? What is the relevance of the historicist criticism for the academic scrutiny of religion-specificc mysticisms and spiritualities? The answer lies in acknowledging the primacy of the ‘conditioning webs’ of history and culture also at this level. Each religious tradition can certainly be said to contain mystical and spiritual dimensions, yet the exact content and meaning of these dimensions should not be conceived as unchanging essences; instead, the mystical and the spiritual need to be discovered, described and analysed in particular contexts.

In the study of Sufism, often described as the major mystical tradition within Islam, essentialising approaches that postulate an unchanging core to all Sufi phenomena have certainly occupied a prominent place, yet historical and philological approaches that direct proper attention to historical context have been in place long before the onset of historicist and constructivist criticism and can hardly be characterised as marginal.3

[harfad]

Right, yet another nail in the coffin of universal mysticism. Does a Sufi experience God as a mystic, or does he experience God as a Sufi?

The answer is both. It is like asking, "Does a Catholic experience God as a Catholic or as a Christian?" The answer is both.

[Robert F. Smith]

See also http://hsf.bgu.ac.il...edge/Jaffee.pdf

Thanks.

Hadn't thought of this possibility at all, i.e., a de facto rabbinic sacramentalism.

[Robert F. 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)

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.

I am still wondering what your definition of mysticism is. Indeed, I cannot tell from your Joseph Smith quotation just what "neo-mysticism" might be. Could you help me out?

[Jude2]

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:

[media=]

Br. Hamblin

Enjoyed your lecture and found myself thinking ahead of you, you kept verifying what I was thinking.

Everyone else seems to be beating around the bush here so I’ll say it out loud; if God has an instrument then Satan copycats it in some way. When God gives us a Urim and Thummim then Satan copycats that with a crystal ball. This type of mediation or trance state is the copycat for real pondering and praying.

Sometime ago I saw on PBS a study done on the brainwaves of people who go into trances. They took Tibetan monks plus others and hooked them up to some brain scanning type of gadget and watched their brains as they went into a trance.

They said we have an awareness of knowing where we are in a room because our senses of sight, touch and hearing places us in the context of the room. As an experience monk moves deeper and deeper into his trance these senses shut down, they found there will be no brain reaction to a crying baby. The conclusion was this caused the sensation of floating or being out of body.

My experiences with what one might call ‘mystical’ have always been when I was perfectly awake and not really expecting it at the moment. There have also been group experiences where the workings of the Spirit is felt at the same time.

This Neoplatonic mysticism can’t have that kind of experience.

I found this website which talks about the experiment and a Buddhist monk explained ; "We tried to generate a mental state in which compassion permeates the whole mind with no other thoughts”. My sarcastic side was wondering how one can claim a state of compassion when there is no reaction to a crying baby?

http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/News/Meditation_Alters_Brain_WSJ_11-04.htm

[Ahab]

Not all truth is good?

I am the way, the truth, and the life, John 14:6

Whatsoever is truth is light, D&C 84:45

The light of Christ is the light of truth, D&C 88:6–7, 40

My Spirit is truth, D&C 88:66

The glory of God is intelligence, or light and truth, D&C 93:36

The Comforter was sent forth to teach the truth, D&C 50:14

I get all of that, but it still doesn't sit right to me to think of evil as something that's good, and it is true that evil is truly evil.

Yes, I seriously do believe that the truth concerning evil is good, and light.

No, the truth concerning evil is that evil isn't good or light, speaking of evil itself.

The truth concerning evil is that it is evil.

Right, and that's not good, even though it is true... again, speaking of evil itself.

The untruth concerning evil is that it is good.

Right, so the truth concerning evil is that it's not good... true, but not good.

The truth concerning evil is that it is not truth.

But it is true that there is evil, and the evil is truly not good. That is some truth which is not good... or in other words, the truth about evil is that that truth is not good. Or in other words, it's bad that evil exists, even though both sides must exist because there must needs be opposition in all things. One side is good, and the other is not, and the truth of evil will never be good.

The untruth concerning evil is that it is truth.

But it is true that there is evil. In other words, truth is divided into 2 opposing sides, one side which is good while the other is evil. Both are truth, on one side or the other, but only one side is good while the other is evil. In other words, not all truth is good.

Our Lord is still the truth, though. He's just the good side of it, though, rather than the evil side of what is true.

[pogi]

I am still wondering what your definition of mysticism is. Indeed, I cannot tell from your Joseph Smith quotation just what "neo-mysticism" might be. Could you help me out?

Mysticism as defined by the OP (I like this definition) - The knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, or levels of being, or aspects of reality, beyond normal human perception, sometimes including experience of and communion with a supreme being.

Bill may not like that definition as it is not all inclusive of every tradition. I, on the other hand, believe that it is all inclusive (wether they see it that way or not), as I believe Joseph Smith would also view it that way. I'll explain.

Neo-mysticism as defined by Bill (I happen to like this definition too) - The belief that all mystical experiences are “ultimately one,” and thus somehow in essence are “the same”

Bill continues - A Muslim, Christian, or Jewish mystic believes that their mystical experience represents an authentic encounter with God. The Neomystics (along with the secularists), on the other hand, claim that the traditional mystics have fundamentally misunderstood their own mystical experience.

I personally believe that an experience with God can be both authentic and misunderstood. It happens all of the time within our own church. we are given piece by piece, line upon line, here a little and there a little. Sometimes we don't know what God is saying until we see all the pieces put together.

The quotes that I gave earlier, support the stance that Mormonism is perhaps more closely related to neomysticism than any other form of mysticism. Two quotes:

"These leaders (other sects and beliefs) and others were given moral truths by God "to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals." (Official statement of first presidency) This is a very neo-mystic belief and does qualify as mystic experience from the above definition. "Enlighten", "Higher level of understanding."

"...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 too is a very neo-mystic belief. Joseph Smith did not limit mysticism to ritual or creed. He saw God in the experience, not the practice or culture, and he saw God's manifestations within perhaps every culture.

Traditional mystics, as I understand from Bill, accept their mystical practices and experience as authentic while rejecting others as authentic. Joseph Smith clearly rejected this view of mysticism. Rather, he accepted God and truth in every culture, practice, belief, wherever it may come from. He did not claim to hold the keys of all truth, rather, he held the keys to the restoration of all truth. From wherever it may come. This is not to say that he believed that all professed mystical experiences were truly mystical (inspired by God). To be a true mystic experience, there must be divinity found in its fingerprint (this is the way the OP defined mysticism, and I believe form his teaching, that JS would have agreed). Joseph Smith saw God's fingerprint outside of Mormonism. I think that Joseph Smith would have cautioned however that just as there are true and false prophets, there are also true and false mystics.

For example, a traditional theistic mystic might reject atheistic Buddhist mysticism as uninspired as they do not accredit the experience to diety. Mormons might not be so quick to judge, due to Joseph Smiths teaching. I have personally deepened my relationship with God and furthered personal revelation by studying Buddhist mindfulness and Benedictine contemplation more than from studying about western views of prayer. I recognize God in their experiences from my own experiences with Him. By finding truth in others practices and beliefs, and incorporating it into what we already know, our perspective of the divine is enlarged. Joseph Smith has given me this freedom of perspective from his neomystic teachings.

While searching the net, I came across this, I think you might find it insightful. I have taken snip-its. It is a senior thesis from Jared Hickman at Bowdoin on Joseph Smith as a New World Baroque figure:

Hickman uses the welding metaphor Joseph utilizes in D&C 128 to describe Joseph’s project to weld all humanity together in union. I think Welding Theology touches on a number of fields and ways of conceiving Joseph’s theological project as welding all things together in one, but in a particular, specialized way. This is what Hickman says:

“[Joseph Smith sought to] chronologically weld past and present, sociologically weld ‘the family of Adam,’ cosmologically weld heaven and earth, and epistemologically/discursively weld all human knowledge.” (very neo-mystic)

So his welding theology was a type of encylcopedism, what might be called an encyclopedic circumscription that attempted to encompass or circumscribe the entire universe (neomystic). The circumscription utilized here is geometrical, not delimiting and homogenized. In geometry to circumscribe is to draw one figure around another, touching it at points but not cutting it. This is the sort of circumscription, whereby “all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole,” (neomystic) that might describe Joseph’s welding of the various disparate elements of the past and present, heaven and earth, all human knowledge, family of Adam, etc. Hickman probably puts it better:

“Welding does not entail a pat assimilation of difference, but it does entail an intense affirmation of relatedness. It does not imply a myopic ethnocentrism, but it does imply a strategic universalism. Indeed, welding both preserves plurality and posits universality.” (neomystic)

So I see here a particular method of bringing all things into relation (an at-one-ment) that both preserves and connects, infinitely. In love. (neomystic)

(http://mormonphiloso...ctory-overview/)

Edited November 17, 2012 by pogi

[harfad]

I get all of that, but it still doesn't sit right to me to think of evil as something that's good, and it is true that evil is truly evil.

He did not say that evil is good. He said that truth about evil is good. You had said that truth about evil is not good. I agree with him that truth about evil is good.

[harfad]

"He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things." (D&C 93:28)

That means truth about evil as well as truth about good.

[pogi]

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

How is that an example of mysticism?

It's not, really. It's more of a description of what it is, or how it is, rather.

God does not look upon the outward appearance (rituals, and adherence to creed) as man does, rather, God looks upon the heart. God enlightens our minds and hearts based upon the adherence we give to the light that we have, rather than the culture that we happened to be born into. This does not devalue or discredit religious practice and observance, rather it gives it meaning (instead of the other way around). In other words, light should give meaning to ritual and practice. For many mystics, on the other hand, ritual and creed give meaning to light.

Joseph Smith said -"I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen [see D&C 121:40]."

Joseph Smith was attempting to prepare these early saints for further and deeper mystic experiences with God. Unfortunately, they often allowed their traditions (rituals and creed) to interpret the light (and often reject it), instead of allowing the light itself to teach and guide.

Edited November 17, 2012 by pogi

[Ahab]

He did not say that evil is good. He said that truth about evil is good. You had said that truth about evil is not good. I agree with him that truth about evil is good.

Would it help if I called it evil truth? I'm talking about the truth of evil.

Evil ain't good, and that is the truth. Hence, the truth of evil is not good.

It may sound weird to you, but toss it around in your mind for a while.

There is nothing about evil which is good, including the truth about evil.

[pogi]

Would it help if I called it evil truth? I'm talking about the truth of evil.

Evil ain't good, and that is the truth. Hence, the truth of evil is not good.

It may sound weird to you, but toss it around in your mind for a while.

There is nothing about evil which is good, including the truth about evil.

Ahab,

You said it perfectly, "evil aint good and that's the truth" That statement about evil is indeed true and therefore good. The opposite, "evil aint good and that's a lie" would clearly be "not good." Hence the truth, rather than the lie, about evil is good. If the truth about evil helps us to recognize and avoid evil, than it is good.

Put another way - only one statement can be true and good, you decide which it is: "The truth about evil is good" or "The untruth about evil is good"

What is the untruth about evil? That it is good. We know that is a lie. Therefore, the opposite must be true and good.

John 8:44 - You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

D&C 84:45 - Whatsoever is truth is light.

If evil is truth, than the conclusion that we would have to make from D&C 84:45, is that evil is light. So, we have to cast away your claims that evil is truth on the basis that evil is not light. Also on the basis that there is no truth in the devil. The devil is evil.

Edited November 17, 2012 by pogi

[Ahab]

Put another way - only one statement can be true and good, you decide which it is: "The truth about evil is good" or "The untruth about evil is good"

What is the untruth about evil? That it is good.

And what is the truth about evil? That's it's not good. Do you see now? The "truth" about evil is the "not good" stuff.

Caveman say: Evil not good. Truth. Yes. Truth of evil not good. Never.

We know that is a lie. Therefore, the opposite must be true and good.

Just tell me what is truth about evil. Good, or not good. You say now. Me knows it is evil, not good, and that is the truth about all things evil.

John 8:44 - You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Not good, huh.

D&C 84:45 - Whatsoever is truth is light.

Evil not light. Evil darkness. Evil bad. Evil not good... and I'm talking about all truth regarding evil.

If evil is truth, than the conclusion that we would have to make from D&C 84:45, is that evil is light. So, we have to cast away your claims that evil is truth on the basis that evil is not light. Also on the basis that there is no truth in the devil. The devil is evil.

What is truth of evil? Good or not good (evil). You say now. Is the truth of evil good or not good? It is not good.

[harfad]

There is nothing about evil which is good, including the truth about evil.

All truth is good, including truth about evil. You are making truth about evil an attribute of evil. It is not. It is an attribute of truth.

Edited November 17, 2012 by harfad

[pogi]

No one is denying here that evil is not good. We are denying that evil is truth.

In caveman, evil not light, so, evil not truth. Read D&C 84:45 over.

Edited November 17, 2012 by pogi

[Ahab]

No one is denying here that evil is not good. We are denying that evil is truth.

No, you were denying that the truth about evil is not good, or at least that's what I thought you were saying.

Put simply, all truth is not good, because some truth is about stuff that's not good.

In caveman, evil not light, so, evil not truth. Read D&C 84:45 over.

Ooooh, I like that. Evil not truth. There is still truth about evil and that stuff about evil is bad, though. That's what I'm saying.

Just because something is true doesn't mean you should cal it good. Truth about evil? Not good.

[DarkScythe]

No one is denying here that evil is not good. We are denying that evil is truth.

In caveman, evil not light, so, evil not truth. Read D&C 84:45 over.

Evil is a truth. Understanding what is evil and what is good is the beginning of Wisdom. All Truth(good netural or evil) will lead to Wisdom. And Wisdom is a starting place to understand God. For God is knowledge of all truths and wisdom.

[pogi]

One last attempt then I am done arguing about this tangent. Ill be happy to respond to any comments about my post #288.

Evil is real as darkness is real. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of truth, for truth is light. There is no such thing as neutral and evil truth. You cannot ignore scripture. Whatsoever it truth is light, whatsoever is light is good, whatsoever is good is of God. Evil has no part in God, therefore evil has no part in truth, for God said "I am the truth." What truth is there besides THE truth?

Edited November 17, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

One last attempt then I am done arguing about this tangent. Ill be happy to respond to any comments about my post #288.

Evil is real as darkness is real. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of truth, for truth is light. There is no such thing as neutral and evil truth. You cannot ignore scripture. Whatsoever it truth is light, whatsoever is light is good, whatsoever is good is of God. Evil has no part in God, therefore evil has no part in truth, for God said "I am the truth." What truth is there besides THE truth?

Not exactly.

The actual quote is John 14:6

1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Jesus is saying he is the "true path" to the Father. People are not truths, Beings are not truths. Truth is a property of sentences or beliefs- what he is saying is that belief in him as the messenger of the true gospel leads one to the Father.

Truth is not a thing. It weighs nothing, it doesn't float around either. It has no color it is not made of anything. Truth is not good or evil, it is something said about beliefs or the sentences which express them.