Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[mfbukowski]

For God is knowledge of all truths and wisdom.

I don't worship knowledge, I worship a Person, my Father, who is God.

You are sounding very Platonic and rather like a Greek pagan quite frankly. The gospel was restored to do away with such mumbo-jumbo.

Edited November 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[harfad]

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.

Jesus is truth. His Spirit is truth. That is why he is also called the “Spirit of truth” in numerous passages of scripture.

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 a thing. It has the attribute of light in the spiritual realm. That is why it is often called light, or equated with light in various passages of scripture, and is said to “abide forever”.

Truth is not good or evil, it is something said about beliefs or the sentences which express them.

Truth is good. It is not neutral. It makes us “free,” which means that it is good.

Again, according to scripture, we are sanctified as well as glorified by the truth, or in the truth. Something that can sanctify us, glorify us, and make us free, is good. It is not neutral.

Something that is light, and has the attribute of light is again good, not neutral. The opposite of truth is a lie, or falsehood. Falsehood is evil. Satan is the father of lies, and all falsehoods come from him. Again, the opposite of light is darkness, which is evil. Satan is called the prince of darkness. He hates the light, and tries to “steal” light and truth from us. Light is good because it is “discernible,” according to Alma, which is the truth.

I am not giving references because they are too many. If you search the scriptures for truth, spirit, and light in various combinations, you will find many. I counted well over 60 references of how spirit, truth, and light integrate with each other, and with Jesus Christ as the source of that spirit and light, and with us.

Edited November 17, 2012 by harfad

[pogi]

Not exactly.

The actual quote is John 14:6

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.

Thanks hafrad for your insights.

This topic truly is deserving of a new thread.

The light of Christ is a fascinating subject, one that I think desrerves closer attention. D&C 84:45-47, D&C 88, and D&C 93 are full of profound truths regarding this light and truth, it is a good place to start.

Truth is good, as God's word is good, as light is good, as Christ's spirit is good. Christ is as much the truth as he is the way, as he is the life, as he is the light which filleth the immensity of space. Which light showeth the way, is the truth, and giveth life. Truth, or light, giveth life, it giveth law, it is the power by which all things are governed. It is indeed good, and only good.

Edited November 17, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

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=]

Bill, thanks for the video. I have not been able to watch all of it yet, but I have watched most of it, and have found it very informative. Thanks, you have taught me a lot.

I wonder what happened to the OP, I was excited to talk to him about Benedictine contemplation.

[volgadon]

Thanks.

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

Martin Jaffee has some brilliant thoughts about the role of oral teaching.

[volgadon]

Bill, thanks for the video. I have not been able to watch all of it yet, but I have watched most of it, and have found it very informative. Thanks, you have taught me a lot.

I wonder what happened to the OP, I was excited to talk to him about Benedictine contemplation.

I think he has had some health problems keeping him from posting like he would wish.

[harfad]

I wonder what happened to the OP, I was excited to talk to him about Benedictine contemplation.

I have been wondering about that too. I have given two alternative answers to his OP, and he hasn't replied to either of them.

[volgadon]

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

While not all Christians are Roman Catholic, all Roman Catholics are Christians. This is more of a question of does a Catholic experience God as a Catholic or as a theist. While I guess that you could answer yes to both, the latter isn't likely to be a particularly meaningful category for the Catholic.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Thanks, Pogi,

Your clarifications really helped, and I appreciate your citation of Hickman. Excellent.

[harfad]

While not all Christians are Roman Catholic, all Roman Catholics are Christians. This is more of a question of does a Catholic experience God as a Catholic or as a theist. While I guess that you could answer yes to both, the latter isn't likely to be a particularly meaningful category for the Catholic.

The object of the analogy was to show that your original question was not a meaningful question.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks hafrad for your insights.

This topic truly is deserving of a new thread.

The light of Christ is a fascinating subject, one that I think desrerves closer attention. D&C 84:45-47, D&C 88, and D&C 93 are full of profound truths regarding this light and truth, it is a good place to start.

Truth is good, as God's word is good, as light is good, as Christ's spirit is good. Christ is as much the truth as he is the way, as he is the life, as he is the light which filleth the immensity of space. Which light showeth the way, is the truth, and giveth life. Truth, or light, giveth life, it giveth law, it is the power by which all things are governed. It is indeed good, and only good.

Not sure if this was supposed to be a reply to me or not.

I think the difference is that you are speaking metaphysically and I am speaking philosophically. I have no problem with that, just with confusing the two. I see metaphysics as more poetical and adding another layer of symbology to philosophical discourse, speaking as the scriptures speak for instance.

I know I make a lot of linguistic distinctions, but I think it is necessary to do so to keep things clear at least in my mind, even if no one else sees those distinctions the way I do. I fully understand that poetically light=truth in the sense that intelligence or the Light of Christ as an element of consciousness fills the universe but certainly it does not mean that when one turns off the electricity one is turning off truth.

Yet speaking this way causes confusions when we do not understand the layers of symbology in every sentence we utter.

All I am saying is that I understand you, but my purpose is to help others see it another way as well, in a more philosophical and "logical" way and sometimes all these various layers of literalism get in the way.

[harfad]

Not sure if this was supposed to be a reply to me or not.

I think the difference is that you are speaking metaphysically and I am speaking philosophically.

I am doing neither. I am speaking scripturally.

[changed]

... knowledge and personal experience beyond normal human perception of communion (union, unity) with God. In other words, a mystical experience endows the mystic with direct, unmediated knowledge of God in a way that is different from our other modes of knowing. It is interesting that every major religion has its mystics and that these mystics often relate similar experiences, albeit clothed in their cultural and religious symbols.

I think Mormons generally don't use the word "mystical" but instead use the word "spiritual". I could be wrong, but mystical sounds like mystery or mysterious, and the point of communion with the spirit is not to confuse our mind with mysteries, but instead to reveal truths, and make things less mysterious. I like the idea of seeking "direct, unmediated knowledge of God" though. I joined the church after having a very powerful spiritual experience there - an experience that changed my understanding of reality, and brought God into the realm of being a being who was real - and not just made of philosophies and poetry.

This experience is universally described as being beyond language and conceptual thought (which is our main mode of knowing). This means that the experience can never be adequately described by the mystic. Most mystics therefore use paradox to describe it,

I recently had a conversation with someone that started as a "Does God really exist" type of thing, then evolved into a "we're not the only life form in the universe" discussion, that if we exist, other life forms probably also exist, and some of those other life forms are probably vastly superior to us etc. etc. then bringing it back to the concept of God - they were able to make it to the point of agreeing that there most likely were other superior life forms out there, but could not bring themselves to think those other life forms would be interested in us, or want to communicate with us, or sacrifice for us - I talked about how life is attracted to life, how we study ants, and we study bacteria, and try to figure out all of these other seemingly lower life forms in an attempt to live harmoniously with them, and then we started talking about communication barriers - how animals don't communicate with words, but rather with body language, smells, tone of voice - that it is completely different - and that if there were a higher life form, we would not be able to communicate with it, it would be like us trying to communicate with a squid. Occasionally God uses words, but usually the communication comes in the form of what we call "feelings" - and the term feelings is perhaps the wrong word, because there are many feelings that are not generated by God... before I joined the church I felt many different things - happy/sad/angry/confident - the spiritual feelings that I have experienced within the church are different than anything else I had ever felt before. You really do have to experience feeling the Spirit to understand what it is all about. Perhaps many of those ordinary daily feelings do also come from God, but it might take a stronger spiritual experience to recognize where they are actually coming from...

I'm wondering if such a mysticism is even possible in Mormonism, since God is a physical being. Can one find God at the center of one's soul and realize a perfect metaphysical union with Him if He has a body somewhere?

God being a physical reality makes Him real in my opinion. Before joining the church I did not consider the possibility of God being a physically real being - but that He was instead just a thought, just a poem, just an ideal... it took a spiritual experience to transform my understanding of Him - that He is real, the same kind of real as the chair that I'm sitting in, or the tree outside my window - the kind of real that you can see, and touch, and talk with, and feel.

I find God within the center of my soul within my conscience. Let me copy what we believe our conscience to be:

(Guide to the Scriptures | C Conscience.:Entry)

CONSCIENCE. See also Light, Light of Christ

The inner sense of right and wrong, coming from the Light of Christ in all men (Moro. 7:16). We are born with a natural capacity to distinguish between right and wrong because of the Light of Christ that is given to every person (D&C 84:46). This faculty is called conscience. The possession of it makes us responsible beings. Like other faculties, our consciences may be deadened through sin or misuse.

so most of our communication from God comes - not through our ears and eyes, but instead directly through our conscience. We're so used to communicating with eyes/ears/words that I think most people don't recognize the communication with God that do have - which often comes directly to our spirit in the form of feelings.

Also, what might some Mormon mystical practices be?

(New Testament | Matthew 18:20)

where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Although many of my spiritual experiences have been while I was alone in a peaceful environment, most of my spiritual experiences have come when I was together, with others. Singing together, working together, being together at church, or at GC. When you get a bunch of spiritual people together, you can't help but feel their Spirit, and the presence of God when you get together with them.

[pogi]

I think the difference is that you are speaking metaphysically and I am speaking philosophically. I have no problem with that, just with confusing the two. I see metaphysics as more poetical and adding another layer of symbology to philosophical discourse, speaking as the scriptures speak for instance.

I think you are right, if by metaphysical you mean scriptural as harfad points out.

Yet speaking this way causes confusions when we do not understand the layers of symbology in every sentence we utter.

Why would you dilute something as warm as light and truth, into something as cold as fact? If all you look for is fact, you may not see the light. Sometimes logic and philosophy are what get in the way of reason, while light illuminates reason. There is a reason why Christ spoke the way he did. His manner of speaking both hides and illuminates the truth based on the condition of a man's heart. Why attempt to factualize or literalize truths that cannot be discerned through logic, but through light? That is what makes things confusing.

All I am saying is that I understand you, but my purpose is to help others see it another way as well, in a more philosophical and "logical" way and sometimes all these various layers of literalism get in the way.

If you want to help others see truth, logic and philosophy can only get you so far. At some point, they have to open their spiritual eyes to discern spiritual truths and realities which logic and reason cannot explain. I think that you are the one who is trying to be literal in every word. I was speaking scripturally to demonstrate that all truth is indeed good.

Truth is good. Now I am being metaphysical, philosophical, logical, spiritual, and literal.

Edited November 17, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

I think Mormons generally don't use the word "mystical" but instead use the word "spiritual". I could be wrong, but mystical sounds like mystery or mysterious, and the point of communion with the spirit is not to confuse our mind with mysteries, but instead to reveal truths, and make things less mysterious.

Thanks for your comments!

The word mystical does sound mysterious for good reason - spiritual experiences are mysterious. The mysteries of God are opened to the eyes of the mystic, which cannot be explained, but must be experienced. Those spiritual experiences are mysterious to all those who have not had them. You're right, It's not a word that we see much in Mormonism, not sure why. I'm sure it's just a matter of preference that has become cultural.

[mfbukowski]

I think you are right, if by metaphysical you mean scriptural as harfad points out.

Yeah- I can accept that they are just about the same thing.

Why would you dilute something as warm as light and truth, into something as cold as fact? If all you look for is fact, you may not see the light. Sometimes logic and philosophy are what get in the way of reason, while light illuminates reason. There is a reason why Christ spoke the way he did. His manner of speaking both hides and illuminates the truth based on the condition of a man's heart. Why attempt to factualize or literalize truths that cannot be discerned through logic, but through light? That is what makes things confusing.

I don't disagree at all- it's just that you have to realize what language game you are in and what your purposes are. The analogy I used was that someone could confuse the language games and think that one was saying that if one turned off the electricity he could turn off truth because light is truth after all. That is a totally obvious example but some are not that obvious. Of course we speak in parables but not all realize that end up either speaking so vaguely that they are unintelligible or are so literal as to be just plain silly. I take talk of essences and substances for example to be so vague as to be unintelligible in many cases, and on the other side maybe is the light switch analogy.

"God is love" is one of those phrases that can mean practically anything and practically nothing. I have heard hippies using it to justify smoking pot and others to use it to justify promiscuity as a way of experiencing "god" because after all God is love, right?

On the other hand we can take that phrase as describing a Social Trinitarian view which describes the unity of the three persons of the Godhead to be united in love, as a family is united, and therefore understanding the unity of the three being described by the collective noun "God" almost in the same way that the word "family", describes more than one person, though singular in number. So in that sense the unity of God literally IS love, and saying that "God is love" is actually as literally taken as the phrase "a family is love" might be. What unifies both entities IS love.

So all I am saying is that that phase needs a context to give it meaning. Without a defined context it becomes virtually jibberish. All I am trying to do is give this conversation context.

If you want to help others see truth, logic and philosophy can only get you so far. At some point, they have to open their spiritual eyes to discern spiritual truths and realities which logic and reason cannot explain. I think that you are the one who is trying to be literal in every word. I was speaking scripturally to demonstrate that all truth is indeed good.

Great- as long as we understand that is what you mean. Once you have defined your context- as you have here, I know what you are talking about.

We know when we read scriptures what we are reading and take it metaphorically and symbolically. When you read someone's post you don't always know that.

Truth is good. Now I am being metaphysical, philosophical, logical, spiritual, and literal.

Gotcha. It sure ain't bad- I know that much It always works and that's good

[volgadon]

The object of the analogy was to show that your original question was not a meaningful question.

Well, it failed.

[harfad]

"God is love" is one of those phrases that can mean practically anything and practically nothing. I have heard hippies using it to justify smoking pot and others to use it to justify promiscuity as a way of experiencing "god" because after all God is love, right?

Have you heard of "wresting the scriptures?" (2 Peter 3:16; Alma 13:20; 41:1; D&C 10:63.)

Wresting the scriptures is never the fault of the scriptures. It is always the fault of those who do the "wresting". If some people want to understand love to mean promiscuity and smoking pot, they have that choice; but they will not be justified in the sight of God for doing so. In the day of judgment the Lord is not going to say, "Ok, the meaning of that verse was not clear, therefore you are excused." They will be condemned. And there is a reason for that. The reason for it is explained in these verses:

"Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the

condemnation

of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they

receive not the light

.

"And every man

whose spirit receiveth not the light

is under condemnation." (D&C 93:31-32)

Failing to receive that light leads to condemnation. That "light" is indeed something that can be "switched off". It is a real light. It is not a metaphor or a simile. It can be switched off by God, or by ourselves through transgression, or by failing to heed it. Here is an example of how that light can be switched off, or not heeded:

"Wherefore, I the Lord ask you this question—unto what were ye ordained?

"To preach my gospel by the Spirit, even the Comforter which was sent forth to teach the truth.

"And then

received ye spirits which ye could not understand, and received them to be of God; and in this are ye justified?

"Behold ye shall answer this question yourselves; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you; he that is weak among you hereafter shall be made strong.

"Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

"And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

"And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

"If it be some other way it is not of God.

"Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

"Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth,

understand one another, and both are edified

and rejoice together.

"And that which doth not edify

is not of God, and is darkness

.

"That which is of God is

light;

and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth

brighter and brighter until the perfect day

.

"And again, verily I say unto you, and I say it that you may know the truth, that you may chase darkness from among you;" (D&C 50:14-25.)

There is a light, and it is a real light, and it comes from God. Those who fail to receive that light, or heed that light, come under condemnation.

Edited November 18, 2012 by harfad

[harfad]

Well, it failed.

That is a matter of opinion.

[volgadon]

That is a matter of opinion.

A considered opinion. Your quote even supports it. The Sufi was willing to accept the Hindu's experience only as far as it tallied with his own.

[harfad]

A considered opinion. Your quote even supports it. The Sufi was willing to accept the Hindu's experience only as far as it tallied with his own.

And I agree with him on that. All mystical experience are not equivalent, just as experiencing God at the telestial level and at the Celestial level are not equivalent. Each experiences God at his/her own level.

[mfbukowski]

never mind.

Edited November 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[harfad]

Going back to your original question, this is what you had said:

Does a Sufi experience God as a mystic, or does he experience God as a Sufi?

The answer is both. Catholics disagree with Methodists, and Methodists disagree with Catholics, and Baptists disagree with both. Does a Catholic experience God as a Catholic or as a Christian? The answer is both. Does a Methodist experience God as a Methodist or as a Christian? The answer is both. Does a Baptist experience God as a Baptist or as a Christian? The answer is both. Does a Sufi experience God as a Sufi or as a mystic? The answer is both. Does a Christian mystic experience God as a mystic or as a Christian mystic? The answer is both. Does a Buddhist mystic experience God as a mystic or as a Buddhist mystic? The answer is both. The silliness of the question is too obvious to be overlooked.

[harfad]

never mind.

Yeah, I agree.

[volgadon]

Going back to your original question, this is what you had said:

The answer is both. Catholics disagree with Methodists, and Methodists disagree with Catholics, and Baptists disagree with both. Does a Catholic experience God as a Catholic or as a Christian? The answer is both. Does a Methodist experience God as a Methodist or as a Christian? The answer is both. Does a Baptist experience God as a Baptist or as a Christian? The answer is both. Does a Sufi experience God as a Sufi or as a mystic? The answer is both. Does a Christian mystic experience God as a mystic or as a Christian mystic? The answer is both. Does a Buddhist mystic experience God as a mystic or as a Buddhist mystic? The answer is both. The silliness of the question is too obvious to be overlooked.

Do the Catholic, Methodist, and Baptist experience God as Hasidic Jews or Japanese Animists?

The whole problem is that you are claiming a universal mystical tradition, in which all mystics self-identify as mystics. You are imposing the category, then forcing the data to fit.