Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[volgadon]

One on't cross beams gone owt askew on treadle.

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited November 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[harfad]

I still haven't figured why some people here are determined to sabotage this thread. The OP found a working definition of mysticism which was acceptable to him (and me too) as a starting basis for discussion. It was as follows:

Mysticism is 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.

Why can't we accept that as a working definition and return to the topic, instead of derailing the thread with tangential arguments about definitions? One does not need to be able to describe what a personal experience of God looks like or feels like in order to work with that definition. I can describe Mormonism as the testimony of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true, and Joseph Smith was a prophet, without being able to describe what the testimony of the Holy Ghost looks like or feels like. Likewise I can accept the above definition of mysticism as a basis of discussion without being able to describe what a personal experience of God feels like or looks like.

[mfbukowski]

Why can't we accept that as a working definition and return to the topic, instead of derailing the thread with tangential arguments about definitions?

Who's stopping you? That definition could apply to anything it is so vague, not to mention that there must be, according to you and that definition, a whole bunch of abnormal people out there perceiving what is supposedly "beyond normal human perception".

Seems pretty normal for me to feel the Spirit, I don't know about you. But no, I don't want to talk about it any more so please continue without me.

[harfad]

I am inclined to agree with the OP (and with BYU) that the subject of finding mysticism in Mormonism is a more interesting topic for discussion than the metaphysical spelling of mysticism.

[volgadon]

I am inclined to agree with the OP (and with BYU) that the subject of finding mysticism in Mormonism is a more interesting topic for discussion than the metaphysical spelling of mysticism.

Do you realise how many posts you've spent chiding us instead of posting along the lines of the OP?

[harfad]

I agree that mystical experience cannot be adequately expressed in language or reason. Neither can God, yet we continually attempt to find words that most closely symbolize God, such as love, light, etc. The scriptures are full of attempts to express mystic experience in words. At some point we have to settle. I think that we can find words that most of us can agree upon. We can use common words that Mormons are familiar with and use to describe their "mystical" experiences.

Thank you pogi, I agree. I am reminded of a number of passages of scripture in which prophets have related knowledge having been communicated to them spiritually which they could not "utter," or express in words, but could only be understood by the Spirit. An interesting example is the vision of the three degrees of glory in the D&C, at the end of which Joseph (and Sidney) state that they wrote what they were commanded to write, but not everything that they saw or heard, because they could not be expressed in words, but could only be discerned by the Spirit. I think these can be cited as examples of mystical experiences within Mormonism.

Edited November 21, 2012 by harfad

[harfad]

Do you realise how many posts you've spent chiding us instead of posting along the lines of the OP?

See my previous post. I think I know what your strategy is, but I don't think it will work.

[harfad]

Here are some scripture refs to supplement my previous post:

"And it was forbidden them that they should utter; neither was it given unto them power that they could utter the things which they saw and heard;" (3 Nephi 28:14)

"Neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him, and purify themselves before him;" (D&C 76:116)

[harfad]

The bit about "purifying themselves" in D&C 76:116 is particularly relevant and interesting. It basically says that these visions and revelations are not confined or exclusive to great prophets like Joseph Smith, but are available to anyone who "purifies" himself before God. The object of that mystical discipline or exercise is to achieve that "purification" which enables the disciple to receive those kinds of super sensory spiritual experiences or communication of knowledge which could only come in that way.

These are good examples of mysticism in Mormonism.

Edited November 21, 2012 by harfad

[Calm]

See my previous post. I think I know what your strategy is, but I don't think it will work.

You mean his strategy to encourage sound methodological approaches in the study of mysticism? Hopefully it will work for most. Edited November 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[harfad]

You mean his strategy to encourage sound methodological approaches in the study of mysticism? Hopefully it will work for most.

When it comes to divine or spiritual matters, the scriptures always seem to work best for me. They also offer the best protection against deception. They act as a great firewall against the uninspired theories and philosophies of men.

Edited November 21, 2012 by harfad

[mfbukowski]

I am inclined to agree with the OP (and with BYU) that the subject of finding mysticism in Mormonism is a more interesting topic for discussion than the metaphysical spelling of mysticism.

I didn't know it was lost.

[mfbukowski]

When it comes to divine or spiritual matters, the scriptures always seem to work best for me. They also offer the best protection against deception. They act as a great firewall against the uninspired theories and philosophies of men.

Especially when they tell us that there are experiences which cannot be uttered. Why do you continue to utter then?

[harfad]

Another interesting example of mysticism in Mormonism is the school of prophets. The school of prophets was more than just an "academic" school. It did have an academic curriculum of sorts, but its purpose went beyond that. It was to turn the student/disciples into real prophets, and get them to make direct contact with the heavens. Joseph basically acted as the spiritual master or guru, and the students as his disciples. It did not function exactly like the ancient mystical schools. It didn't have chants and such like. But it tried to achieve the same aims in other, more direct, less cumbersome ways. It was a true school of prophets.

Okay, look at how many good ideas I have given you guys just in this thread for writing papers and articles for the upcoming BYU conference on The Mystical!

[volgadon]

Another interesting example of mysticism in Mormonism is the school of prophets. The school of prophets was more than just an "academic" school. It did have an academic curriculum of sorts, but its purpose went beyond that. It was to turn the student/disciples into real prophets, and get them to make direct contact with the heavens. Joseph basically acted as the spiritual master or guru, and the students as his disciples. It did not function exactly like the ancient mystical schools. It didn't have chants and such like. But it tried to achieve the same aims in other, more direct, less cumbersome ways. It was a true school of prophets.

Superficially, there might be some comparison, but one would need to get into specific details, such as curriculum in order to substantiate the assertion. Mysticism, as Bill Hamblin noted recently, comes with its own baggage, that isn't ncessarily applicable. Much depends on how closely you equate prophecy with mysitcism. If we look into the curriculum, we see a stronger millenarial bent in the pursuit of knowledge than a mystical one.

Okay, look at how many good ideas I have given you guys just in this thread for writing papers and articles for the upcoming BYU conference on The Mystical!

Thank you. What would I ever have done without you? I've had about ten ideas or so that I've been whittling down.

[Bill Hamblin]

In-spir-ation means literally having the spirit come in to you. Paul speaks of many different gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12). Mysticism may be one way the Holy Spirit acts, but it not the only way. It needs to be remembered, too, that from the biblical world view evil or false spirits can inspire just as the Holy Spirit can. Mysticism may be a form of inspiration, but it is reductionistic to claim that all inspiration is mysticism. There are basically six possible ways mystical experience (or other can be explained:

1- Authentic inspiration from God

2- inspiration from false or evil spirits. (Mystics speak of this on occasion--see, for example, the temptations of St. Anthony.)

3- culturally influenced interpretation of unusual spiritual activity

4- psychotic or drug induced episodes, and its more positive variant

5- psychologically induced altered states of consciousness (secular)

6- fraud (I am quite confident that some mystics--for example, Cagliostro and many mediums of the Spiritualist age--were frauds. There is no reason not to assume some medieval and ancient claimed mystics were frauds as well.)

The problem of how to distinguish these six categories is fraught with difficulty. But that doesn't make it less of a problem.

[harfad]

The problem you are describing is not peculiar to mysticism. It is applicable to the wider phenomenon of religion in general. There are many people who will say, "There are thousands of churches and religions around, how do you know which is the right one?" You resolve that problem for mysticism in the same way that you resolve it for religion as a whole. Ultimately, everyone will have to answer that question for himself. As a Mormon, I answer it by the teaching of the Book of Mormon: "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:5). Another applicable scripture is D&C 91:4-6: "Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited."

Edited November 22, 2012 by harfad

[harfad]

Whenever there have been true prophets, there have also been false ones. In ancient Israel, false prophets existed along side the true ones. In the times of their wickedness or apostasies, the false prophets outnumbered the true ones. And the people faced the perennial problem: how to tell the true ones from the false ones. The Book of Mormon tells us that the house of Israel were not the only people who have had prophets and inspired men to guide them in the ways of truth and righteousness. All nations have had them from their own people: "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; ..." (Alma 29:8 ). I believe that mysticism is one of the vehicles through which God has chosen to raise inspired men to teach many nations the amount of light and truth that they were able to receive at that time. But as always, whenever there have been inspired men, there have also been fake ones. The problem all mankind have always faced have been, how to tell them apart. Here is still another way:

"And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

"Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ." (Moroni 7:18-19)

Edited November 22, 2012 by harfad

[pogi]

Bukowski, you have taught me a hard lesson about words, but in the end, I think you have taught me a profound truth - Mysticism is supposed to remain mysterious. While I find your philosophy of language completely annoying in debate when one is trying to be understood, and disagree that we should not attempt to describe mysticism, I do agree, however, that we should not attempt to reveal its mystery. It would indeed be impossible to do so through word, as you have taught.

For a definition or description to do justice to the words "mysticism" or "mystic", it should perhaps be mysterious itself, as no definition can adequately portray it’s meaning. It also serves to both reveal and conceal its true meaning at the same time. Thus the meaning is not found in word but in spirit. If one could adequately capture and portray the mystery of mysticism through word, it would cease to be mystic, and would thus loose its meaning. Here’s my attempt, it’s actually Christ’s attempt more than mine:

The true mystic is the “honest seeker of truth” (Preach my Godspel, lesson 1), and the “humble seeker of happiness” (Alma 27:18), who have “eyes to see” and receive the light, and “ears to hear” and receive the word as it is sown by the sower into good ground (heart); that the mysteries of God are made manifest to them by the light of Christ and the Holy Spirit of truth, “and bring forth fruit, some thirty fold, some sixty, and some an hundred” (Most of this last part was from Mark 4).

Mark 4 is the holy grail of mystic expression and is the road map to the mysteries of God.

“If any man have ears to hear, let him hear” (Mark 4:23). Very mysterious teaching, as it should be perhaps. The key to true mysticism is found in the understanding of the phrase “let him hear.” To me, this is more than just a passive plea to listen. It is the same act of faith by which the heavens and earth were formed – “let there be light.” Letting oneself hear is a humble act of seeking honestly for truth and happiness, and is also a faithful act of creation within our hearts whereby we are converted to the light, “let there be light” within our hearts (or the good ground). Our perspective of God is enlightened and enlarged through the practice of that simple and profound phrase “let him hear.”

Simply put, "hearing" and "seeing" as Christ meant them, encompass all true mystic experience, letting oneself hear is the practice and path of the mystic based upon the light that they have been given. I believe that we all have unique perspectives of that light (though there is always overlap), and thus have unique paths and ritual. The canvas or stage for mystic experience and enightenment is the heart. The true mystic does not shy from delving into the scary and dark corners of his heart and opening the blinds. The mystics work is done in the soil and garden of his heart, tilling hard dry soil into fertile "good ground". Mysticism is the discovery of God through the discovery of self, or the discovery of self through the discovery of God. I don't know if it matters which way you approach it. They both lead to the same end.

"Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given. For he that hath, to him shall be given..." (Mark 4: 24, 25)

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Edited November 22, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

But a coherent definition excludes as well as includes.

That is a good point! I think that my attempt to define, or describe, the mystic, both includes and excludes. It includes and excludes Mormons (excluding culturally and socially based Mormons) and includes and excludes non-Mormons (including spiritually based non-Mormons). It also both includes and excludes self-proclaimed mystics and mystic experience, so it is a hybrid of neo-mysticism. It is free of judgment. In other words, it lets the individual decide if he fits into the description, rather than the outside observer. As Hafrad correctly points out, everyone myst figure that out for themselves. I think that pretty well describes the Mormon perspective of mysticism - it is a neomystic hybrid, in that we do not accept all forms of mysticism as truly mystic, but we do not exclusively hold the rights to "true" mystic experience. As I said before, we are all mystics by design, if not by practice.

As with everything, there will be opposition in mysticism, both true and false forms.

Mmmmmm...turkey!

Edited November 22, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski, you have taught me a hard lesson about words, but in the end, I think you have taught me a profound truth - Mysticism is supposed to remain mysterious. While I find your philosophy of language completely annoying in debate when one is trying to be understood, and disagree that we should not attempt to describe mysticism, I do agree, however, that we should not attempt to reveal its mystery. It would indeed be impossible to do so through word, as you have taught.

For a definition or description to do justice to the words "mysticism" or "mystic", it should perhaps be mysterious itself, as no definition can adequately portray it’s meaning. It also serves to both reveal and conceal its true meaning at the same time. Thus the meaning is not found in word but in spirit. If one could adequately capture and portray the mystery of mysticism through word, it would cease to be mystic, and would thus loose its meaning. Here’s my attempt, it’s actually Christ’s attempt more than mine:

The true mystic is the “honest seeker of truth” (Preach my Godspel, lesson 1), and the “humble seeker of happiness” (Alma 27:18), who have “eyes to see” and receive the light, and “ears to hear” and receive the word as it is sown by the sower into good ground (heart); that the mysteries of God are made manifest to them by the light of Christ and the Holy Spirit of truth, “and bring forth fruit, some thirty fold, some sixty, and some an hundred” (Most of this last part was from Mark 4).

Mark 4 is the holy grail of mystic expression and is the road map to the mysteries of God.

“If any man have ears to hear, let him hear” (Mark 4:23). Very mysterious teaching, as it should be perhaps. The key to true mysticism is found in the understanding of the phrase “let him hear.” To me, this is more than just a passive plea to listen. It is the same act of faith by which the heavens and earth were formed – “let there be light.” Letting oneself hear is a humble act of seeking honestly for truth and happiness, and is also a faithful act of creation within our hearts whereby we are converted to the light, “let there be light” within our hearts (or the good ground). Our perspective of God is enlightened and enlarged through the practice of that simple and profound phrase “let him hear.”

Simply put, "hearing" and "seeing" as Christ meant them, encompass all true mystic experience, letting oneself hear is the practice and path of the mystic based upon the light that they have been given. I believe that we all have unique perspectives of that light (though there is always overlap), and thus have unique paths and ritual. The canvas or stage for mystic experience and enightenment is the heart. The true mystic does not shy from delving into the scary and dark corners of his heart and opening the blinds. The mystics work is done in the soil and garden of his heart, tilling hard dry soil into fertile "good ground". Mysticism is the discovery of God through the discovery of self, or the discovery of self through the discovery of God. I don't know if it matters which way you approach it. They both lead to the same end.

"Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given. For he that hath, to him shall be given..." (Mark 4: 24, 25)

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Thanks for the kind kind words. Wittgenstein's approach to language was ultimately therapeutic- he would write page after page analyzing the meanings of words precisely to achieve the kind of understanding I am trying to impart using what I would like to think is his method.

This website drives me crazy for its graphics and psychedelic overall ambiance but I would suggest that you go here and just read the quotes and maybe it will tie this all together a bit better for you. I like the quotes chosen because they are short- you can read the whole page in a minute or two if you can stand the graphics

http://fusionanomaly...ttgenstein.html

Wittgenstein is known for this quote:

"What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence."

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

The best we can do is a kind of sociology of mysticism- reports of which group does what and believes whichever - which is what I think Bill et al. is advocating. You can't ever get down to what is important in mysticism, I think, using words.

Edited November 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That is a good point! I think that my attempt to define, or describe, the mystic, both includes and excludes. It includes and excludes Mormons (excluding culturally and socially based Mormons) and includes and excludes non-Mormons (including spiritually based non-Mormons). It also both includes and excludes self-proclaimed mystics and mystic experience, so it is a hybrid of neo-mysticism. It is free of judgment. In other words, it lets the individual decide if he fits into the description, rather than the outside observer. As Hafrad correctly points out, everyone myst figure that out for themselves. I think that pretty well describes the Mormon perspective of mysticism - it is a neomystic hybrid, in that we do not accept all forms of mysticism as truly mystic, but we do not exclusively hold the rights to "true" mystic experience. As I said before, we are all mystics by design, if not by practice.

As with everything, there will be opposition in mysticism, both true and false forms.

Mmmmmm...turkey!

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

[harfad]

Wittgenstein is known for this quote:

"What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence."

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

The object of the study of mysticism is not to figure out and express in words the inexpressible "experience of the mystic," but to study it as an observable human phenomena in all its ramifications. That would be like arguing that just because some religious experiences like the testimony of the Holy Ghost, or the visions of Joseph and Sidney, are inexpressible in words, or incommunicable to other human beings, therefore religion is not a subject worth studying. The answer is that religion is a lot more than that, and a study of religion entails a lot more than trying to figure out and express in words the inexpressible experience of the testimony of the Holy Ghost, or the unutterable spiritual experiences of St. Paul or of the three Nephite disciples. Likewise, a study of mysticism involves a lot more than trying to figure out and express in words the inexpressible experience of the mystic.

The best we can do is a kind of sociology of mysticism- reports of which group does what and believes whichever - which is what I think Bill et al. is advocating.

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

There are two points here: one is the academic study or investigation of mysticism (which is what the upcoming BYU conference on mysticism is about), and the other is finding and following a true mystical path in our day and age which is genuine and authentic enough to lead us to the ultimate goal which a true mystic allegedly seeks to obtain—i.e. the esoteric knowledge of, and union with, the Divine (which I believe is what the OP is searching after). The answer to the academic question is as stated above. The answer to the second question is something different.

If I lived a thousand years ago in the twelfth century, and was searching for the answer to that question, I would most likely choose Sufism, because that is what looks to me like the most authentic form of that tradition at that time. But today I would choose Mormonism, because that to me appears to answer that question best in our time. It is pre-built into the system. You don't need a separate mystical adjunct to Mormonism. The sky is the limit to what you can achieve in Mormonism if you have those kinds of mystical ambitions. From obtaining personal revelation, or a knowledge of the "mysteries of the kingdom," to seeing and knowing God, and becoming one with him, it is all "doable" by following the instructions found within the pages of the Mormon revelation.

You can't ever get down to what is important in mysticism, I think, using words.

That depends on what your idea of "what is important" is. That statement could be equally true of Mormonism if the most important thing in it to you was being able to express in so many words what the testimony of the Holy Ghost is, or the knowledge it conveys, in such a way that it would be intellectually understandable and acceptable by someone else so as to make the receiving that spiritual experience for themselves unnecessary. If that is your idea of what the most important thing in Mormonism is, then I would agree that you can never get down to "what is important" in Mormonism.

Edited November 23, 2012 by harfad

[harfad]

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

See above. Again I repeat, the object of the study of mysticism is not to analyse the experience itself (although to some extent that may also be involved), but a lot more. The BYU conference “call for papers” expresses it in these words:

“We are seeking papers on the mystical, whether in literature and art, or the relationship of mysticism to Mormonism”.

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

Edited November 23, 2012 by harfad