Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[harfad]

I think people experience God in many different ways, but mostly "through a glass, darkly," or, in a modern translation, "through an enigmatic mirror."

While that may be true of the inexperienced majority who have not yet travelled the mystic path, the object of mysticism is realization of the promise to eliminate that veil of darkness and obscurity, and bring the seeker after truth to a clearer vision of divine reality so as to see things clearly as they are, and not as through a glass darkly:

“But great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom which he showed unto us, which surpass all understanding in glory, and in might, and in dominion;

“Which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the Spirit, and are not lawful for man to utter;

“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;

“To whom he grants this privilege of

seeing and knowing for themselves;

“That through the power and manifestation of the Spirit, while in the flesh, they may be able to

bear his presence in the world of glory

.” (D&C 76:114-118)

This is what the Brother of Jared in the Book of Mormon was able to achieve:

“And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me.

“And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?

“And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.

“And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.

“Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

“And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

“Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

“And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites.

“And he ministered unto him even as he ministered unto the Nephites; and all this, that this man might know that he was God, because of the many great works which the Lord had showed unto him.

“And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.

“Wherefore, having this perfect knowledge of God, he could not be kept from within the veil; therefore he saw Jesus; and he did minister unto him.” (Ether 3:10-20)

The Lord does not want the Latter-day Saints to be satisfied with the status quo, but to seek for the higher and greater things in the spiritual sphere:

“And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

“Come unto me, O ye Gentiles, and I will show unto you the greater things, the knowledge which is hid up because of unbelief.

“Come unto me, O ye house of Israel, and it shall be made manifest unto you how great things the Father hath laid up for you, from the foundation of the world; and it hath not come unto you, because of unbelief.

“Behold, when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which have been hid up from the foundation of the world from you—yea, when ye shall call upon the Father in my name, with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then shall ye know that the Father hath remembered the covenant which he made unto your fathers, O house of Israel.

“And then shall my revelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. Remember, when ye see these things, ye shall know that the time is at hand that they shall be made manifest in very deed.” (Ether 4:12-16)

That is following the mystic path the Mormon way.

Edited November 24, 2012 by harfad

[pogi]

I can't resist but to clarify.

I would answer, except I haven't the foggiest of what you mean by any of those words.

Let me help clarify my meaning. Are you wondering what I mean by subjective vs. objective truth, and relative vs. absolute truth?

We believe that God and his truth is objective and absolute. In other words, constant, eternal, the same yesterday, today, and forever, he exists freely or independently from the thoughts of a conscious entity or subject, he is an unalterable and permanent fact, so is his truth.

So, if we are to be one in truth, and one in God, we must experience and know the specific principles and elements (or puzzle pieces) of truth as described above. What you and Bill are describing is a subjective and relative truth and experience with the "puzzle pieces" of God. It cannot be so if we are to be one with him and one with truth. Subjectivity and relativity are equivalent to multiplicity of truths, it never equals one equal and unchanging truth that is the same for all. Again, our overall picture of him is subjective and relative, our "pieces" are objective and absolute.

I think people experience God in many different ways, but mostly "through a glass, darkly," or, in a modern translation, "through an enigmatic mirror."

I agree that we experience God in many different ways, but you are thinking of the whole puzzle and not the individual pieces. That is the hang-up in communication that we have been having all along.

Please refer to my analogy below and tell me what you think about it.

Edited November 24, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

According to all the dictionaries I have looked at, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. My religion is not a branch of philosophy. It is a self-revelation of God to man. It tells me (with certainty) what God wants me to know, what he wants me to do, and what promises are mine if I do them.

And what dictionary tells you what truth is? Did you look up that one too? Look up "truth" and maybe it will tell you. Do you know who writes dictionaries? Do you think God writes them?

I didn't know that the prime reason for philosophy was to write dictionaries.

Whether or not philosophical discourse includes metaphysical discourse is a philosophical question not one for the writers of dictionaries. Read this.

Unless God himself wrote it will a big golden pen it came through a human mind and is written in human language. That's a good thing too because if God speaks Adamic we don't have any of those kind of dictionaries written by God himself.

Every word every human has ever written is based on philosophical assumptions. Language is literally in the air we breathe. We hear the language of men from our mother's lips before we are even born. It permeates the way our minds work. And in that language are the philosophies of men in the very structure of language itself.

We cannot escape it.

[pogi]

Imagine God as a puzzle, with each piece representing a fruit of the spirit or manifestation of him. We each may hold different puzzle pieces at times, and thus have unique experiences and different perspectives of God. Thus, our overall experience of Him will differ from individual to individual, and from culture to culture. I am not talking about our overall experience of Him though. Yes, culture and ritual play a huge role in how we experience God as a whole. The problem is, we don't experience God as a whole, rather, line upon line, or piece by piece to fit my analogy. We fill in the gaps with the traditions of man. And so, call him by different names, use different rituals of worship, or claim contrasting doctrines, or deny him altogether. Yet, we all hold fundamental pieces in common that we recognize as good, and thus we relate with one another in spirit, and bond with one another in love. We all have overlap. It is required that we experience those common pieces the same, or we would not experience God as he is when the puzzle is all put together. We have to experience those pieces the same in order to be like him. In order to be one with him and one with each other.

This is the "welding" that Joseph Smith talked about in my previous post. We are to "weld" all of these "pieces" together into one great whole. Each piece is a glimpse of God, not in his fulness, but it is a glimpse of the same God that I see from another perspective. So, when I say that we experience Him the same, I mean that we experience the overlap the same, and will one day experience Him in His fullness the same, because we will be like Him.

[harfad]

And what dictionary tells you what truth is? Did you look up that one too? Look up "truth" and maybe it will tell you. Do you know who writes dictionaries? Do you think God writes them?

I didn't know that the prime reason for philosophy was to write dictionaries.

Whether or not philosophical discourse includes metaphysical discourse is a philosophical question not one for the writers of dictionaries. Read this.

Unless God himself wrote it will a big golden pen it came through a human mind and is written in human language. That's a good thing too because if God speaks Adamic we don't have any of those kind of dictionaries written by God himself.

Every word every human has ever written is based on philosophical assumptions. Language is literally in the air we breathe. We hear the language of men from our mother's lips before we are even born. It permeates the way our minds work. And in that language are the philosophies of men in the very structure of language itself.

We cannot escape it.

I don't know about that; what I do know is that "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" is the work of the devil, and is suspect. You can't follow the ways of God by following the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture". The ways of God are disclosed in scripture, as correctly interpreted by the inspired prophets of God, or by the power of the Holy Ghost. You don't mix them up, or you end up heading the wrong way.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know about that; what I do know is that "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" is the work of the devil, and is suspect. You can't follow the ways of God by following the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture". The ways of God are disclosed in scripture, as correctly interpreted by the inspired prophets of God, or by the power of the Holy Ghost. You don't mix them up, or you end up heading the wrong way.

Thanks for your testimony.

[harfad]

Thanks for your testimony.

You are very welcome.

[volgadon]

Thanks for your testimony.

For someone who speaks "scripturslly," he tends to miss the intent of that phrase.

[mfbukowski]

For someone who speaks "scripturslly," he tends to miss the intent of that phrase.

There was nothing left to say. No words would do anything.

[peteolcott]

Here is the definition of mysticism (from the omniscient wikipedia, which actually has a decent article on the subject):

The aspect that I would like to focus on is that a mystical experience involves 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.

I have been on this same spiritual quest since 1991.

I will provide a little clarity from my own first-hand direct experiences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

Hinduism explains this experience the most clearly in its term Advaita.

Most other traditions tend to beat-around-the-bush about this subject.

Advaita (literally, non-duality) is a system of thought where "Advaita" refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman).

The first-hand direct experience of this non-duality is called Moksha, Satori, Enlightenment, and Union with God.

Non-duality literally means that there are not really two different (duality) things self and God, there is really only the one.

Isaiah 45:6 (kjv)

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. (According to Hebrew bible scholars this is saying-->{Only God exists, nothing besides God exists} ).

So far I have found nothing in the LDS church that has anything to do with this first-hand direct experience. It seems that I have had this experience very many times.

[mfbukowski]

So far I have found nothing in the LDS church that has anything to do with this first-hand direct experience. It seems that I have had this experience very many times.

Are you serious? Keep looking. It's here.

[mfbukowski]

We don't really need a definition, I suppose, for any other purpose than for discourse.

That's the problem isn't it? Of course we could stop discoursing in the absence of one, that would be the logical thing to do. But heck, why do that?

If you can't state it clearly, why bother?

[pogi]

I bother because I like to know what I am talking about, I like other people to know what I am talking about, and I like to talk about it. Just like I like to talk about God, but we must have a starting point. Even if it cannot be captured in word, we can still give it meaning.

Example: Mysticism is hearing and seeing as Christ taught. Clear enough? It's clear enough to know what I am talking about, and to be expounded in different ways, yet mysterious enough to keep it's meaning secret and sacred. It allows us to have intelligent and meaningful discussion about it with other Mormons, and with other traditions of mysticism, comparing ideas.

Edited November 26, 2012 by pogi

[Nathair/|\]

I bother because I like to know what I am talking about, I like other people to know what I am talking about, and I like to talk about it. Just like I like to talk about God, but we must have a starting point. Even if it cannot be captured in word, we can still give it meaning.

Example: Mysticism is hearing and seeing as Christ taught. Clear enough? It's clear enough to know what I am talking about, and to be expounded in different ways, yet mysterious enough to keep it's meaning secret and sacred. It allows us to have intelligent and meaningful discussion about it with other Mormons, and with other traditions of mysticism, comparing ideas.

How does left-handed tantric mysticism fit into your definition?

[peteolcott]

Are you serious? Keep looking. It's here.

All of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic mysticism that I have encountered agrees with the Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu mysticism. None of the LDS mysticism that I have found seems to agree with this at all.

[volgadon]

All of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic mysticism that I have encountered agrees with the Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu mysticism. None of the LDS mysticism that I have found seems to agree with this at all.

ALL?

[pogi]

All of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic mysticism that I have encountered agrees with the Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu mysticism. None of the LDS mysticism that I have found seems to agree with this at all.

NONE?

[volgadon]

NONE?

No, some do have similarities, but that is a far stretch from all.

[ronin]

I have not read all of the posts on here for this subject but mysticism is the reason I found this forum. Just so you know where I am coming from I am LDS I did go on a mission and am currently quite active. all that being said the reason I started researching mysticism was personal experiences with dreams and out of body experiences. Turning to my father he said it was normal and to truly understand these experiences to study the scriptures. I studied them along with mysticism online and came to realize that dreams and astral projection or OBEs are all over the scriptures and that in all reality as mormons we discuss mysticism in all its forms alot more often than you would think. What mormons refer to as visions can also be described as OBEs or astral projection. I reread first Nephi after learning what OBEs are and realized that Nephis vision of the tree of life and the interpretation thereof is a classic example of an OBE.

I think mysticism in whatever form you choose is generally the basis for most all world religions unfortunately after the formation of said religion members start to lose sight of the original intent of the religion and start to argue over doctrine and the way things were written down. Instead of following the spirit of the law they end up arguing over the written law which is to every ones detriment.

I believe mysticism is still here in the church. As an example I know several people in the church who have dreams of their future, who have visions, who speak to the deceased. Most all of these people don't talk about these things anymore but I have heard it was very prevalant in the early church to hear of others dreams and their visions.

[pogi]

How does left-handed tantric mysticism fit into your definition?

I'm not familiar with it.

My definition, as I have said before, is free of judgment. In other words, it lets the individual decide if he fits into the description, rather than the outside observer. Since this is a Mormon and Christian perspective, the left-handed tantric tradition will probably decide that he does not fit into the description, but I won't make that judgment for him. He also would not agree with our definition of the Godhead, or plan of salvation either, or Church of the Lamb (of which he may very well be a member who has ears to hear and lets himself hear).

[pogi]

No, some do have similarities, but that is a far stretch from all.

Yeah, I was referring to his comment about how "none" of the Mormon mysticism has similarities to Buddhist mysticism. I'm not familiar with the others, but I practice many of the Buddhist teachings and find that they are cohesive with ours. He seems to like absolute statements, all and none.

Edited November 26, 2012 by pogi

[volgadon]

Yeah, I was referring to his comment about how "none" of the Mormon mysticism has similarities to Buddhist mysticism.

Oh, gotcha.

[pogi]

I have not read all of the posts on here for this subject but mysticism is the reason I found this forum. Just so you know where I am coming from I am LDS I did go on a mission and am currently quite active. all that being said the reason I started researching mysticism was personal experiences with dreams and out of body experiences. Turning to my father he said it was normal and to truly understand these experiences to study the scriptures. I studied them along with mysticism online and came to realize that dreams and astral projection or OBEs are all over the scriptures and that in all reality as mormons we discuss mysticism in all its forms alot more often than you would think. What mormons refer to as visions can also be described as OBEs or astral projection. I reread first Nephi after learning what OBEs are and realized that Nephis vision of the tree of life and the interpretation thereof is a classic example of an OBE.

I think mysticism in whatever form you choose is generally the basis for most all world religions unfortunately after the formation of said religion members start to lose sight of the original intent of the religion and start to argue over doctrine and the way things were written down. Instead of following the spirit of the law they end up arguing over the written law which is to every ones detriment.

I believe mysticism is still here in the church. As an example I know several people in the church who have dreams of their future, who have visions, who speak to the deceased. Most all of these people don't talk about these things anymore but I have heard it was very prevalant in the early church to hear of others dreams and their visions.

Welcome aboard, feel free to read the posts but it's mostly white noise and doesn't really get into mystic experience. I'm glad to talk to someone who finally wants to discuss mysticism and their experiences from a Mormon perspective. I have had similar experiences and would love to hear more about yours. Some of mine are personal, but I can share some general experience without specifics.

[ronin]

good to hear I'm not the only one on here who has had these experiences. I have come to realize that these types of things are a lot more prevalant than most people would think but most wont discuss them as they are afraid of what others would think. My father and my grandfather have both had dreams of the future. I started to recognize the same thing happening with me and am currently living in a constant state of deja vu. Most people would tell me I'm crazy however my wife is starting to believe me now.

I have also talked with members who use dowsing as a form of personal revelation and also scrying with a crystal much as Joseph Smith did. I haven't tried either of those but I have started meditating on a regular basis along with my scripture study. It is amazing what you can learn from the scriptures when you look at it from a slightly different perspective.

[mfbukowski]

Example: Mysticism is hearing and seeing as Christ taught. Clear enough? It's clear enough to know what I am talking about, and to be expounded in different ways, yet mysterious enough to keep it's meaning secret and sacred.

I agree as long as we know we are speaking parables, but that is not how it is presented. If we want parables, fine. If we want logical discourse, that's also fine. But don't pretend that one is the other.

The example I use would be if one took Shakespeare's metaphor "Juliette is the sun" as a scientific statement. That would be one big hot mama!

I feel we are arguing about a lot of "hot mamas" here because we keep mixing types of discourse. Category mistakes seem to reign supreme on this thread.

But if it doesn't bother you it doesn't bother you.