Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[mfbukowski]

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.

Edited answer:

On the other hand maybe it's not supposed to be if Hamblin's position is correct.

And precisely how do those traditions allegedly "agree" and "disagree" with the Mormon testimony experience?

Edited November 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.

Why didn't you say so? We got stuck on the second half of the OP and missed the first part.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

First of all, that definition would only apply to Christian mysticism. Obviously Jewish, Buddhist, Muslims, Hindus, etc. don't fit this definition.

Second, why call this mysticism at all? The Bible doesn't describe it as mysticism. Christ never uses the term, nor does anyone in the New Testament. Nor do Mormon scriptures, nor Joseph Smith. So, why should we?

Isn't it possible (and perhaps even preferable) to describe Mormon encounters with God in non-mystical terms? Our scriptures and early prophets certainly did so. Or, to put it another way, what conceptional or spiritual benefit derives from declaring Mormon spiritual experiences and encounters with God "mystical"?

Edited November 26, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

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....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.

Mormons are not pantheists. Mormons are also not non-dualists. So, I'm not quite sure why we should expect Mormonism would find parallels to these Hindu ideas.

It is also important that Advaita Vendanta is not only not the only form of Hindu mysticism, it also has nothing explicitly to do with Buddhism or Japanese Satori.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

This is a classic Neomystical interpretation, one with which the traditional mystical practitioners would disagree. Christian, Jewish and Islamic mystics are not pantheists, and believe in a personal God as the object of their mystical quest.

[mfbukowski]

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

A VERY interesting question- from what I know- (not much) I would say that I would prefer a description more according to a Hindu left handed Tantra but the Buddhist left-handed tradition seems to include some stuff recognizable or similar to some LDS temple practices.

But I am definitely not the one to ask

[peteolcott]

ALL?

They all agree that reality is a single unified whole, that God and man are one and the same.

[thesometimesaint]

How exactly does that disagree with Mormonism?

[harfad]

First of all, that definition would only apply to Christian mysticism. Obviously Jewish, Buddhist, Muslims, Hindus, etc. don't fit this definition.

That is his own personal definition which works for him. It may not even apply to “Christian mysticism” considered as a class or category of mysticism. However, it is a definition that mystics of other traditions you mentioned might find sympathy with.

Second, why call this mysticism at all? The Bible doesn't describe it as mysticism. Christ never uses the term, nor does anyone in the New Testament. Nor do Mormon scriptures, nor Joseph Smith. So, why should we?

Because we are engaged in a study, investigation, exploration of mysticism, not of Mormonism. We want to find out to what extent Mormonism makes common cause with other major religions of the world in which a mystical tradition has developed. Since these major mystical traditions have some essential features in common, the most significant being an attempt to make a direct personal contact with a divine or supernatural source of what is good—call it God, ultimate reality, Brahma, Nirvana etc.—we want to see to what extent that phenomena exists in, or can be derived from Mormonism.

Isn't it possible (and perhaps even preferable) to describe Mormon encounters with God in non-mystical terms? Our scriptures and early prophets certainly did so. Or, to put it another way, what conceptional or spiritual benefit derives from declaring Mormon spiritual experiences and encounters with God "mystical"?

Because by exploring and comparing other mystical traditions in this way with Mormonism, we become more and more aware that those ancient mystical traditions were not false claims (although some claims were counterfeits), but were genuinely able to establish communion with the divine; and therefore by studying them we can learn a lot from them, according to articles 9 and 13 of our Articles of Faith: “We believe all that God has revealed, ... If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”

Edited November 26, 2012 by harfad

[harfad]

Mormons are not pantheists. Mormons are also not non-dualists. So, I'm not quite sure why we should expect Mormonism would find parallels to these Hindu ideas.

Point is that like it or not, there are parallels. What he has described as the mystic experience of Advaita in Hinduism has parallels not only in other mystic traditions (e.g. Islam) but also in Mormonism (e.g. John 17:21; D&C 35:2; Moses 6:68).

[Bill Hamblin]

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} ).

You've seriously misunderstood this passage. You need to read it in context.

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else,

there is no God beside me:

I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 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.

The phrase in green is repeated twice. The bold face phrase defines what it means. There is no other God beside YHWH. This is NOT saying that nothing else exists except YHWH. It is saying no other god exists except YHWH.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

They all agree that reality is a single unified whole, that God and man are one and the same.

I know you've said you have thousands of books, been studying this since 1991, etc., but this assertion is flat out wrong. Don't know any way of sugarcoating it.

[harfad]

You've seriously misunderstood this passage. You need to read it in context.

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else,

there is no God beside me:

I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 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.

The phrase in green is repeated twice. The bold face phrase defines what it means. There is no other God beside YHWH. This is NOT saying that nothing else exists except YHWH. It is saying no other god exists except YHWH.

That is similar to the Islamic "Shahada:" lā ʾilāha ʾillā l-Lāh (لا إله إلا الله) meaning that "there is no god but Allah," or "there is no god but God". Islamic mystics interpret that to mean not only that there is only one God, but that He is the only true Reality—meaning that he is the embodiment or sum total of all that is. He is the origin and source of all reality or being, the beginning and the end of all things. You need to understand mystics and mysticism on their own terms. You seem determined not to do that, and you can't

[harfad]

I know you've said you have thousands of books, been studying this since 1991, etc., but this assertion is flat out wrong. Don't know any way of sugarcoating it.

I haven't read "thousands of books," but from what I know he appears to be spot on.

[Bill Hamblin]

Point is that like it or not, there are parallels. What he has described as the mystic experience of Advaita in Hinduism has parallels not only in other mystic traditions (e.g. Islam) but also in Mormonism (e.g. John 17:21; D&C 35:2; Moses 6:68).

Who has denied there are parallels? We've simply said that even though there are parallels, they are not the same.

Advaita Vedānta ("non-dualistic essence of the Veda") is a particular interpretation of the Vedas, ancient Sanskrit scripture and the Upaniṣads. It originated in the late seventh century AD and was given its classic form by Śaṅkara. It's fundamental proposition is that only Brahman (ब्रह्मन्) exists, and the material world and our own self-consciousness (ātman आत्मन्) are illusion (māyā माया). It is sometimes condensed into the Upaniṣadic statement "That thou art" (tat tvam asi, तत् त्वम् असि) = your ātman is Brahman. Salvation (liberation, mokṣa मोक्ष) is for the ātman to realize it is really brahman. Not even all Hindus agree with this proposition. It is thus pantheistic (God is everything; or there is nothing except Brahman.)

Now, notice that Mormonism posits the eternality of intelligence and matter, and hence is not non-dualistic. Mormonism also does not believe that God is everything (though the Light of Christ is in everything). Oneness between man and God in Mormonism is a spiritual, moral, oneness of purpose. Salvation is not to realize we really don't exist as independent entities (ātman) because we are really Brahman. It is to gain eternal life as a resurrected individual who is spiritually one with God. The differences are striking.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

However, it is a definition that mystics of other traditions you mentioned might find sympathy with

If by "find sympathy with" you mean "consider it an inferior and ultimately incorrect definition," I agree.

[volgadon]

I haven't read "thousands of books," but from what I know he appears to be spot on.

Then I seriously suggest more research. I'll even be happy to recommend some good books.

[Bill Hamblin]

That is similar to the Islamic "Shahada:" lā ʾilāha ʾillā l-Lāh (لا إله إلا الله) meaning that "there is no god but Allah," or "there is no god but God". Islamic mystics interpret that to mean not only that there is only one God, but that He is the only true Reality—meaning that he is the embodiment or sum total of all that is. He is the origin and source of all reality or being, the beginning and the end of all things. You need to understand mystics and mysticism on their own terms. You seem determined not to do that, and you can't

I've been arguing all along that we need to understand mystics and mysticism on their own terms. Which is why I reject Neomysticism, and the attempt to conflate all mysticisms into one.

The Muslim shahādah says precisely what Isaiah says. There is no [other] god but Allāh/God.

However, there are numerous branches and types of Islamic mysticism, (which have also changed through time) with many different interpretations of all sorts of things. You are, as you always have been, conflating all forms of Islamic mysticism into one idealized mysticism, and then conflating your conflation with Advaita (which you have also conflated with all forms of Hindu mysticism). See the problem?

[harfad]

I've been arguing all along that we need to understand mystics and mysticism on their own terms. Which is why I reject Neomysticism, and the attempt to conflate all mysticisms into one.

The Muslim shahÄdah says precisely what Isaiah says. There is no [other] god but AllÄh/God.

However, there are numerous branches and types of Islamic mysticism, (which have also changed through time) with many different interpretations of all sorts of things. You are, as you always have been, conflating all forms of Islamic mysticism into one idealized mysticism, and then conflating your conflation with Advaita (which you have also conflated with all forms of Hindu mysticism). See the problem?

No. I am seeing common threads suggestive of a broader unity which you cannot or do not want to see.

[Bill Hamblin]

No. I am seeing common threads suggestive of a broader unity which you cannot or do not want to see.

Round and round and round we go. This discussion became pointless a long time ago.

Might I suggest Stephen Prothero's God is Not One, which reviews the claims of the transcendental unity of religion.

[volgadon]

Round and round and round we go. This discussion became pointless a long time ago.

Might I suggest Stephen Prothero's God is Not One, which reviews the claims of the transcendental unity of religion.

Harfad rarely engages specific evidence.

[mfbukowski]

I know you've said you have thousands of books, been studying this since 1991, etc., but this assertion is flat out wrong. Don't know any way of sugarcoating it.

1991? That was yesterday. He's a kid.

[mfbukowski]

They all agree that reality is a single unified whole, that God and man are one and the same.

See there's this religion thingy that's called "Mormonism"? And it's really cool and everything and guess what? It says that God and man are one and the same and indeed man can become God and that God actually became man.

And there's these philosopher guys? And they say that all reality is what is experienced in the mind of God AND man? So kinda like all reality is a unified whole if you want to see it that way? And lotsa Mormon guys really like that kind of thinking?

And I'm one of those kinda guys? And so I think you are kinda wrong. Just sayin'.

Edited November 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Bill Hamblin]

No. I am seeing common threads suggestive of a broader unity which you cannot or do not want to see.

By the way, the fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[pogi]

Round and round and round we go. This discussion became pointless a long time ago.

Might I suggest Stephen Prothero's God is Not One, which reviews the claims of the transcendental unity of religion.

At least we agree on one thing! Lol

Thanks for the suggestion, sounds interesting