Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[harfad]

Historically speaking you are dead wrong. Only in the 19th and 20th century did people begin to speak about some type of universal mysticism.

Nobody is talking about "universal mysticism". I don't recall using that phrase, and I am not aware that anybody else has. There is in fact no such thing as universal mysticism. There are only various schools or traditions of mysticism normally associated with longstanding mainstream religions like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. There is, however, an important observation to be made about these various mystical traditions, and that is the extraordinary similarities that exists among them. The similarities are so great and noticeable that some scholars have tried to establish common grounds, and to try to demonstrate that they have been derived, or been influenced by one another. That is the most remarkable observation that can be made about them. Looking at it from that point of view, there is indeed something "universal" about mysticism, although there is no such thing as "universal mysticism".

[harfad]

No biblical theophany is ever described in the Bible as "mystical." The concept simply didn't exist. In the NT mysterion was a secret revelation of God, and mystikos was something to do with a mysterion, including, possibly, one who knew the mysterion.

The Bible does not call them "mystical," but neither does it call them "un-mystical." If the mystics want to define their spiritual experiences in those terms, they have every right to do so.

No coherent discussion of these issues can occur by ever using the term mysticism without a modifier.

No modifier is required when referring to the phenomenon as it is universally observed in all major religious traditions. A modifier becomes necessary only when you are referring to a particular mystical tradition, such as Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or Islamic mysticism.

[harfad]

This is a further example of the problem of using the term mysticism. It is so broad, meaning so many different things to so many different people, that it inevitably leads to confusion.

I'm fine with using the idea of temple mysticism as long as we clearly define and differentiate it. (Which Barker only partially does.)

I would agree with that. People who want to use the term in unconventional ways have a responsibility to define it. I haven't a clue what "temple mysticism" means, and I would say it may be an inappropriate use of the term.

[harfad]

Some other important distinction to recognize between neo-mysticism (20-21 century) and traditional mysticism (medieval forms associated with specific religious traditions) are:

1- Traditional = mysticism as a way of life (hence monasticism)

Neo = mysticism as an individual practice (hence "follow your bliss")

2- traditional = rigorous religious practices

neo = lacks rigor

3- traditional = must have a mystic master

neo = can do mysticism by reading books

4- traditional = highly ascetic

neo = marginally ascetic

5- traditional = closely associated with scripture tradition

neo = personal interpretation

6- traditional = salvific

neo = self realization

Neo-mysticism is fundamentally different from traditional mysticism in many different ways.

If that be the case, then all of my comments and observations relate to mysticism, not to neo-mysticism. The latter does not appear to be something that would have some interest for me. My studies relate only to the former kind, not the latter.

[volgadon]

The Bible does not call them "mystical," but neither does it call them "un-mystical." If the mystics want to define their spiritual experiences in those terms, they have every right to do so.

So could Van Daniken.

No modifier is required when referring to the phenomenon as it is universally observed in all major religious traditions.

THe problem is, mysticism is not universally observed in all major religious traditions, nor is it observed the same way even among the same religious traditions. Of course there are similarities and practices that mystics would have recognised in other faiths, but that doesn't reduce everything to a universal mysticism.

A modifier becomes necessary only when you are referring to a particular mystical tradition, such as Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or Islamic mysticism.

What Bill Hamblin was getting at is that the modifier is essential in order to avoid an ahistorical hodge-podge.

[Bill Hamblin]

So could Van Daniken.

THe problem is, mysticism is not universally observed in all major religious traditions, nor is it observed the same way even among the same religious traditions. Of course there are similarities and practices that mystics would have recognised in other faiths, but that doesn't reduce everything to a universal mysticism.

What Bill Hamblin was getting at is that the modifier is essential in order to avoid an ahistorical hodge-podge.

Exactly.

[Robert F. Smith]

Exactly.

All the more reason why you should prepare a paper for the upcoming (next year) BYU conference on "The Mystical." Sounds rather open-ended, and I am frankly curious to see what comes forth from that Conference. And I believe that your point of view is a necessary one and should be well expressed. http://www.mormonscholars.net/announcements/untitledpost .

[harfad]

All the more reason why you should prepare a paper for the upcoming (next year) BYU conference on "The Mystical." Sounds rather open-ended, and I am frankly curious to see what comes forth from that Conference. And I believe that your point of view is a necessary one and should be well expressed.

Apparently he has none. Judging by his comments so far, his knowledge of the subject appears to be very limited and superficial. He has a long ways to go before having a "point of view" on the subject that will be worth "expressing". A good advice would be to save himself the unnecessary embarrassment.

[volgadon]

Apparently he has none. Judging by his comments so far, his knowledge of the subject appears to be very limited and superficial. He has a long ways to go before having a "point of view" on the subject that will be worth "expressing". A good advice would be to save himself the unnecessary embarrassment.

Have you heard of Ariel Bension?

[mfbukowski]

Apparently he has none. Judging by his comments so far, his knowledge of the subject appears to be very limited and superficial. He has a long ways to go before having a "point of view" on the subject that will be worth "expressing". A good advice would be to save himself the unnecessary embarrassment.

If that is your opinion, I suggest you also submit a paper and see who's gets chosen. If one is interested in being saved from embarassment one should first check one's sources, as it were.

[Bill Hamblin]

All the more reason why you should prepare a paper for the upcoming (next year) BYU conference on "The Mystical." Sounds rather open-ended, and I am frankly curious to see what comes forth from that Conference. And I believe that your point of view is a necessary one and should be well expressed. http://www.mormonsch...ts/untitledpost .

I'm considering it.

[Bill Hamblin]

Apparently he has none. Judging by his comments so far, his knowledge of the subject appears to be very limited and superficial. He has a long ways to go before having a "point of view" on the subject that will be worth "expressing". A good advice would be to save himself the unnecessary embarrassment.

You must be right. There is no other possible explanation for why we differ in our views about mysticism.

[volgadon]

I'm considering it.

So am I. I think it would be good to hear your thoughts on mysticism and any methodological considerations, prticularly those bearing upon LDS studies.

[Nathair/|\]

So am I. I think it would be good to hear your thoughts on mysticism and any methodological considerations, particularly those bearing upon LDS studies.

I'm considering it.

I look forward to both your papers.

[mfbukowski]

I look forward to both your papers.

Likewise.

[harfad]

The Conference Theme is "The Mystical" (i.e. acknowledging something universal about mysticism). The attached Word File containing the "Call for Papers" makes the following observation about mysticism:

"Most religious traditions begin with or develop a mystical tradition—a tradition given to the study and direct encounter with the divine, the ineffable, or the transcendent. Somewhat surprisingly, the theme of the mystical has in recent centuries been as prevalent outside of the religious sphere as inside, suggesting that it may be fundamental to the human experience generally. Mysticism leaves its traces in the arts and cultures studied by the humanities.

We are seeking papers on the mystical, whether in literature and art, or the relationship of mysticism to Mormonism. Some topics that might be considered are: ..."

In other words, the theme of the conference a universally observable phenomenon generically called "mysticism," (i.e. observable in human experience generally, and especially on religious experience). The purpose of the conference is to elucidate that universally observable phenomenon. Bill Hamblin's ideas amounts to a negation of the conference theme—i.e. that there is no such universally observable phenomena, with a common thread running through them. He even goes so far as to reject the use of the word mysticism altogether precisely because it connotes the existence of such a universally common thread in religion or in human experience. Here are quotes from some of his own comments in this thread:

The first problem in trying to have this kind of discussion is defining mysticism. The idea that there is religious phenomena called mysticism, found in all major religions, is a modern concept. No actual practicing mystic before the twentieth century would agree with this idea. Sufis don't have a mystical relationship with God. They have a sufistic relationship with Allah. ... Hence modern attempts at equating different forms of spiritual practices in all religions under the rubric of mysticism are dubious. Finding a definition of mysticism that is narrow enough to relate to the specific mystical practices and beliefs of a particular religion or movement, and yet at the same time is broad enough to include all the beliefs and practices of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus is basically impossible.

There can no more be a generic mysticism without a specific religious tradition of belief and practice, than there can be a generic religion without a specific tradition of belief and practice.

This is precisely the problem. By using the term mysticism here, everyone is conceptualizing something different, and hence, we don't actually communicate but talk past each other.

Sorry if I am disappointing anyone, but I don't see how anyone with such views can have anything useful to contribute to the above upcoming conference on "The Mystical," which is devoted to the recognition of a universally observable phenomenon called "mysticism".

[volgadon]

The Conference Theme is "The Mystical" (i.e. acknowledging something universal about mysticism). The attached Word File containing the "Call for Papers" makes the following observation about mysticism:

"Most religious traditions begin with or develop a mystical tradition—a tradition given to the study and direct encounter with the divine, the ineffable, or the transcendent. Somewhat surprisingly, the theme of the mystical has in recent centuries been as prevalent outside of the religious sphere as inside, suggesting that it may be fundamental to the human experience generally. Mysticism leaves its traces in the arts and cultures studied by the humanities.

We are seeking papers on the mystical, whether in literature and art, or the relationship of mysticism to Mormonism. Some topics that might be considered are: ..."

Precisely why a dose of methodological caution would not be out of place.

[Calm]

Apparently he has none. Judging by his comments so far, his knowledge of the subject appears to be very limited and superficial. He has a long ways to go before having a "point of view" on the subject that will be worth "expressing". A good advice would be to save himself the unnecessary embarrassment.

I am curious as to your background (experience and/or training) that apparently has convinced you that you are expert enough on the subject to make such an evaluation. (I know Dr. Hamblin's background which is why I don't need to ask him.)

[harfad]

I am just someone who has been interested in and made a study of the subject. I just looked up mysticism in Wikipedia, and noted the following:

"Many if not all of the world's great religions have arisen around the teachings of mystics (including Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tze, and Krishna); and most religious traditions describe fundamental mystical experience, at least esoterically. Enlightenment or Illumination are generic English terms for the phenomenon, derived from the Latin illuminatio (applied to Christian prayer in the 15th century) and adopted in English translations of Buddhist texts, but used loosely to describe the state of mystical attainment regardless of faith."

The idea of mysticism as a universally observable phenomenon in human experience (especially religious experience) has been recognised by by pretty much every scholar worthy of the name who has made a serious study of the subject. It is something that I have observed independently in my own studies, and noticed it confirmed by others who have made a serious study of the subject. Folks who are now seeking to deny it in this thread show a distinct lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Yes, it's clear now that Dr. Hamblin's three degrees in history and extensive work in religious studies are no match for a cut-and-paste job from Wikipedia.

[treeface]

The idea of a mystical knowledge of God is one of things that first drew me to Catholicism years ago. After spending some time dabbling in eastern religions (primarily Theravadin Buddhism), I was turned on to the fact that Catholicism has a very long and deep tradition of mysticism...

I'm wondering if such a mysticism is even possible in Mormonism...

The experiential/gnostic possibilities offered by Mormonism are a large part of what drew me to it years ago. One of the basics that the missionaries teach is that we can get in contact with the Divine via the Holy Spirit. Then the first thing they do to a newly-baptized Mormon is give that person "the Gift of the Holy Ghost". I think it is magnificent that the first thing a Mormon gets is official permission, and indeed the injunction, to trust the still, small voice within. Later we are taught other things that diminish the role of the still, small voice within, which I think is unfortunate, but at least we start out with that.

(My personal opinion is that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is sort of like when the Wizard of Oz gave the Scarecrow a diploma. The diploma did not actually confer greater intelligence, but rather validated a part of who he already was. Likewise, I don't think the Mormons have any monopoly on the Holy Ghost, but they do have a ceremony for each individual that highlights the Spirit as a source of guidance and truth. I wish they did a better job of teaching how to tell the still, small voice apart from our own personal agendas, but maybe that's asking too much.)

I don't think there's much of a formal tradition of mysticism within the Mormon church, probably because there's a strong emphasis on the central authority, and mystics tend to come up with stuff that goes off the beaten path. But the foundation is there for the individual seeker, in my opinion.

Just to be clear, the mystical experiences I am discussing are not a "burning in the bosom." In fact, usually there is little emotional aspect to them at all. St. John of the Cross warns that religious affectations can actually be a stumbling block on the mystical path, because we become so easily attached to them and then start to seek a religious feeling rather than a direct experience of God.

This is great. Strong emotion is not a mystical experience. You can get strong emotion from a good movie or book or powerful orator or even a football game. In my (heretical) opinion, religion gets you living a good enough life that you are in a position to take the next step, which is to become a true disciple following the highest you know consistently, which leads to discovering and then following yet higher truths as you go. And even if that isn't what you are inclined to do, at least they got you to probably being a better person than you would have been otherwise.

I spent several years in Catholic schools when I was a kid, but wasn't exposed to any tradition or line of thinking that inplied mysticism. On the contrary, the emphasis seemed to be on accepting dogma whether it made sense to you or not. So I'm interested in hearing more about this side of Catholicism, if you don't mind sharing.

Edited November 11, 2012 by treeface

[Calm]

The idea of mysticism as a universally observable phenomenon in human experience (especially religious experience) has been recognised by by pretty much every scholar worthy of the name who has made a serious study of the subject. It is something that I have observed independently in my own studies, and noticed it confirmed by others who have made a serious study of the subject. Folks who are now seeking to deny it in this thread show a distinct lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject.

Any chance we can get something more detailed than the Wiki to demonstrate this?

[harfad]

Don't you think that the BYU conference theme and agenda previously mentioned has already done that? If you are asking me to write treatise on the subject, I don't see why I should reinvent the wheel by doing what others have already done several times over before me.

[volgadon]

Don't you think that the BYU conference theme and agenda previously mentioned has already done that? If you are asking me to write treatise on the subject, I don't see why I should reinvent the wheel by doing what others have already done several times over before me.

You could start by answering the question I asked you. Have you heard of Ariel Bension?

[volgadon]

I am just someone who has been interested in and made a study of the subject. I just looked up mysticism in Wikipedia, and noted the following:

"Many if not all of the world's great religions have arisen around the teachings of mystics (including Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tze, and Krishna); and most religious traditions describe fundamental mystical experience, at least esoterically. Enlightenment or Illumination are generic English terms for the phenomenon, derived from the Latin illuminatio (applied to Christian prayer in the 15th century) and adopted in English translations of Buddhist texts, but used loosely to describe the state of mystical attainment regardless of faith."

The idea of mysticism as a universally observable phenomenon in human experience (especially religious experience) has been recognised by by pretty much every scholar worthy of the name who has made a serious study of the subject. It is something that I have observed independently in my own studies, and noticed it confirmed by others who have made a serious study of the subject. Folks who are now seeking to deny it in this thread show a distinct lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject.

I'm sure that you'd dismiss Gershom Scholem, too. I bet you'd say of him that, "his knowledge of the subject appears to be very limited and superficial. He has a long ways to go before having a "point of view" on the subject that will be worth "expressing". A good advice would be to save himself the unnecessary embarrassment."

http://www2.trincoll.edu/~kiener/RELG308_Scholem_MTJM_Lecture1.pdf

"This leads us to a further consideration: it would be a mistake to assume that the whole of what we call mysticism is identical with that personal experience which is realized in the state of ecstasy or ecstatic meditation. Mysticism, as an historical phenomenon, comprises much more than this experience, which lies at its root. There is a danger in relying too much on purely speculative definitions of the term. The point I should like to make is this-that there is no such thing as mysticism in the abstract, that is to say, a phenomenon or experience which has no particular relation to other religious phenomena. There is no mysticism as such, there is only the mysticism of a particular religious system, Christian, ISlamic, Jewish mysticism and so on. That there remains a common characteristic it would be absurd to deny, and it is this element which is brought out in the comparative analysis of particular mystical experiences. But only in our days has the belief gained ground that there is such a thing as an abstract mystical religion. One reason for this widespread belief may be found in the pantheistic trend which, for the past century, has exercised a much greater influence on religious thought than ever before. Its influence can be traced in the manifold attempts to abandon the fixed forms of dogmatic and institutional religion in favour of some sort of universal religion. For the same reason the various historical aspects of religious mysticism are often treated as corrupted forms of an, as it were, chemically pure mysticism which is thought of as not bound to any particular religion. As it is our intention to treat of a certain definite kind of mysticism, namely Jewish, we should not dwell too much upon such abstractions. Moreover, as Evelyn Underhill has rightly pointed out, the prevailing conception of the mystic as a religious anarchist who owes no allegiance to his religion finds little support in fact. History rather shows that the great mystics were faithful adherents of the great religions.

Jewish mysticism, no less than its Greek or Christian counterparts, presents itself as a totality of concrete historical phenomena. Let us, therefore, pause to consider for a moment the conditions and circumstances under which mysticism arises in the historical development of religion and particularly in that of the great monotheistic systems. The definitions of the term mysticism of which I have given a few instances, lead only too easily to the conclusion that all religion in the last resort is based on mysticism; a conclusion which, as we have seen, is drawn in so many words by Rufus Jones. For is not religion unthinkable without an "immediate awareness of relation with God"? That way lies an interminable dispute about words. The fact is that nobody seriously thinks of applying the term mysticism to the classic manifestations of the great religions. It would be absurd to call Moses, the man of God, a mystic, or to apply this term to the Prophets, on the strength of their immediate religious experience. I, for one, do not intend to employ a terminology which obscures the very real differences that are recognized by all, and thereby makes it even more difficult to get at the root of the problem."