Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[peteolcott]

So you are saying that you have had the "Zohar experience" even though you don't know what it is. That is what you said.

Interesting.

And you know the experiences of every other mystic who has ever lived are identical to your own regardless of their tradition. Clearly you are omniscient. That's quite impressive!

There can only be only one {all is one} experience, and I have had it.

Western religion calls this mystical union with God, Eastern religion calls this: Moksha, Satori, and Enlightenment.

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

[Calm]

And you know the experiences of every other mystic who has ever lived are identical to your own regardless of their tradition.

Every other true mystic, the ones who don't agree with him are wannabes only.

[volgadon]

This (most literally) says that God is a solipsist:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

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.

I have checked this with at least two Hebrew bible sholars. They both agree that this is (most literally) saying that only God exists, and nothing besides God exists. Below is one of the Hebrew bible scholars.

http://www.linkedin....-udd/54/924/39a

Stanley Uddof Grave University, who was it that was using him to back up their cheap anti-Mormon attacks, hmm.

[Calm]

Not linked in, if you could provide the name of the scholar please.

[peteolcott]

Stanley Uddof Grave University, who was it that was using him to back up their cheap anti-Mormon attacks, hmm.

Stanley Udd of Grace University. I think that Mormons are great. I have no idea what Stan Udd thinks of Mormons, I only contacted him regarding the literal translation of Hebrew scriptures.

[peteolcott]

Every other true mystic, the ones who don't agree with him are wannabes only.

That most mystics do not correctly get mysticism is contained within the term esoteric.

The key thing that prevents most mystics from getting it, is an insufficiently open mind.

Edited December 1, 2012 by peteolcott

[volgadon]

That most mystics do not correctly get mysticism is contained within the term esoteric.

The key thing that prevents most mystics from getting it, is an insufficiently open mind.

You mean that the term esoteric means that those who have been initiated into the esoteric mysteries are supposed to get things at a different level than those who weren't.

[peteolcott]

You mean that the term esoteric means that those who have been initiated into the esoteric mysteries are supposed to get things at a different level than those who weren't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/esoteric

Very few get through all the veils of hidden meaning.

This meaning is hidden in plain sight, and is rejected.

[Calm]

Stanley Udd of Grace University. I think that Mormons are great. I have no idea what Stan Udd thinks of Mormons, I only contacted him regarding the literal translation of Hebrew scriptures.

Why did you choose him (asking out of curiosity)?

[peteolcott]

Why did you choose him (asking out of curiosity)?

It was a local phone call, and he was the best expert that I could find locally.

[Calm]

While he agreed that it was the most literal translation of the text, did he say it was the correct one? Just wondering as it hardly seems a likely one for an professor at an Evangelical college would believe.

And do you believe personally that scriptures must all be interpreted literally?

Edited December 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Stanley Udd of Grace University. I think that Mormons are great. I have no idea what Stan Udd thinks of Mormons, I only contacted him regarding the literal translation of Hebrew scriptures.

Hmmm A bible college in Nebraska. Yep, that's right up there with Harvard as far as bible scholars are concerned. I would take volgadon's Hebrew far above anyone with those credentials.

[mfbukowski]

There can only be only one {all is one} experience, and I have had it.

Western religion calls this mystical union with God, Eastern religion calls this: Moksha, Satori, and Enlightenment.

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

I guess what bothers me is your presumption that you are the only one who has had these experiences. I would bet that nearly every person on this board has had similar experiences- I certainly have had many. Yet I would never presume to dictate that my experience of one-ness was identical to every other person's experience.

Even your beloved wikipedia agrees with me. http://en.wikipedia....ious_experience

It details many of the varieties of religious experience. No pun intended.

And no true mystic would ever describe "Enlightenment" as a single experience- it is a constant state of awareness and one in it would not be arguing with others pridefully on an internet board. Some call it "Christ Consciousness" and you certainly don't behave as if you have it.

Edited December 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[peteolcott]

While he agreed that it was the most literal translation of the text, did he say it was the correct one? Just wondering as it hardly seems a likely one for an professor at an Evangelical college would believe.

And do you believe personally that scriptures must all be interpreted literally?

I made sure to not ask him for any interpretation, I only asked for the literal meaning.

I specifically asked him does this verse literally say that {only God exists, and nothing besides God exists} and he said yes.

It seems to me that verses such as this one are intended to be taken literally.

Edited December 1, 2012 by peteolcott

[Calm]

So why do you insist that the literal meaning is the correct one?

And I would have loved to have seen what his reaction would have been if you had continue to say after "nothing but God exists"...."so that means we are God just as everything else is God and nothing is not God".

Edited December 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[peteolcott]

I guess what bothers me is your presumption that you are the only one who has had these experiences. I would bet that nearly every person on this board has had similar experiences- I certainly have had many. Yet I would never presume to dictate that my experience of one-ness was identical to every other person's experience.

Even your beloved wikipedia agrees with me. http://en.wikipedia....ious_experience

It details many of the varieties of religious experience. No pun intended.

And no true mystic would ever describe "Enlightenment" as a single experience- it is a constant state of awareness and one in it would not be arguing with others pridefully on an internet board. Some call it "Christ Consciousness" and you certainly don't behave as if you have it.

Not every religious experience is the {mystical union with God} experience.

[volgadon]

So why do you insist that the literal meaning is the correct one?

And I would have loved to have seen what his reaction would have been if you had continue to say after "nothing but God exists"...."so that means we are God just as everything else is God and nothing is not God".

Yes, that would be a sight to see.

[volgadon]

Who was your other expert?

[peteolcott]

So why do you insist that the literal meaning is the correct one?

And I would have loved to have seen what his reaction would have been if you had continue to say after "nothing but God exists"...."so that means we are God just as everything else is God and nothing is not God".

Since you did not quote this, I can not be sure that you saw this so it may be a repeat.

He specifically agreed that the word-for-word paraphrase {God exists, and nothing besides God exists} accurately stated the meaning of the verse.

If we begin with the premise that the bible is the inspired word of God, then it would seem to be the case that God would say exactly what he means and mean exactly what he says. If God does not say exactly what he means and mean exactly what he says, then God would (at least slightly) either err or lie. If we assume that God neither errs nor lies, then that would logically entail that God says exactly what he means and means exactly what he says. This is the kind of literal meaning that I am referring to.

Edited December 1, 2012 by peteolcott

[peteolcott]

Who was your other expert?

Someone on a Hebrew bible study newsgroup.

[volgadon]

Since you did not quote this, I can not be sure that you saw this so it may be a repeat.

He specifically agreed that the word-for-word paraphrase {God exists, and nothing besides God exists} accurately stated the meaning of the verse.

If we begin with the premise that the bible is the inspired word of God, then it would seem to be the case that God would say exactly what he means and mean exactly what he says. If God does not say exactly what he means and mean exactly what he says, then God would (at least slightly) either err or lie. If we assume that God neither errs nor lies, then that would logically entail that God says exactly what he means and mean exactly what he says. This is the kind of literal meaning that I am referring to.

Well, I might email him.

[volgadon]

Someone on a Hebrew bible study newsgroup.

So, probably not an expert, right?

[mfbukowski]

Yes, that would be a sight to see.

The only problem with "everything" being God is that the term loses its meaning. If God is not distinguished in some way from everything else, it is about the same as saying "nothing is God".

For the old timers, to me it is a mass of confusion.

Let's just say that that view is quite at odds with Mormonism since it has been specifically repudiated.

[mfbukowski]

So why do you insist that the literal meaning is the correct one?

And I would have loved to have seen what his reaction would have been if you had continue to say after "nothing but God exists"...."so that means we are God just as everything else is God and nothing is not God".

Oops- somehow I missed this one! "Great minds....."

[Calm]

Since you did not quote this, I can not be sure that you saw this so it may be a repeat.

He specifically agreed that the word-for-word paraphrase {God exists, and nothing besides God exists} accurately stated the meaning of the verse.

If we begin with the premise that the bible is the inspired word of God, then it would seem to be the case that God would say exactly what he means and mean exactly what he says. If God does not say exactly what he means and mean exactly what he says, then God would (at least slightly) either err or lie. If we assume that God neither errs nor lies, then that would logically entail that God says exactly what he means and means exactly what he says. This is the kind of literal meaning that I am referring to.

So everything in the Bible is literal and inerrant?