Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[Bill Hamblin]

The main point I was making was that mysticism can be counter-religious sometimes and come into conflict with the mainstream of that religion.

The commonalities are sufficiently numerous and significant that it has been generally recognised in the scholarly community that they must be more than just coincidences. The debate has been about how they came about. The secular scholarly world have tried to explain them by suggesting "borrowings" or "cross-cultural" influences; but their attempt to demonstrate this historically or with documentary evidence has never been very successful. But there is another possible explanation. I believe that these movements have been divinely indpired, and the similarities between them have arisen independently by inspiration rather than dependently by borrowing from one another.

You're wrong. There is no generally recognized scholarly definition of mysticism. That's been my point all along.

[Bill Hamblin]

"the term [mysticism] is so ambiguous, and so often leads to confusion." Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, 818

"no single definition of the term [mysticism] can cover its multiplicity of uses" HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion 747

"no definition [of mysticism] could be both meaningful and sufficiently comprehensive to include all experiences that, at some point or another, have been described as 'mystical'" Encyclopedia of Religion 10:245

[Bill Hamblin]

The main point I was making was that mysticism can be counter-religious sometimes and come into conflict with the mainstream of that religion.

That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the fact that mystics within a particular tradition feud with one another on a regular basis. They don't see what the different mystical groups within the same religion do as the same. They, the mystics themselves, see significant difference. This is not non-mystics vs. mystics. It is not Jewish mystics vs. Sufi mystics. It is, for example, Jewish mystics vs. other Jewish mystics. They can't even agree among themselves!

[Bill Hamblin]

You are taking a superficial look at mysticism in religion. Mysticism has had a long history in all major religions where it has developed, and has had its ups and downs, and has had its periods of corruption and decay. What passes off as mysticism in a particular religious tradition today may not be the same as what it was in the golden age of that religion.

Indeed. But by what criteria do you distinguish authentic mysticism from corrupt mysticism? The Bergites think they are mystics. So do the Hasidim. So do the non-Hasidic Kabbalists. Yet they all feud and disagree among themselves. Yet you think you get to decide which is authentic and which corrupt?

[Bill Hamblin]

See my previous post. I do not classify as mysticisim everything that passes off as mysticism, or everything that claims that heritage; any more than I would lump an apostate religion together with its unapostate version as though they were one and the same, and indistinguishable from one another.

So notice we are back to the problem of definition, which is precisely where we started. We can't have a coherent discussion because we are all talking about something different and calling it "mysticism."

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Hmmm...

The teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

[volgadon]

Bill and Volgadon,

Mysticism is not a set of dogma, or outward practices. You guys are defining religion, not mysticism. Mysticism put quite simply, is the personal experience of deity. It is the actual experience, not the steps you take, or rules that you follow to have that experience.

If you want to define it that way, then Judaism lacks mysticism as what you describe is intricately tied to religious practices, observances, and to some extent, dogma, too. Splitting the two leaves you with something that most Jewish mystics would be hard pressed to recognise.

[volgadon]

That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the fact that mystics within a particular tradition feud with one another on a regular basis. They don't see what the different mystical groups within the same religion do as the same. They, the mystics themselves, see significant difference. This is not non-mystics vs. mystics. It is not Jewish mystics vs. Sufi mystics. It is, for example, Jewish mystics vs. other Jewish mystics. They can't even agree among themselves!

Such as Ariel Bension deriding Hasidism. Or, better yet, the Hasidim who violently persecuted the Breslavers for their divergent mystic views.

[Bill Hamblin]

Remember that Rabbi Eliyahu the Gaon of Vilna, the leader of the mitnagdim (opponents) of Hasidism, who excommunicated the early Hasidim mystics, was a traditional Kabbalistic mystic. He, a mystic, quite clearly did not believe that all mysticisms were created equal.

[Bill Hamblin]

If you want to define it that way, then Judaism lacks mysticism as what you describe is intricately tied to religious practices, observances, and to some extent, dogma, too. Splitting the two leaves you with something that most Jewish mystics would be hard pressed to recognise.

Indeed, some scholars would argue that mysticism in its strictest sense, is only a Christian phenomena.

[Bill Hamblin]

Such as Ariel Bension deriding Hasidism. Or, better yet, the Hasidim who violently persecuted the Breslavers for their divergent mystic views.

Right. So by 1800 you end up with three major movements--Mitnagdim, Hasidim and Breslavers--all mystical in one way or another, and all feuding with each other. Clearly Jewish mystics not only did not believe in a universal mysticism, they couldn't even agree on a Jewish mysticism.

[Bill Hamblin]

So, in my view mysticism is a useful term only if it is qualified by modifiers of some sort (e.g. Hasidic Jewish mysticism).

From a more positive perspective, I would say that a fundamental characteristic of all mysticisms (note the plural) is that they are esoteric. Mysticism is based on a believe that:

1- there is more to reality than the material world--there is an esoteric reality

2- there is more to the individual than his physical self--there is an inner, esoteric self

3- most importantly, there is more to sacred texts than the exoteric meaning--there is a divinely inspired esoteric meaning

4- the esoteric interpretation of sacred texts is the foundational method of comprehending the esoteric reality behind the material world and self

I believe that all forms of mysticisms share these four assumptions. That is to say: all mysticism is esoteric, although not all esotericisms are mystical.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

Remember that Rabbi Eliyahu the Gaon of Vilna, the leader of the mitnagdim (opponents) of Hasidism, who excommunicated the early Hasidim mystics, was a traditional Kabbalistic mystic. He, a mystic, quite clearly did not believe that all mysticisms were created equal.

Not only was he a mystic, he was THE mystic with a capital T in the whole of European Jewry.

[harfad]

One of the key rituals in Islam is the chanting of the Qur'an, done in mosques, funerals, weddings, etc. It's music.

I presume you are referring to the tajwid. First of all that is not a chant. To chant means to repeat the same phrase over and over again in rhythmic tones, like "We want justice," repeated over and over. The Qur'an is not chanted. You can call the tajwid music if you like, but the Muslims would be the last to call it that. That is properly called a recitation, like reciting poetry in English.

[volgadon]

I presume you are referring to the tajwid. First of all that is not a chant. To chant means to repeat the same phrase over and over again in rhythmic tones, like "We want justice," repeated over and over. The Qur'an is not chanted. You can call the tajwid music if you like, but the Muslims would be the last to call it that. That is properly called a recitation, like reciting poetry in English.

Do you need a dictionary?

[volgadon]

Also, why is it that very few want to engage the specific examples Bill and I have posted?

[harfad]

You're wrong. There is no generally recognized scholarly definition of mysticism.

I didn't say there was. I don't know why you keep repeating that.

[Bill Hamblin]

I presume you are referring to the tajwid. First of all that is not a chant. To chant means to repeat the same phrase over and over again in rhythmic tones, like "We want justice," repeated over and over. The Qur'an is not chanted. You can call the tajwid music if you like, but the Muslims would be the last to call it that. That is properly called a recitation, like reciting poetry in English.

Yes, I'm talking about tajwīd. And if, for example you look up tajwīd in Glasse's New Encyclopedia of Islam, 3rd ed, p. 510, it says "see Koran Chanting."

At any rate, I'm not going to quibble over what is or is not music.

[harfad]

"the term [mysticism] is so ambiguous, and so often leads to confusion." Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, 818

"no single definition of the term [mysticism] can cover its multiplicity of uses" HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion 747

"no definition [of mysticism] could be both meaningful and sufficiently comprehensive to include all experiences that, at some point or another, have been described as 'mystical'" Encyclopedia of Religion 10:245

See above. I don't know why you keep repeating that. I don't disagree with it.

[Bill Hamblin]

See above. I don't know why you keep repeating that. I don't disagree with it.

Maybe because you keep making arguments that seem to be based on the assumption that there is a standard understanding of mysticism? (See my post #126)

Edited November 12, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[harfad]

Bill and Volgadon,

Mysticism is not a set of dogma, or outward practices. You guys are defining religion, not mysticism. Mysticism put quite simply, is the personal experience of deity. It is the actual experience, not the steps you take, or rules that you follow to have that experience.

Thank you pogi, you have made a good point.

[harfad]

Maybe because you keep making arguments that seem to be based on the assumption that there is a standard understanding of mysticism?

There may not be a standard "definition" or even "understanding" of mysticism; but there is general recognition of the existence of a phenomenon which may rightly be called mysticism. Recognising the existence of a phenomenon is not equivalent to being able to define it, or finding a common definition which everyone can agree upon.

[harfad]

Indeed. But by what criteria do you distinguish authentic mysticism from corrupt mysticism? The Bergites think they are mystics. So do the Hasidim. So do the non-Hasidic Kabbalists. Yet they all feud and disagree among themselves. Yet you think you get to decide which is authentic and which corrupt?

That is a valid question. It is a bit like asking, "How do you tell an apostate religion from a true one?" Or, "How do you tell a true revelation or scripture apart from a fake one?" The answer is that you can't do it by scholarship alone. You can only do it by personal revelation, by the gift of the Spirit. It requires first the assumption that mysticism(s) at some points on their history have been inspired. That is an assumption that not everyone will agree with, but one that I firmly believe in. Take Islamic mysticism for example. It has something like 14 centuries of history behind it. Its golden age was around the 12th century, which is about 1,000 years ago. That is the age which gave us the great Sufi masters like Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi, and Mewlānā Jalāl ad-Dīn Rumi, and hundreds of others who produced the most amazing mystical literature of all time. I believe these men were genuinely inspired. They were prophets in their own right. What passes off as mysticism or Sufism in the is a shadow of its former self. There is no comparison. Here is an interesting article I found which traces the history of the development of Sufism to modern times, and the changes and upheavals it has gone through:

http://www.angelfire.com/az/rescon/SUFIMYSTIC.HTML

What is the golden age of Hebrew mysticism? I think that its golden age was in the Old Testament. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, Ezekiel etc. were the genuine, authentic Hebrew mystics. In some cultures and religious traditions mysticism has been more highly developed than in others.

[harfad]

Sorry, I meant to say, "What passes off today as mysticism or Sufism in the Islamic world is a shadow of its former self."

[Bill Hamblin]

The question is not "what is authentic mysticism?" The question is "what is mysticism?" Only when mysticism is understood can we even begin to evaluate what is authentic mysticism.