“The complete absence of the Mormon equivalent of mystics speaks volumes for me.”
I came across this post on another forum a little while ago. It was written by a very spiritual, yet practical, man who has long since left the Church.
His declaration made me think: ARE there any Mormon mystics these days?
When I think of mystics I think of the poet and artist William Blake, Christian visionary Julian of Norwich, Joan of Arc, and the longhaired guy I knew in Toronto who guarded the gates of hell. These are people who have taken things beyond mortal ken wrought them into new metaphors and made them explode into our larger social consciousness through their preachings, writings and actions.
But when it comes to us Mormons, the observation Christopher Bigelow made through Kindra, a Wiccan character in his as yet-unpublished novel Kindred Spirits, that it seems like Mormon TRY to be boring, seems painfully true.
I certainly won’t object to calling Joseph Smith a mystic. He ranks up there with the widest-eyed of them. Another guy I’d like to nominate is John H. Koyle. He started a mine that I lived beneath my entire childhood in Spanish Fork, Utah. Folks call it the Dream Mine, and it was featured in John Krakaur’s Under the Banner of Heaven. According to the biographies I’ve read about him, an angel came to Koyle and directed how he was supposed to dig the mine. He was supposed to find all kinds of rich ore to save the Church financially, and maybe even the golden plates. Fascinating story. He pursued the mine his whole life, bringing on investors, experiencing miracles, calling down the wrath of apostles, and never quite finding the treasure.
But what about these days? I mean, 2006? Do we have any Mormon mystics now?
I’d want offer Terry Tempest Williams as a Mormon mystic, especially after reading Leap. Her ability to forge a concrete connection among Mormonism, nature and the feminine is quite profound. If you’ve ever met her in person (I did an interview with her once) you’d be amazed by the power she emanates. At least I certainly was.
But I’m very interested, are there any contemporary Mormon mystics out there metaphorically injecting LSD in the LDS worldview?
As Hugh Nibley pointed out; Mormonism isn’t a mystic religion in the proper sense of the word. It is visionary, but that doesn’t translate to mystic. Regardless of how much you believe about the message and spiritual experiences, Mormonism is based on the idea of the concrete and not the abstract. It has its symbols, but they point to solid and not fluid ideas.
I must confess to a definite mystical bend in my approach to spirituality. Since there really isn’t a role model G. A. who’s writings would qualify, I have found much of interest in the writings of Christian mystics such as Thomas a Kempis, St. John of the Cross, and Therese of Avila. But I do think there is elements of the mystical in our scriptures, particularly the Gospel of John. Although LDS doctrine is “materialist” (i.e. “no such thing as immaterial matter”), if you twink the definition of mystic a bit, you can certainly find elements of it in D&C 84, 88, 93, JSH and others. Finally, my favorite state of being on this earth is fasting, when the Holy Ghost seems to have the easiest time conveying the truths of the kingdom to my mind, which may or may not qualify as mystical.
This is often brought up among my fellow Masons. Though Joseph Smith was steeped in Mystical tradition, there were before and after him religious mystics of greater importance. However, mysticism within the faith isn’t discussed nearly enough.
The Joseph Smith story as heard in Sunday school bears a striking resemblance to the story of Christian Rosenkreutz, the (possibly legendary) founder of Rosicrucianism. Further, Masonic, cabbalistic, hermetic and alchemical themes permeate the life and work of Joseph.
The problem is that one has to be clear what one means by mysticism. It is easy to define it so broadly that most Mormons are mystics. Yet if one is making parallels to kabbalism, rosicrucianism, and more traditional mystics like Meister Eckhart then one clearly must be doing more than structural parallels. There must also be a strong common content. And I just don’t see that.
The way you seem to be pushing mysticism seems to require it to be defined so broadly as to include anything of what one would call vertical religious beliefs. That is the idea that revelation and earth/heaven contact is possible and obtainable. But that seems to make it so broad as to lose what made the mystics (whether Christian, Roman/Greek pagan, or easter) so interesting.
I’d written up something along these lines at M*. However there clearly are numerous parallels between mysticism and Mormonism (as well as many philosophies) I’m not sure that’s enough to make calling it mystic to be useful.
[…] Stephen Carter at SunstoneBlog, which I don’t think I’ve linked to before, asks, are there any Mormon mystics these days? He and a commentator mention some Catholic mystics of old, such as St. Julian of Norwich, but I wonder if they know that there are Catholic mystics this very day. St. Pio was one. Venerable John Paul II certainly was, according to those close to him, but he didn’t explicitly talk about it. […]
John Paul ll was ‘venerable’ and a ‘mystic’. I don’t think so! He protected clergy child molesters his entire ministry calling those who spoke out against the child molestation anti catholic.
How a man like this could be considered a mystic or even spiritual is beyond me. Maybe they’ve lowered the standards for mysticism.
John Paul ll was a corporate CEO who controlled one of the world’s most lucrative corporations and he helped to make the catholic church a very un-christian organization.
badmormon
Stephen, thank you for wondering about this subject.
I believe if we look at our poets, we are likely to discover many Mormon mystics right under our noses! However, they don’t generally like to grandstand or label themselves as such. I can think of several I could refer to in this way, but would rather not identify–except for Clifton Jolley.
Since I often refer to myself as a Mormon mystic when asked, I will risk embarrassing myself further.
In terms of Ken Wilber’s four quadrant map of Kosmic consciousness, mystics generally reside in what Wilber calls the upper left quadrant. This is what he calls the realm of the “interior.” This is the location of individual intention, intuition, and is the source of creativity, personal values and meaning. We are all alive in this place, but most in our culture I dare say (and as you observe) are not conscious of the reality or importance of this part of life.
Typically, mystics enjoy a rich dream life, which is often the source of their poetry. It is an inner journey and not something the mature poet or dreamer wishes to foist on others.
To illustrate this journey, I will risk disclosing something from my apprentice days with a long ago poem called “Rainmaker”. Its external correlates coincided with a years-long drought in Southern California, followed by an historic storm.
Rainmaker
I’m nervous as I sit in front
the third chair from the isle.
The man who sits before me
now speaks but doesn’t smile.
“What is your journey here, sir,
before you are retired,
and make no joke about it
the word is more like fired!”
Startled I woke that New Year’s day
as the dream began to fade,
and three days later on the job
my back just up and gave!
Down flat in bed my body lay
retired by the pain
while outside great clouds gathered
and then began the rain.
As outer ragged darkness
sent torrents raging down
I dimly came to be aware
the Master was in town.
His inner light began to glow
in a school room way down deep
to show me what I’d failed to learn
long formal years asleep.
He came now as a rainmaker
from regions far away
where Nature’s master rhythm
is balanced night and day.
He took confusion on himself
influenced from without
and as the inner struggle grew
began to sort it out.
A rainmaker comes for inner work
chaotic states to feel
and restoring balance in himself
new harmony forms congeal.
* * *
“This is now my journey, Sir,”
I say back in the dream,
“to seek that place where rainmakers
can learn the craft they bring.
“I know it isn’t far beyond
for I can see the way;
the longer are the strides I take
the sooner arrival day.
“Even detours to the right or left
are harder now to take
as my journey speed increases
it’s less effort moving straight.
“So that is where I’m going now,
I hope you understand.
If not, that’s all right too, Sir,
but I’m moving to new land.
“I’ll return a later time then
when I’ve better learned my craft,
and if you’re here and still in need,
my work will make you laugh.
“If it isn’t fun to work here
anxiously building your careers,
why work to frantic sweat and toil
if you’re always in arrears?
“Send for yourselves a rainmaker
I know there’s one around
who’ll better help than I can give
when invited to your ground.”
A rainmaker comes for inner work
chaotic states to feel
and restoring balance in himself
new harmony forms congeal.
Los Angeles
Feb 78
Joseph: definately mystic. Brigham? No. Bruce R.? You betcha. Most Mo’s? Somewhat.
I’m the list owner of the Mormon-Mystic yahoo group, which, not surprisingly, has numerous folks who self-identify as Mormon Mystics.
Early comments by Hugh Nibley regarding mysticism were largely polemical in nature, and the difference between the “concrete” and the “abstract” does not serve as a useful distinction between the mystical and non-mystical.
Mr. Goble is correct that defining “mysticism” is a key element in determining if there is such a thing as Mormon Mysticism, but he offers no definition himself. Perhaps that is because a resort to any number of standard definitions of “mysticism” would lead one to conclude that Mormonism definately has strong mystical elements.
Mr. Goble gives it as his opinion that if there is such a thing as a Mormon Mysticism, one would expect to find not only structural similarities, but also similar content. He fails to see such content, but I do not. I do admit that currently, there appears to be deeper mystical stream developing in Mormonism which makes use of traditional mystical tools. This stream incorporates unique Mormon insights, as well as makes use of mystical traditions found within the Messianic Jewish movement (for one example). What fruit this will yield long-term remains to be seen.
First principle of Mormon mysticism: Most of em will deny that their religiosity, their, well, mystically magical thinking should be CLASSIFIED as mysticism! lol.
Therefore, maybe we should redefine it as true mysticism — to then say: “Mormon who truly seek the spirit and practice the precepts It teaches them are The Only True mystics.”
I think the leading characteristic that defines a true mysticism as we know it today is a hostility to the adequacy of language, logic, and rationality.
The word “mystery” means something that is secret or hidden. There are two approaches to mystery - one says that mysteries are simple, straightforward things that have not yet been revealed but which are comprehensible in principle. Joseph Smith is definitely in this category.
The other approach is the the content of mystery is fundamentally ineffable - that the secrets of the universe are beyond description and that contradictions are to be celebrated, not resolved. Among main-stream denominations Lutheranism tends to be in this category, as also most “New Age-isms”, Taoism, and to some degree neo-orthodox Mormonisms (on the same principle as Luther).
By contrast Catholicism tends to be on the pro-rational side, along with nearly all of nineteenth century Mormonism, temple secrecy and symbolism notwithstanding.
The purpose of temples in our religion (and many others) is to *teach* the mysteries, not to worship them.
Mark (re your distinction rendering religionists more on one side or the other of some “mystical” divide?), aren’t
(1.) “I believe in Jesus”
(2.)”I know,” meaning feel — sense — believe — have faith that, “The Church is true, that Joseph was a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon was translated by him by the gift and power of God and is a record of the God’s people who inhabited Ancient America to whom the Resurrected Christ Himself appeared, and that Gordon B. Hinckley is a living prophet today”;
– or (3.) “I fully accept The Daode Jing’s aphorisms/ scriptural meditations on Wisdom/ Virtue granted humanity by That Embodiment/Incarnation of their true understanding/ practice, The Laozu”
– all statements holding faith in stuff essentially beyond mere reason?
And (with “mystic” being a synonym for “ordering an individual’s understandings or actions according to her conceptions of the metaphysical) — isn’t mysticism a matter of degrees, with as many manifestations as there are people!?
I imagine every strong institutional religious tradition is weary of its’ mystics- they tend to burst forth with light, potentially dematerializing borders that demarcate the establishment. Yet, perhaps every ‘believing’ Mormon is a mild mystic. From LDS seminary to missionary evangelism, a strong emphasis is placed on scriptural verse such as Moroni 10:4 and John 14:26, thereby emphasizing a personal experiential approach to elucidating spiritual truth. Likely, a strong portion of the ubiquitous “testimony,” especially among Mormon converts, is founded upon this personal communion with the divine.
As a spiritual discipline, Mysticism is about the individual’s direct experience of transcendent Reality — an experience largely ineffable precisely because it touches the transcendent.
I believe it was to such a transcendent Reality that Joseph Smith spoke when he said that “Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject” (TPJS 324). Commenting on this quote, Bruce R. McConkie almost gets it right: “Religion is something which must be experienced.”
Mormonism not only is mystical at its very heart, it is also gnostic. Like early Christianity, it proclaims a saving knowledge (i.e., gnosis; see Lk. 11:52) that is only apprehended by the individual through revelation. “Man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge” (TPJS 217; see also D&C 130:19), said Joseph Smith.
I’m hard-pressed to understand how one can read such remarks and yet disparage the mystical tradition, or claim that Mormonism shares no part in it.
Mark notes that “Catholicism tends to be on the pro-rational side, along with nearly all of nineteenth century Mormonism, temple secrecy and symbolism notwithstanding.”
Again, it seems slightly problematic to paint mystics as “non-rational” in opposition to Catholicism and 19th century Mormonism, which are described as “pro-rational.” A few points for your consideration:
Mormonism and Catholicism both claim to be revealed religions. That is to say, they are the product of revelation. Revelation is an INTUITIVE approach to truth — i.e., it is a fundamentally non-rational and non-empirical approach, which is at best complimentary to rational and empirical methods.
I do not take exception with those who characterize Catholicism and Mormonism as “pro-rational,” but again, this does not distinguish either of them from the mystical tradition, which can be exceedingly rational in its approach to truth, and makes strict demands in this regard on those who would follow its path and employ its techniques. In fact, the Catholic Church has produced some of the finest mystics in the Western world; this trend continues even today. Such books as “Meditations on Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism” are written by Catholics. If I am not mistaken, this particular volume was written by a Catholic priest.
As a Freemason, I’ve often described my own tradition as a kind of “rational mysticism.” And, Mormonism is not entirely disconnected from this hermetic tradition, either. I really think that the mystical heart of Mormonism is one of the best-kept secrets of the LDS Church. It is such a well-kept secret that few individuals — in or out of the Church– are aware of it.
The problem here is that there are two definitions of mystical floating around. One says that any element of what Clark called a “vertical religous tradition”, e.g. revelation or inspiration is mysticism. That is fine, but then essentially all religions are mystical in that sense. Not very useful, just say “religious” or “faith-based” instead.
The distinction I am trying to make is that the serious mystics deny that language or rationality has even a *possible* claim on the content of their beliefs or impressions or whatever. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were on the opposite side of the spectrum, much closer to the classic Catholic position of the ultimate harmony of faith and reason - the idea that the Holy Ghost is a revealer of effable truths subject to intelligent discussion, not ineffable mysteries.
Martin Luther was much closer to the ineffable, “negative” theology side of the question - that God cannot be understood, not even in principle. That contradictions were okay. Early Mormon leaders regularly ridiculed this attitude, even though it became popular with the advent of neo-orthodoxy. The ridiculed it so much, it made its way into temple liturgy.
So while classical Mormonism has a definite sense of the pious and awe at the greatness of God, and the grandness of his plan for us, the idea that truth cannot be reduced to language, that God is beyond rationality *in principle* is very foreign to the early LDS tradition. Classical Mormonism is further to the rational side of spectrum than virtually any other Christian denomination ever has been, Catholic scholasticism included.
Revelation is a matter of trust, not a matter of doubt - in fact our rule is that if you do not understand it clearly, it is probably *not* a revelation. Joseph Smith was clear on this point - the Holy Ghost leads to “strokes of intelligence” not darkness and confusion - a revealer of truth more than an instiller of irrationality.
So the classic tension between faith and reason does not apply - like the Catholics we believe that they are ultimately compatible, classical Mormonism does anyway.
Mark comments that “The problem here is that there are two definitions of mystical floating around. One says that any element of what Clark called a ‘vertical religous tradition,’ e.g. revelation or inspiration is mysticism. That is fine, but then essentially all religions are mystical in that sense.”
Actually, this is not my argument at all. However, it is true that REVEALED religion often has a mystical *aspect*, because it implies that some one or some group has a connection with a transcendent reality, which by its very nature defies complete capture in language. It is this experience transcendent reality that characterizes mysticism, and is what it shares with revealed religion. There is little doubt that Joseph Smith’s First Vision is mystical in nature — as are a number of other of his revelations. Even today, Latter-day Saints suggest that what one may discern spiritually is not subject to the limitations of language. It is also true that Catholicism, which you, Mark, have described as “pro-rational,” has given the world some of its greatest mystics, including Hildegard of Bingen and St. John of the Cross and Meister Eckhart. Even Augustine’s discussion of deification theology –with its unio mystica and individual absorption into God– not only uses the language of mysticism, it is mystical in its fundamental conception.
What is NOT true is that “nothing at all can be said about the mystical experience.” While *the experience itself cannot be communicated from one to another,* this does not preclude the possibility that we may, to borrow a phrase from Omar Khayyam, “talk about it, and about.” Latter-day Saints understand this distinction perfectly well when speaking of spiritual experience: it is commonly taught that like the taste of salt –which cannot be adequately described to one who has not shared in the experience of tasting salt– the experience of the Holy Ghost cannot be adequately captured in words. This is the fundamental claim of a mystic: that we may participate in a supersensual life, that cannot be adequately reduced to words, but can only be appreciated by one who has shared in that supersensual experience.
An excellent Mormon example of mystical insight would be the Vision of the Tree of Life, shared by Lehi and Nephi. Aside from my noting the classical mystical framing of this vision, I would point out that the vision appears to have a reality which extends beyond either experiencer. Lehi’s own recounting of his dream misses details which his son, Nephi later supplies when he experiences the dream. One may extrapolate that if there were a third “experiencer,” additional details would be revealed, and so on, ad infinitum. The vision is transcendent; the burden of a prophet is to attempt to capture or express transcendent truth in words.
Moreover, the Vision of Lehi uses symbol and allegory to express what Mormons claim are transcendental truths, such as the doctrine of the atonement.
These truths remain –even for Latter-day Saints–”mysteries” in the sense that their profundity and meaning defy even our best attempts to fully explain them.
Further, Mark argues that “serious mystics deny that language or rationality has even a *possible* claim on the content of their beliefs or impressions or whatever.” On the contrary! As can be seen from my discussion above, and as I have stated here and elsewhere repeatedly, language and rationality are hallmarks of the mystical tradition, and the bread of the world has been been benefitted by the yeast of numerous rational and philosophical texts by “serious mystics” throughout history. In fact, it is precisely because the mystical experience itself touches on the transcendent that it becomes very helpful (even critical) for one with mystical inclination to be well-grounded in rational thought. I would be happy to enumerate such treatises by mystics should anyone here be unfamiliar with them. However, one does not have to go far in the LDS scriptural tradition to find the kind of rational discourse one would expect from a mystic. For instance, Lehi’s discourse in 2 Nephi 2 concerning the relationship between duality and the manifest universe could have been delivered by any number of mystics I have personally read.
Mark also believes that “Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were … much closer to the classic Catholic position of the ultimate harmony of faith and reason - the idea that the Holy Ghost is a revealer of effable truths subject to intelligent discussion, not ineffable mysteries.” By contrast, I believe that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both believed in a saving knowledge that could not be communicated from one individual to another, but that could ONLY be had by revelation to the individual. This does not prevent intelligent discussion among mystics regarding the mystical experience, what it means, and so forth. Mark’s mischaracterization of mysticism is common among polemical detractors, but really doesn’t engage what mystics experience, what they say, what they write.
Joseph Smith believed that Rather, the Holy Ghost is a revealer of mysteries, and that these mysteries comprised saving knowledge, and that said saving knowledge could only be had directly from experience with God. This in fact is a distinguishing doctrine of Mormonism, and examples of it are peppered throughout the LDS scriptural tradition:
“Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God” (Jacob 4:8).
That the Holy Ghost must reveal the teaching does not mean that one cannot engage in intelligent discussion apart from that; rather, it means that one can only really know by direct experience with God, and what one knows, one cannot directly reveal. This is much closer to the mystical tradition than Mark appears to be willing to admit:
“It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell” (Alma 12:9-11).
Mystics would understand this to mean that the mysteries are closed to all but those who are willing to pay the price to know them — beginning with a certain purity of life and rectitude of conduct, not to mention a certain spiritual malleability of the mind, essentially necessary to all spiritual advancement.
Note that Alma claims that the “chains of hell” are a LACK of saving knowledge, and that one can LOSE such knowledge. This suggests that we are not talking about mere facts or verbiage communicated by human speech, but that there is another aspect to this kind of knowledge that requires a certain spiritual sensitivity to maintain:
“For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost” (1 Ne. 10:19).
Mark further notes that “Martin Luther was much closer to the ineffable, “negative” theology side of the question - that God cannot be understood, not even in principle. That contradictions were okay. Early Mormon leaders regularly ridiculed this attitude, even though it became popular with the advent of neo-orthodoxy. The ridiculed it so much, it made its way into temple liturgy. So while classical Mormonism has a definite sense of the pious and awe at the greatness of God, and the grandness of his plan for us, the idea that truth cannot be reduced to language, that God is beyond rationality *in principle* is very foreign to the early LDS tradition.”
My response is that Joseph Smith taught that “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest” (HC 6:428). I believe that this is consistent with the nature of the mystical work, in which truth is revealed by testing apparent opposites, and working towards their resolution — particularly towards their proper reconciliation. Contradictions are to be expected not because the world or the truth is inherently contradictory, Mark — but rather because human perception and cognition are inherently limited things. In fact, their limitation is precisely what defines them. Consequently, we are bound to see apparent contradictions and anomalies. Why wouldn’t we? We are experiencing this life in the spiritual equivalent of Flatland (i.e. a two-dimensional world), while God and the underlying spiritual reality of the world are by comparison 3-dimensional objects. This brings us back to the fundamental difficulty of mystical discourse: how does one who has experienced the third dimension explain this to a bunch of two-dimensional beings? It can be done, but not every 2D being will be equipped to grasp the discussion. Those BEST able to discuss it, are those who have shared the experience. I’d suggest to you that this “shared experience” is what Lecture on Faith 5 means, when it talks about “the mind of Christ.”
The issue here for the mystic is that God is transcendent and infinite, and that man is (from a certain perspective anyway) immanent and finite. Mysticism wrestles with the issue of how we come to know ANYTHING, given this apparent paradox.
I’m also troubled that Mark engages in definitional equivocation here. That is, he treats the words IRRATIONAL, NON-RATIONAL and INEFFABLE as though they were all identical things. They are not. The LDS Temple Endowment does not and never has argued against the concept of ineffability. That would make little sense, as the ritual itself imposes AS A MATTER OF COVENANT, a vow of silence upon those who recieve its mysteries. I suggest to you that this is a metaphor/lesson regarding the communicability of certain kinds of spiritual knowledge. And, as it deals with revelation, which is an INTUITIVE, or non-rational approach to knowledge, I don’t really think the Endowment is arguing against that, either.
Rather, the temple takes a very dim view of those who make philosophical arguments which are not grounded in actual spiritual experience, and those who accept philosophical posits as a cheap answer to what is only apprehended by revelation. As a practical example of what this means, when one faces a person who is willing to argue with you over the specific attributes of Deity based upon scripture alone, one can surmise with about 90% accuracy what specific experience such an individual is lacking.
Frankly, I agree with Mark that “revelation is a matter of trust, not a matter of doubt - in fact our rule is that if you do not understand it clearly, it is probably *not* a revelation.” I also agree that Joseph Smith was clear on this point - the Holy Ghost leads to “strokes of intelligence” not darkness and confusion. In fact, similar language can be found in the writings of the noted Jewish mystic, Abraham Abulafia, centuries before the Prophet was alive to comment one way or another on the mattter.
As for Mark’s argument that mysticism is some kind of “an instiller of irrationality,” As stated, I don’t suppose that such a polemical pot-shot accurately describes anything in the mystical tradition. Perhaps Mark would be kind enough to grace us with an example, and contrast it with his own understanding of Mormonism? I don’t believe he has provided a single example of how mysticism is “irrational” in any way different from any revealed religion.
One that comes to my mind is Betty Eadie, Author of “Embraced by the light” during my mission. I believe here mysticism leed her afowl of the church.
Re philosopher(/astronomer/physican/poet) Omar al-Kayyam (1044-1123): Some claim no-one can compare to Kayyamm’s extraordinary advances in geometry & mathematics for another half a millennia!
Anon mentions Betty Eadie as an example of the irrationality of mysticism. I’d point out that while Betty Eadie might be quite an interesting character, there is a vast sea of difference between the mystical tradition and the New Age dogmas which Eadie has helped to popularize. Perhaps “the New Age movement” = “irrational mysticism.” LOL. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t such a thing as “rational mysticism,” as perhaps illustrated by Enlightenment-era Freemasonry.
Joe Swick, I believe all the differences between what you have stated in #17 boil down to a difference in preferred semantics. I identify two different senses of mysticism - one vertical (revelation, inspiration) and one irrational (paradox, ineffability even *after* shared experience), and you appear to be speaking of it in a single unified sense.
I am not so naive as to think that words generally speaking have metaphysically proper definitions, so I will let it rest.
“…and what I have stated…”
The terms rational and irrational mysticism are perhaps the best way to clarify the difference here. Mormon mysticism, the classical kind, is rational not irrational. Also Catholic scholasticism, Calvinist scholasticism, Islamic scholasticism, the Swedenborgians, the Masons, Confucianism, and a variety of Jewish traditions.
Joe Swick, I believe all the differences between what you have stated in #17 boil down to a difference in preferred semantics. I identify two different senses of mysticism - one vertical (revelation, inspiration) and one irrational (paradox, ineffability even *after* shared experience), and you appear to be speaking of it in a single unified sense.
—–
Rather, I’m pointing out that such easy dismissal of the mystical tradition based upon the assumption that it is irrational, while Mormonism or Catholicism (which clearly contain non-rational elements) is an entirely contrived game.
Of course there is an ineffable component in mysticism even AFTER shared experience. So, too, with the experience of the Holy Ghost, though, Mark. After all, such encounters with the Holy Ghost are TRANSCENDENT. This is in my opinion the meeting-place between exoteric traditions and mysticism. For, talking to your neighbor (Christian or otherwise) about Christian doctrine is not the experience of the Holy Ghost. Neither is the excitement of discovering the beauty of Christian philosophy. Neither is direct discussion about the Holy Ghost. Only the experience of the Holy Ghost is the experience of the Holy Ghost, and it cannot be communicated by human language, any more than one can appreciate the experience of eating an apple by reading a description of the chemical composition of that fruit. In that sense, the experience is fundamentally “ineffable.” Hence, we have scriptures like this:
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14).
Perhaps “foolishness unto him” is Paul’s way of saying that discussion of spiritual insights seems “irrational” to a person who is spiritually unprepared for it.
As for paradox remaining even after shared experience: of course, some does. As I suggested earlier, the experience of paradox is fundamental for humans with limited perception and cognition in a world of duality. However, the work of one on the mystic path is to understand (on more than just an intellectual level) how opposites are reconciled.
Some things that mystics share in the course of their experience of the Transcendent, actually translate into relatively concrete terms, although the experience itself is beyond expression. For instance, mystics come to *percieve* that we are all part of a great cosmic sea, a vast conscious ocean of light and love which gives rise to all manifest phenomena. The shared *direct perception* of this underlying reality cannot be gainsaid for those who experience it. The experience is similar for mystics in nearly every tradition of which I am aware — whether Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi, Christian, or Jewish. And, the gnosis of this divine sea of love has similar transforming effects across religious boundaries, as well.
Now, one can argue that this *perception* is “irrational,” (I prefer non-rational), but if it is, it is “irrational” in precisely the way that revealed religion is irrational: that is to say, it is the result of supersensual experience.
Again, my point is that Latter-day Saints have sometimes been dismissive of the mystical tradition, and that this dismissiveness has been facilitated by inaccurate and even polemical labelling.
The truth is that mysticism claims to provide the “key to the gnosis” which Jesus himself discusses in the New Testament, and that such knowledge is transforming. As our spiritual perception clears through the experience of the Conscious Ocean of God’s Love (mentioned in Lectures on Faith and elsewhere), our own heart of loving compassion expands, and veils of false perception begin to fall away. We come to see that the Divine Reality is beyond easy categories and intellectualization. It is the very heart of love, which sheds its rays over all of mankind:
“While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy [over their respective religious dogmas — jsw], the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; he views them as his offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes “his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matt. 5:45.) He holds the reins of judgment in his hands; he is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men…. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah …and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right” (HC 4:595-96).
Mark agrees that “The terms rational and irrational mysticism are perhaps the best way to clarify the difference here. Mormon mysticism, the classical kind, is rational not irrational. Also Catholic scholasticism, Calvinist scholasticism, Islamic scholasticism, the Swedenborgians, the Masons, Confucianism, and a variety of Jewish traditions.”
As a mystic, I am certainly not opposed to scholasticism, whether in my own religious tradition or in others. The mystical tradition has generated a fine literature that will keep scholars busy for centuries more. But IMO mysticism IS the Experience (leastways the tools needed for the same), while scholasticism is discussion ABOUT the Experience. Scholasticism is largely concerned with matters of the head, mysticism is largely concerned with matters of the heart. These both have their place in the body, of course.
Finally, I wish to point out that you quietly note here that there is such a thing as a classic Mormon Mysticism. Thank you.
Joe, you appear to be arguing against a position I have not taken. I have no problem with inspiration, piety (in its broad sense), awe, revelation, and so on. The reason why “mysticism” gets a bad rap in LDS circles is none of these - the problem is that the term has gradually started to be used in the second sense - New Agey, irrational, magical, hermetic mysticism.
Now what I mean by irrational is not *epistemological* - by the standards of some, virtually all knowledge is impossible, because they will not accept *common sense*. And *sense* is very difficult to distinguish from perception or even inspiration.
I mean irrational in the sense of not being able to be reduced to language *even* in principle. The idea for example that the universe is absurd, contradictory, not governed by laws, patterns, or order, sheer arbitary indefiteness, where even the most basic facts are subject to dispute - basically the denial of Truth itself, in a variety of forms, whether it be the denial of the applicability of *logic* of any kind, the denial of the representation capacity of *language* of any kind, the denial of a world out there subject to independent discovery, and so on.
These ideas have long had currency in various irrational mysticisms, and are a hallmark of negative theology of various kinds within the Christian tradition, including LDS neo-orthodoxy, which has adopted a proto-Lutheran attitude towards the applicability of systematic theology - as if God was beyond description *in principle*.
So the question is not whether something is *apparently* irrational, the real question is about the nature of reality itself. And on that core issue, Classical (nineteenth century) Mormonism is definitely on the side of the rational realists, with some minor exceptions. Note that rational realism is not anti-inspiration - in religious contexts quite the opposite, simply that the world out there, including the spiritual world, is *real*, *definite*, and subject to language, logic, and rationality in principle, no matter what the mode of epistemology is.
So when we say in awe that it is “beyond human description” or “too great for man”, the question of whether it is describable *in principle* given superior language, logic, and rationality makes all the difference. It is a first order dividing line between the two families of mysticism, theology, and philosophy: rational mysticism and irrational mysticism, positive theology and negative theology.
As with human depravity, the question of negative theology is *how* negative - are we talking about pragmatic silence, or the pre-post-modern skepticism in the ultimate order of the universe itself?
Kimball Hunt said, “Re philosopher(/astronomer/physican/poet) Omar al-Kayyam (1044-1123): Some claim no-one can compare to Kayyamm’s extraordinary advances in geometry & mathematics for another half a millennia!”
Khayyam was a mystic nonpariel, and the Rubaiyat is the nectar of mystical insight. Khayyam came from Shiraz, a wine-growing region, but the “wine” in the Rubaiyat is the wine of the mystics.
Kimball brings up another fascinating point about mystics I have known. Khayyam was a philosopher and mathematician. Jewish mystic Aryeh Kaplan was a physicist. His disciple Leonora Leet was an English professor, but her books are steeped in advanced mathematics and physics. Several mystics of my personal acquaintence have advanced degrees in mathematics. In his introduction to the Pritzker Edition of the Zohar, Arthur Green notes that the Zohar is best appreciated by those with significant language skills.
I find this all fascinating, especially in light of our discussion about the rational and the irrational in the mystical tradition.
“Finally, I wish to point out that you quietly note here that there is such a thing as a classic Mormon Mysticism. Thank you.”
Of course - this is a dispute over semantics. It is the mode of mysticism that is in question. My argument is that there are fundamentally two modes, and the term in modern usage tends to be associated with the rather more negative, skeptical, absurdist mode.
G.K. Chesterton once said that people who do not believe in God will believe in anything. As a Catholic he is no doubt in part referring to the long time Catholic tradition that God is *reason* in the medieval sense - the ultimate upholder of order and structure in the universe, without which all language is impotent.
That is why Ockham presaged such a revolution in Christian theology - the Aristotelian consensus had broken down, and the traditional realists feared for the consequences - to them the loss of order presaged the loss of reason, and they have resented Ockham ever since, though he was hardly anti-rational or anti-natural law, quite the opposite.
For *reason* as we know today to be very applicable, the universe must not only be out there, in some sort of definite form at any given time, but is must be governed by law - whether natural or divine, and the acts and edicts of God must generally be reasonable and according to his character, not sheer arbitrariness. Otherwise scripture is nothing but a collection of paradoxes that can be twisted to justify any position whatsoever, a principle advocated in contemporary contexts by irrational mystics and their fellow travelers in the second rate post-modern community.
Larry states his view that LDS doctrine is “materialist” (i.e. “no such thing as immaterial matter”),but I wish to point out that this isn’t the full quote, and perhaps a closer look may yield a fascinating insight into a fundamental similarity between the LDS and mystical worldview.
Joseph Smith taught:
“There is no such thing as immaterial matter. ALL SPIRIT IS MATTER, but it is MORE FINE OR PURE, and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (D&C 131:7-8).
The point I wish to make is that if SPIRIT is REFINED matter, then it may also be true that MATTER is a grosser form of SPIRIT. Furthermore, Latter-day Saints believe that there is a deep connection between SPIRIT and INTELLIGENCE (Heb. Sehkel, also CONSCIOUSNESS), and also LIGHT. If we find that this is the case, then this corresponds rather nicely to the Kabbalistic insight that all manifest phenomena arise from ONE THING, and that this thing is LIGHT, SPIRIT or CONSCIOUSNESS. It is not a denial of the material world, but an affirmation of the ultimate unity of spirit and matter. Kabbalists often suggest that the difference between spirit and matter is analagous to the difference between water and ice. If we wished, we could even fashion a cup out of ice, and fill it with water.
I tend to see the “Mormon” view as consonant with the general mystical understanding on this point.
Larry also states that “if you twink the definition of mystic a bit, you can certainly find elements of it in D&C 84, 88, 93, JSH and others.” My question is simply what he thinks one needs to “twink.” I think that the Doctrine and Covenants, Lectures on Faith, Pearl of Great Price and most importantly the Book of Mormon contain precious mystical insight, which do not require any “twinking” of the passages at all. They just require the “[purer] eyes” to see them.
Mark notes:
“For *reason* as we know today to be very applicable, the universe must not only be out there, in some sort of definite form at any given time, but is must be governed by law - whether natural or divine, and the acts and edicts of God must generally be reasonable and according to his character, not sheer arbitrariness.”
I’m not sure what Mark means when he states that “the universe must be out there.” In my experience, mystics (particularly Christian mystics) are generally more concerned with the realization that the Kingdom of Heaven is “in here” (Joe says, pointing to his heart), and that the spiritual journey is an inward one.
I my experience at least mystics generally don’t deny that the universe is “out there,” or “real” — rather, they are likely to question whether our finite minds correctly interpret the evidence presented to our finite senses. That interpretation is what is “unreal.” Further, most mystics (of my acquaintence at least) do not believe that the manifest universe is arbitrary or not governed by law. In fact, limitation (read: law) is essential to all manifestation. In fact, the operation of this limiting force is called “the finitizing principle.”
Mystics do generally recognize that God has both manifest and unmanifest qualities. Rabbi David Cooper discusses the daily prayer, the Shema, as alluding to this fact:
“During the mornings I led the contemplative Jewish practices, which always included chanting the main prayer: *Shema Yisrael, Adonoy Elohaynu, Adonoy Ehad* (Hear, O Israel, the Lord is Our God, the Lord is One). The way I explain the meaning of this prayer is as follows: Listen closely (Shema), that part within each of us that years to go directly to God (Israel-Yashar El), the transcendent, unknowable source of sources (Adonoy) and the God that we are able to relate to in Its immanence in everything we experience around us (Elohaynu), both the transcendent(Adonoy) and the immanent, are actually, paradoxically, one and the same (Ehad)” (God is a Verb, 218-19).
This is not unique to Judaism or mainstream Christian tradition. Mormons have long struggled with two modes of discourse in the LDS scripture regarding the nature of Deity. One the one hand, the scriptural and prophetic tradition seems to describe a “finite” deity: a “man” bound by time and space. On the other, that same tradition seems to describe a deity who is “not … human … but … infinite and eternal” (Al. 34:10).
For a good century, Latter-day Saints have ranged themselves on one side or another of this discussion, based upon personal philosophical preferences of whether God is THIS or THAT. Each side has a scriptural pool to draw from in support of their particular view; and, generally speaking, each side discounts, plays down, or reinterprets the language of their philosophical opponents in a way which supports their own opinions in the matter.
It is my own view that the answer to this paradox is nothing less than to come to know God for ourselves. I believe that we must directly encounter God and obtain this knowledge or we can never satisfactorily resolve these apparent contradictions. And, I believe this is an intentional game.
However, I must confess my own opinions in this matter, although I know they are easily misunderstood by one who has not “tasted the salt,” so to speak. As a Mormon Kabbalist — a Mormon Mystic– I am inclined towards the viewpoint reflected in the words of Rabbi Menachem Scheerson:
“Many people, without realizing, end up with two gods: One God is an impersonal one, an all-encompassing, trascendental force. But then, at times of trouble, they cry out to another, personal god, with whom they have an intimate relationship. Our faith is about knowing that these two are one. The same G-d who is beyond all things, He is the same one who hears your cries and counts your tears. The same G-d who is the force behind all existence and transcendes even that, He is the same God who care about what is cooking in your kitchen and how you treat your fellow man. G-d cannot be defined, even as transcendent. He is beyond all things and within them at once” (Menachem Schneerson, _Bringing Heaven Down to Earth_, 174).
While it is certainly the case that some religious traditions teach that God is essentially unknowable, I would point out that to say that “G-d cannot be completely defined” is not at all the same as saying that “G-d cannot be known.” Rather, it is admitting the paradox of God, which I here express in Christian terms, but which you well know is not at all unique to Christianity: that same Jesus who was a mortal man is that same Jesus who is “infinite and eternal.” That same Jesus who was a man is that same Jesus who is “not human.”
These issues permeate Mormonism, cause divisions, discomfort, and distress. Those who wish to polarize based upon dogams ABOUT God in this manner risk losing the actual EXPERIENCE of God, without which all religious discourse becomes a dry and lifeless husk.
A mystic doesn’t have to be known or a evangelican. A prayer or even a connection can speak volumes. What can transend and epiphinieses this life is mystical alone. Mormon, catholic, tree of life, zen, martial arts, gardening, ect. are all tools to be used as tools. unmeritted favor ( grace ) thats not a tool but the love of god. Yes i believe there are mormon mystics out there…. hey has anyone ever heard of Carol tuttle or is it karen Tuttle? I would think of her as a mormon mystic even if she doesn’t carry such a title.
I should also mention that the writings of the late Max Skousen appear to draw heavily upon mysticism. Skousen’s work was strongly centered in LDS scripture and prophetic tradition, and yet the subtext of his unique vision was definately mystical:
http://www.greaterthings.com/MaxSkousen/
While Max is not my own “cup of tea,” he definately has some significant insight, and is worth a read in my opinion.
I am really pleased to see a discussion on this subject. As I mentioned in my Mantra article in the current Sunstone, I spent 30 yrs working at spiritual growth in the typical “Mormon” way with minimal success. Once I backed into mystical experience, all that I had desired spiritually unfolded without all the frantic “trying to make it happen” through obedience and activity. At that point I did not find, what I considered to be, the juvenile level of spirituality in LDS culture and activity nourishing at all. In later associations with folks and groups that were supposedly on a mystical path, I was disappointed by their immature and irresponsible behavior and began to appreciate the rootedness of Mormonism and it’s practical spirituality.
However, the core of my spiritual practice is mystical and I’ve tried to carve out a legit Mormon Mystic identity and it has been difficult due to it’s materialistic and concrete nature as has been discussed above. Also, in spite of a doctrine of Eternal Progression, I find most LDS feeling like they have arrived (although disappointed in their guts at the lack of deep spiritual growth, which is never admitted in public) and lacking the hungar and thirst for the Divine that I find never ending in the mystical path. So as I struggle with this within Mormonism, I’m really happy to see this vigorous discussion.
Phil says:
“In later associations with folks and groups that were supposedly on a mystical path, I was disappointed by their immature and irresponsible behavior and began to appreciate the rootedness of Mormonism and it’s practical spirituality.”
In my opinion, this is a direct hit. One of the things that Mormonism offers the mystical seeker is a firm practical grounding for real mystical practice. Despite the fact that mysticism is about one’s experience, many mystics of my acquaintance lack this kind of real grounding in fundamental spiritual discipline. Yet, such practice is essentially necessary for real spiritual progress. When it comes to THIS, Mormonism is all aces in my book; it is not simply theoretical gas. A mysticism which fails to transform the mystic is less than useless — it is a real spiritual liability. Oddly, the materialistic and concrete nature of Mormonism can provide the perfect balance for one who is inclined to fly untethered in the outer reaches of the spiritual stratosphere!
Paul criticized free mystics who’d completely elevated understanding (gnosis?sp) over practice. Yet Paul himself taught a grounded mysticism wherein people could take upon themselves a new covenant through Christ’s name, the Holy Spirit’s then manifesting Itself in them through good works — albeit ones not specifically grounded/ tethered to the Mosaic Law. (Anyway, it seems there’s always, in religion, generally some kind of dynamic conflicts between communal actions & outward practice with personal understandings & and inner worship?)
Please forgive my self serving response. But, I know this is a growing issue, and with The Da Vinci Code and dan Brown’s new book coming up, it needs to be addressed. I just published my new book on the topic: http://www.lulu.com/content/331249 or you can get a free download at www.kingdomsThatClash.com I think I addressed the topic pretty well.
i am what you would call a mormon mystic.
the mainstream “church” wouldn’t recognize it anyhow due to false doctrine that has pervaded that beautiful idea.
Very interresting discussion. My wife, a member all her life, after 12 years of marriage relayed to me that she has psychic powers, sensitivities to spirits, and the past. She learned of this during massage school 12 years ago in order to look into each others souls for healing purposes. Since she has had unvolunteery random experiences shaking hands, entering old homes etc.
But then she, about 4 years ago, had an experience while we were watching live theatre, a man entered the stage she has never seen before, my wife inhaled long and hard as though she was possessed and the life was being taken from her. I wasn’t aware of this, she relayed this just last month. She felt a connection with the guy and has several experiences in the past 4 years being drawn to this guy in a powerful way. She eventually drove 30 minutes to his house about 5 months ago and told him she was madly in love with him. She never wanted sex or anything, they did kiss twice, but she just loved him dearly and wanted to help him because he was lost or trouble and she saw this as an opportunity to save him from his troubles.
So I found out through a series of what i believe to be miracles because if i hadn’t found out our temple marriage would have dissolved. She really was confused and thought love is love and how could love be a bad thing. She even prayed about it and felt a peace within her. If any have comments please help me out. She has chosen to keep the marriage and work on it but she still has moments or connections with him. Even one time at 10:00 at night she had the huge inhale sucking life out experience at our house (again i have never seen this in person). She called him the next day to find out what he was doing at 10:00 last night, he said he was having sex with his girlfriend. Korihor was visited by an angel and given instructions to teach people that God didn’t exist. He actually believed what he was saying was true. Satan and his demons can imitate all good things and deceive us very easily.
My opinion is Satan has great power and can even move elements, if we entertain any power that is not in direct relation to the holy spirit with a direct message of revelation for yourself or anyone you have jurisdiction over, then evil will enter. Bruce R states connections with the dead are satans demons, real spirits don’t waste there time with summonings.
Anyway, please respond to this situation with my wife. What should I say or do?
Ryan
Interesting comments and questions, Ryan - I’m sorry you are faced with this threat to your marriage. It sounds like you love your wife a great deal and want to work through the problems.
Have you considered seeing a couple’s counselor? If you can find a good, reputable counselor to help you work through these issues, it might help your relationship and also give your wife some valuable feedback (and perspective) from a relatively disinterested third party.
The entire basis of LDS Mormonism IS mysticism. “Having a testimony” is based on a completely subjective, non-rational, emotion-based experience of “feeling the Holy Ghost bear witness to the truthfulness of the Gospel.”
More appalling that any supposed lack of mysticism in LDS Mormonism, is the complete lack of any coherently rational approach to theology, philosophy and ethics. Since 1980, the LDS Church has been quickly retreating back to its late 1820’s/early 1830’s roots in Evangelical Christianity and Christian Primitivism.
What John Witdsoe called “Rational Theology” is now dead.
THAT is a real shame.
Now there is a man who is in tune with the spirit. A prime example of acquired knowledge from the arm of man and zero wisdom of what to do with it, most likely because it leads to no where and leaves people in a critical state of negative “energy” (if you will) that is highly destructive to the soul and offends the spirit. Exactly what satan and his servants, who provide most of the experiences so called mystics experience, desire. Deception goes undetected, the lamb is gently brought to the slaughter.
Thank you, Ryan, for your astute evaluation of what I wrote. (I’m kidding, of course.)
Actually, I feel completely “in tune with the Spirit.”
How is life, living in your imaginary world where “satan and his servants” have such power.
I prefer to live in the world embraced by the Prophet Joseph Smith–where Satan is completely powerless in the face of the individual’s Free Agency (read the teachings of the Prophet himself; that was his point of view.
As a Reform Mormon (I am not LDS), I accept as my foundation the principles introduced by Joseph Smith, the Pratts and others during the Nauvoo period of Mormon history.
Perhaps the reason there has not been a mystically disciple within worldwide Mormonism is because Joseph, the Pratt, Brigham, Heber and others (B.H.Robetrs and Apostle John Witdsoe among them) rejected the old spirit vs. matter Platonic concepts–embracing a new vision of reality in which “all spirit is matter,” in which “there is no such thing as immaterial matter” and in which “the spirit AND the BODY is the soul of man.” (All of these quotes are from “The Doctrine & Covenants.”) Also I accept Brigham Young’s teachings that “the natural man is a FRIEND to God.” (He taught that if “The Book of Mormon” had been written in light of Jospeh Smith’s later revelations, the passage in Nephi about the natural being “an enemy to God” would have be changed to “friend of God.”)
Also, Joseph seems to have rejected a “mystical” concept of truth (so essential to traditional religions) when he taught (again in the D&C) that “Truth is a knowledge of things as they were, a they are and as they will be. Anything more or less than this comes from the evil one.”
In other words, truth is a knowledge of objective existence.
Since I am (as are you) an eternal, uncreated being with inherent Free Agency and a mind capable of unlimited growth (see Jospeh’s King Follett Discourse), I don’t fear any spiritual beings such a Satan who supposedly are roaming out and about. As Joseph Smith taught, a being of flesh always has power over a being of spirit.
One more question: since according to LDS Mormonism, my arms of flesh will be resurrected and inherit Celestial glory…and sine God Himself (and all others Gods) have arms of flesh–what is wrong with trusting in the arm of flesh?
In LDS Temples, one’s arms of flesh are actually washed and annointed to be strong.
As the human arm of flesh was organized in the exact form and likeness as God’s arms of flesh, why retro-gress back to Isaiah’s ancient, archaic view of the subject. Don’t later revelations have greater authority than older revelations…if the latter contain newly revealed truths?
I do apologize, I have no idea what you just said Rob. But, I do respect your opinion as I do my wife’s opinion who also believe in abstract thoughts that lead to, well not sure. Hopefully it leads to personal development at the highest form which is nearer to God. I’m simple minded and really do believe what Moses said that we are nothing (in comparison of course to God and his infinite power and wisdom), but i do believe i can become something simply through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel which includes respecting and following our leaders be it Joseph Smith or Gordon B Hinkley or my local bishop. Once we doubt or question to the point paving our own road we fall into Satans snare which is not easily noticable. But I do respect your views, find them interresting and glad we have agency to formulate ideas and ultimately earn our own salvation. Good luck to you. Ryan
Oh, yeah, the arm of flesh thing, just a figure of speech. If I have to explain this one then we really have a long way to go. Philosophy is a b____.
You know what I think is cool?
I think it’s cool that Ryan and Rob could meet at SunstoneBlog.com. That means that all kinds of Mormons come here to talk. That’s what Sunstone is to me, a place where all kinds of minds and souls can meet up.
Let the conversation continue, says I.
By the way, Rob, are you the Rob who wrote that play about polygamists that ended with the head wife apostatizing?
What a play!
Stephen,
Thanks for the above comment. I agree with you that it is great that Mormons of all types and persuasions can meet at this site and share ideas. (I just discovered this blog last week, and am really enjoying it.)
Yes, I am the same Rob who wrote “The Beehive State” (printed in an 1989 issue of “sunstone.”) I also wrote “Digger” (published in “Sunstone” in 1988)–which dealt with Joseph Smith’s money digging and folk-magic days.
Thanks for the compliment on “Beehive State.” I really do appreciate it!
Best wishes to everyone here!
Regarding Mormonism and Mysticism, wrote an essay, “A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience” which ended up here:
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060103prayer.html
The catalyst for my approach was this observation from Ninian Smart.
“If you stress the numinous, you stress that our salvation or liberation (our becoming holy) must flow from God the Other. It is he who brings it to us through his grace. You also stress the supreme power and dynamism of God as creator of the cosmos. If, on the other hand, you stress the mystical and non-dual, you tend to stress how we attain salvation and liberation through our own effort at mediation, not by the intervention of the Other… If we combine the two, but accent the numinous, we see mystical union as a kind of close embrace with the other — like human love, where the two are one and yet the two-ness remains. If the accent is on the mystical rather than the numinous, then God tends to be seen as a being whom we worship, but in such a way that we get beyond duality.” (Ninian Smart, Worldviews, 71-72)
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
Interesting quote, Kevin. I love it when Hegel manages to worm his way into yet another conversation.
The part three link here contains a closer look at some mystic qualitities in LDS scriptures, courtesy Mark Koltoko’s fascinating essay. It also has includes a comparison of some Emerson and Joseph Smith.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060215model.html
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
Sorry to have left this conversation for so long.
Ryan relates his wife’s experiences, and concludes with “My opinion is Satan has great power and can even move elements, if we entertain any power that is not in direct relation to the holy spirit with a direct message of revelation for yourself or anyone you have jurisdiction over, then evil will enter. Bruce R states connections with the dead are satans demons, real spirits don’t waste there time with summonings. Anyway, please respond to this situation with my wife. What should I say or do?”
I’m certainly in no position to give advice on handling such a situation, but I would quickly point out that there is a vast difference between PSYCHISM, and so-called psychic phenomena, and mysticism. Kabbalistically speaking, psychism is rooted in YESOD, also associated with dreaming, and sexuality. It is like the surface of the ocean –as opposed to the ocean’s depths– and one who is sensitive in this way can be buffeted about by “waves” associated with subconscious images and forces. Some may even mistake this for mystical insight, but it is a different quality of experience.
Again, I’d not wish to counsel anyone regarding their marriage or relationships, but I do feel that the distinction between psychism and mystical experience is an important one.
Kindest,
Joe Swick
Rob asks: “Since according to LDS Mormonism, my arms of flesh will be resurrected and inherit Celestial glory…and sine God Himself (and all others Gods) have arms of flesh–what is wrong with trusting in the arm of flesh?”
It is a euphemism for “relying upon human ability alone.”
Kindest,
Joe Swick
For me the experience of living the LDS faith is entirely mystical. I am also a strong proponent of the Hebraic roots of the faith and thus find Kabbalah to be very much connected to it.
The newest verion of my book “Mormon Mysticim” is now available free online at www.MormonMysticism.com
David Littlefield