On Mysticism
Over at the book thread at BCC someone asked whether there was a Mormon mysticism. I gave a few thoughts on the matter but thought I’d expand on it a little here.
First the background. What is mysticism? A good overview can be found at the SEP entry on Mysticism. Basically the term means hidden or concealed. In the original Greek it referred to secrete rituals known as the mysteries. Many of those rites are of interest to Mormons due to our own initiatory rituals like the endowment. Many more general Christian rituals, like the sacrament were considered mysteries. Eventually, mainly due to the influence of Greek thought (mainly Platonisms) and also direct and indirect eastern thought, the term came to refer to a hidden presence during events. The way Catholics, for instance, feel that when you eat the sacrament you are really eating Christ’s body. There is more to it than just symbolism. Most importantly though there came in Christianity to be what some might call a more general mysticism. That is the idea that there is something common to all. This fundamental unity behind and in all things is sometimes called the One. But you can find lots of different names for it. Mysticism in Christianity came to focus on the experience of this unity. Often the experience was that of losing a sense of self and seeing existence as an undifferentiated whole.
Now let’s turn to Mormonism. I think that there are very good reasons why there isn’t much of a mystic tradition in the LDS tradition. The first reason is historical. During the early days of the Church many converts came from Protestant traditions where there were manifestations of what were called the charismatic gifts. (Many Protestant sects and even some Catholic churches still do this) These involved purported manifestations of the spirit where people would be overcome, speak is what they felt were foreign tongue, and often fall thrashing to the floor. While it may be a shock to some, this sort of thing wasn’t uncommon in early LDS meetings. People brought their presuppositions with them. I recall a woman in my mission who, when she came out of the water of baptism, began “speaking in tongues” in this fashion because that was how she was trained to react to the spirit. The issue is how to react to all this. Joseph, perhaps partially due to his experiences in the 1820’s that we’re discussing in our RSR club, reacted negatively. He said,
This first comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind enlightening the understanding & storing the intellect with present knowledge of a man who is of the literal Seed of Abraham than one that is a gentile though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the Literal Seed of Abraham it is calm & serene & his whole soul & body are only exercised by the pure spirit of Intelligence;
The Spirit of REVELATION is in connection with these blessings. A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the Spirit of Revelation for instance when you feel pure Intelligence flowing unto you it may give you sudden strokes of ideas that by noticing it you may find it fulfilled the same day or Soon. (i.e.) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God will come to pass and thus by learning the Spirit of God. & understanding it you may grow into the principle of Revelation. until you become perfect in Christ Jesus, (June 27, 1839 from the original entry)
Clearly this was at odds with those who focused in on the experience of excitement or even the experience some claim in mystic experiences. While there may indeed be good feelings, excitement, peace, or a sense of unity, the focus is always on communication.
It seems like there is an odd division from what is often found in the mystic tradition. What is sometimes called the vertical nature of mysticism is common in LDS circles. (The emphasis on personal revelation) Yet the focus in mysticism on the experience is intentionally devalued. Of course one could arguable suggest that LDS emphasis on feeling the spirit has a similar structure in certain ways. And I think many Mormons love the experience of feeling the spirit. That’s why some enjoy just sitting in the Celestial Room. Some might say that even in a poor Sacrament Service where little was taught, the experience of feeling the spirit is invigorating and restful. But on a certain level, the experience or feeling is secondary to its use. Those comments by Joseph form an important subtext for LDS thought. Further even outpourings like speaking in tongues are viewed in more practical terms. We see them as gifts to teach in a language we don’t know or, in exceptional circumstances, to speak in the language of Adam if there is a translator present..
To me the biggest difference between Mormonism and most mystic traditions is that there is no belief that one has to engage in a structured kind of meditation to receive these experiences. This idea of meditation, often with a focus on breathing, on candle flames, or on some phrase repeated over and over again is a common facet of most mysticism. If one calls the Mormon experience a mysticism, it is certainly a mysticism of the everyday act. Now the notion of mysticism in practical acts isn’t that uncommon. It can be found in some strains of Zen for instance. Consider the tea ceremony, painting, or even martial arts in Japan for example. However even in these practical arts there just isn’t the emphasis on particular structures in LDS thought that one finds in say the practical manifestations of Zen in Japan. That’s not to say one couldn’t argue for it. But I definitely think the burden of proof is against it.
The second big problem with seeing a LDS mysticism is theological. Mystical experience usually focuses in on an ineffable (unspeakable) experience of the fundamental unity of all existence. Thus the God (if one calls it that) one experiences has to be much more this ontological source of existence and we have to already be part of this God. This notion is fairly ubiquitous in Greek thought and especially in Buddhism. However it’s harder to reconcile to traditional Christianity with its notion of creation ex nihilo. Traditional Christianity put an absolute gap between God as creator and Man as created. This is why mysticism was often heretical in the Christian tradition. There always was a long mystic tradition in traditional Christianity. But it also was typically in tension with the theology of traditional Christianity - especially the doctrine of the Trinity. Often mystics were considered heretical and in some cases were even burned at the stake.
In Mormonism the divide is even wider. While we don’t see this essential gap between God and Man, due to our rejection of creation ex nihilo neither do we see God as the source of all existence. God is, in an essential way, a being like us. We are both co-eternal and uncreated. Thus if there is a unity to all existence that unity is not God. If there is an experience of this unity it is not an experience of God.
This isn’t to say that one couldn’t work out a theology that explains such experiences. But I think there is a much heftier skepticism to overcome within Mormonism. Further, our materialistic tendencies undermine a lot of traditional mystic approaches. Now I’ve argued elsewhere that we have to be careful how we take Mormon materialism. And I’ll not bore people with it here. But I think the whole approach and reason for desiring mysticism is hard to find in Mormonism.
Fundamentally, rather than seeing religious experience as an experience of the unity of existence we see it in terms of communication with an other being. An other material being. Thus that transmission of intelligence that Joseph talked about is viewed within the analogy of me talking to you. Perhaps it is more extensive than our ability to communicate. But on a fundamental level it is communication and not something else. Communication can be profound. The experience can be overwhelming, as in certain forms of art or music that sways our emotions. But it is communication. The very approach we take towards spiritual manifestations and to God tends to undermine the attempt to understand it mystically.
It’s hard to have a mysticism when that is the underlying framework of thought. Those Mormons who’ve tried to introduce mysticism into LDS thought end up having to deal with this in different ways - and typically I think it ends up positing a transcendence above God and focuses in on that rather than God in religious experience. One can quickly see how that could become heretical quickly.
Having said that though, if there is a mysticism in Mormonism it is probably best seen by comparison not to Zen, Kabbalism or traditional European mysticisms. Rather it is found in the unique American form found in the transcendentalists like Emerson - who were also contemporary with Joseph. Unfortunately a book doing a rigorous analysis on this point has not been written. Instead we have only scattergun approaches via parallels such one finds in Brooke and Quinn.
That’s not to discount everything those two bring up. Just that it really needs to be engaged in a more careful and thoughtful fashion with less of an emphasis on parallels for parallel sake and more on context, meaning, and analysis.
Excellent post, Clark. I agree with your analysis, but I think that the role of the Holy Ghost has more of a mystical character than you are willing to give it. Moreover, the Holy Ghost is God.
I tend to look at the early prayer and blessing meetings of the Saints (like in Winter quarters) and the moments of pentacost as communion. Could not this be a oneness of people with God that is somewhat mystical?
Unfortunately a book doing a rigorous analysis on this point has not been written. Instead we have only scattergun approaches via parallels such one finds in Brooke and Quinn.
So have you started your book yet Clark?
Wish I had the background Geoff — and the time. I’m definitely not the man for the job. I can certainly appreciate the difficulty of the project though.
Regarding the Holy Ghost, I think my point is that the elements just don’t line up with what one typically considers mystic experiences and the thought processes involved. I’m certainly open to different views. The strongest arguments I’ve seen for mystic or quasi-mystic views comes more from comparison to Emerson and the American Transcendentalists. Even there I’m not convinced.
But that’s not to say that Mormonism forbids such meditation, or that it is not effective. In addition, I think scriptural concepts of union and unity with God are often overlooked by most Mormons (as in Doctrine & Covenants 88). It also seems to me that the argument can be made that an elaborate ritual (the temple) is intended, in part, to bring about a certain union with God, one that, as you pointed out above, people enjoy in the celestial room of the temple. I think you are right that there is typically some sort of communication going on, but I have had experiences where the communication was a communication of love, concern, or forgiveness, and not some “dialogic revelation”, to use Terryl Givens’ term (though I agree that dialogic revelation is essential to Mormon thought).
That’s true Christopher. For the record I’ve done Zazen meditation in the more Japanese style. (i.e. kneeling rather than in the lotus position) I think meditation works. I just don’t think it involves connection with the divine, although I think learning to control ones thoughts and find silence can help one hear God’s voice.
With regards to communication, I don’t think communication has to be dialogical in nature (i.e. linguistic) But it is still communication. For instance I walk into a room I can feel my son’s love for me. But this feeling of love is mediated by the signs my son is communicating and fundamentally involves a relationship and communication between two beings. It’s that notion of two beings which mysticism fundamentally disavows. The mystic will say I am God and God is in me.
Certainly there are many passages about unity in the scriptures. And I tend to believe that the unity of the Godhead must be more than just agreement and common cause. That is, it must be more than a kind of relationship. Clearly others disagree with me. But certainly I’m open to more. But at the same time I think it can’t be the mystic unity.
So there are interesting parallels with some aspects of mysticism. Your point about ritual was partially why I raised the history evolution of the term. The original mysteries were ordinances, often orienting one around a sacred narrative. Nibley’s written extensively on this and I discussed some aspects in my reading club on Nibley. A lot of the gnostic texts that some apologists appeal to so as to bring up Mormon parallels from the temple are actually mystic texts. (Something that some apologists fail to communicate unfortunately - I’m opposed to taking texts out of their contexts) But if some of the temple-like texts in early gnosticism and Judaism entail a kind of mystic ascent, the meaning Mormons give to them are radically different.
Now there are Mormons who do try to mysticize the LDS faith and do come up with all sorts of interesting views of the endowment and so forth. The problem is that they can’t find any real figures to support these readings. That is, they seem more how a mystic might see the LDS faith than how any significant LDS figures see the LDS faith: especially prophets.
Clark, my head spun trying to follow and make sense of your post. I’d like to try one more time to understand it. So I hope you don’t mind me asking:
1) Why did you post that? What’s the point of comparing sacred or miraculous spiritual experiences and revelations (things we rarely talk about in Sunday School, at least not in the first person) to non-LDS concepts of mysticism? and
2) What’s your thesis?
Why did I post it? Well originally the question came up at BCC in the thread I linked to. It was suggested I flesh it out to a full post. So I did. However I do get asked about it several times a year. Almost all religious traditions have a mystic tradition within them. The question is whether Mormonism does. I don’t think it does.
The second question can be taken two ways. The first is why do some compare Mormon ritual to the mysteries. I think if you look at much apologetics, especially Nibley, you’ll find a lot of parallels made. Unfortunately many, especially Nibley, aren’t clear as to the nature of the sources they are quoting from. For instance in his discussion of the three degrees of glory in ancient thought Nibley quotes a fair bit from Kabbalistic sources. There are remarkable parallels. But he never mentions that Kabbalism is primarily a mystic tradition within Judaism. Nibley does mention mysticism in passing in his various discussions about Mantic religion versus Sophic religion. But I don’t think he really is very fair to the context of the sources he quotes from.
Now one can provide arguments for all this and how these parallels would crop up in more mystic texts. I think the standard LDS answer would be that as people go apostate and lose direct revelation they turn to mysticism as a counterfeit of the real thing. I’m not sure that’s always fair. But certainly one can argue that with texts like The Gospel of Philip which has extensive parallels to Mormon rites. (Such as a sacred marriage between Jesus and Mary at an altar in a mirrored room off of the holy of holies in the temple, or statements about deification that sound remarkably like Lorenzo Snow’s couplet)
The other answer as to why some tie mysticism and Mormon ritual is that there is a group who do push a kind of quasi-Mormon-mysticism. One notable internet figure who at least raises the issue is Kerry Shirts. For instance here’s one of his arguments for there being a Mormon mysticism. The issue became topical in the mid to late 90’s after Lance Owens had his paper on Joseph Smith and Kabbalism. Now I think Owens paper is amazingly bad. (See the FARMS review for William Hamblin’s rejoinder) But it did pique interest in the topic and there was a lot of debate on the issue on many of the mailing lists. Michael Quinn stepped into the debate with the second edition of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. While Quinn’s work was better than Owens, and made use from what I can tell of many of the discussions in the intervening years over the topic, it still avoided the underlying context and use. It also still had some misreadings and questionable parallels, much like some of Nibley’s stuff.
So people do tend to encounter arguments for there being a mystic tradition in Mormonism. The actual arguments for it are more complex. But this addresses what to me are the fundamental reasons why this view is mistaken.
As to what is my thesis. My thesis is that there is no mystic tradition in Mormonism. There is no common meditation tradition. There are theological problems over the nature of reality and God. There are explicit statements by Joseph Smith which go against the mystic emphasis.
I guess it boils down to the definition of “mystic” and “mystical.”
If one uses the “hidden or concealed” definition, then in a general sense, there is much mystical knowledge in the church.
Many scriptural passages have deeper meanings and more applications than what is visible on their first reading. Sometimes, only after synthesizing other scriptural passages and doctrines can the reader discern (or be prepared to be taught by the Spirit) the alternate/deeper meanings of the first passage.
Some of the correlated doctrine that is taught in the church is the same way. Correlated material may sometimes be thought of as scripture with a small “s.” Some may accuse it of being over-simplified or dumbed-down, however that may be in accordance with the divine pattern of capital-S Scripture in regards to hiding things from the insincere.
Although correlated material teaches of personal revelation, it only teaches it in general terms, “still small voice,” “impressions,” “promptings,” etc. Yet there are more patterns given in the scriptures that don’t make it into Gospel Doctrine/Priesthood/Relief Socity course material. And I contend that one doesn’t comprehend what personal revelation is until one receives it, and one doesn’t understand the other patterns until one receives revelation through the other patterns.
I’ve seen things that may qualify as “mystical,” in the broad sense, in Journal of Discourses, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and History of the Church. Much in those sources is true, some is not true, and even a significant portion of what is true is no longer promulgated as official doctrine, meaning it’s non-binding on members. Yet even if it’s non-binding in a publicized sense, it may still be necessary in terms of our eternal progression, or even in terms of Heavenly Father’s will or plan for us as individuals.
I sometimes get frustrated at posters in the Bloggernacle complaining of boring Gospel Doctrine/Priesthood/RS lessons which repeat the basics of church doctine and history over and over. First off, that’s what those classes are for, the basics. Second, the basics need repeating because most of us in the church aren’t living the basics as we should. I know I need improvement in the basics. Third, with converts joining the church, and with born-in-church folk coming of age, there are always newcomers in those classes who need the basics. Fourth, the basics aren’t entirely basic. The basics have multiple levels, and many facets of application. And last, members should not allow Gospel Doctrine/Priesthood/RS to be their sole source of gospel learning.
Once a member has processed the first layer of the basics, there is plenty of “meaty” material in the semi-official books of the church, Jesus the Christ, Articles of Faith, Gospel Doctrine, TPJS, Discourses of Brigham Young, Doctrines of Salvation, Miracle of Forgiveness.
Moreover, if a member eventually actually _receives_ the Holy Ghost, like he/she is commanded to when confirmed, that opens up a channel of learning which may fall under one definition of the word “mystical,” but not in the ritualistic sense you were addressing.
Yet there are formulas of outward actions, not necessarily rituals, that seem to invite miraculous/mystical teaching moments from the Holy Ghost, such as reading the scriptures and serving others.
In your original post above you quoted two of my favorite passages from TPJS. However, like any prophet of old, one shouldn’t take Joseph Smith’s words in any one instance out the context of his other teachings, (such as many mainstream Christians do with Paul’s words on how we are saved by faith.) Your take on those two quotes may be limiting the scope which Joseph Smith originally intended. For instance, shortly after he joined the church, Brigham Young once prayed in the Adamic language in a small informal prayer meeting, and there was no mention of an interpretation given, yet Joseph confirmed that it was of God. Paul mentions speaking in the “tongue of angels”, and Nephi (2 Nephi 31:13) says “… then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel” in which the purpose of that charismatic gift appears to be pure worship. The injunction for a translation is also dependent on the setting, as Nephi does not mention it, and Joseph apparently did not offer or require a translation in the early instance with Brigham Young. So maybe a translation (whether the tongue be an earthly tongue for teaching, or an Angelic/Adamic tongue for worship) is required only in public or official meetings.
In conclusion, in a broad sense of the word, I think there is a “Mormon mysticism,” but not according to the pattern of mysticism as meant in other religions.
Typically in modern discussion when one uses mysticism one means that kind of ineffable experience of unity and the methods of bringing it about. While the word mysticism comes from mystery, typically the rites issue is called the mysteries. A good book listing ancient Christian, Jewish, and Roman mysteries is Meyer’s The Ancient Mysteries. They are quite interesting, although most of them have little similarity to our own ordinances. Not that you misunderstood that. I just wanted to clarify it for other readers who might be interested. Keeping the terms clear is important.
With regards to the issue of speaking in tongues, I don’t think Joseph’s comments were intended to end that, merely change the focus. My personal belief is that when people pray in Adamic, there are some who can understand. However I also think that the shift Joseph introduced took time. Speaking in tongues in a fashion I suspect was more akin to what some of our Protestant friends do stayed in the church up into the 20th century among some. Perhaps I’m being a tad skeptical, but I doubt all of the were Adamic.
May I sugest their is an alternative view regarding “Mormon Mysticism?” Get a free PDF version of my latest book, “Mormon Mysticism” online at: http://www.MormonMysticism.com