I have been LDS for 10 years, and have reached many plateaus spiritually at various times. Then, someone or something will come into my life and help me to learn a little more. I have wondered at times what a prophet could continue to learn by attending the temple, since I have been a frequent attender (as much as possible considering the five hour drive), and felt (erroneously) that I pretty much had it. I mean, how levels of symbolism could there really be??? Apparently quite a few. I keep learning new things! The temple is the center of my mysticism.

I have searched for those “mystic” teachings in the church, and have wondered where is the knowledge of spiritual things- which exist around us, unnoticed or ignored by most. I really hoped to be given a “seer stone” when I went through the temple the first time. Or a Liahona, or to see the finger of the Lord, or something.

I believe now it is there, cloaked in symbols. Why is there not a discussion in church of the spirit world, of what is the reality of dark spirits- a straight discussion of what they can do, and what we could do to be safe, etc.? Why do I have to search out Melvin Fish to find out these things?
Yet…
Could I have stood it ten years ago when I first was baptised? The Savior out of his love for us and his understanding of our “readiness” brings knowledge into our lives when we are able to actually use it. We have to seek knowledge- by study and by prayer.

I had an experience a few years ago when I prayed to be able to meet the Savior. I felt then that one day I could be ready, but an image came to my mind of me fussing at my kids. I try to focus on living the commandments with love, so that I will be able to bear it when do I meet my Savior.

I meet many people in church who are “mystical” but many of them have been very well trained to act “normal”. Not by the leaders of the church, but by their fellow saints giving them blank stares when they broach such topics in Sunday school. You learn to be cautious (ie- symbolic)- not out of fear or coersion, but through the example of the Savior (parables, anyone? the temple, sacrament, baptism- everything we do is symbolic.”What you have done to least of these you have done unto me”, etc.)

When I have searched for confirmation in the scriptures and General conference on different “knowledge” I have received, I find it there in its symbolic form.

Are all members of the LDS church mystics? Who cares? “Am I growing spiritually?” “Am I following the path that Heavenly Father has laid for me?” is the question that I’m worried about now.

I spent some time trying to develope the ability to see auras- which I am told you can do. But it is besides to point for me. I realized I could feel all of those things about people, and I don’t need to see it to trust it. I don’t waste my time now trying to develop that talent when I can get the same job done in another way.

Sorry this was so long- just had a lot of things floating around up there.

Perhaps if you look at it this way you might find the insight you already know.

What if we all are and have always been members of the Lord’s church and there is no one who can ban you from his church. You were a member before you came down to earth and you always will be. What if this knowledge is known throughout select members of the church? Remember someone has to be wrong so they can be right! This is how the game is played!

This is the trap that comes from The Tree of Knowledge. Everything has been put in its opposite. Without so, there would be no right, no wrong, and ultimately you would still be in the garden…not knowing right from wrong. Remember that someone has to wrong so that they can be right! We play the game that something is broken so we can fix it. Really there is nothing broken! Who made us? Are we not made in the exact image of our maker? You see, the game never ends unless you open your eyes and your mind. Kind of funny when you visualize all the people of the world slipping in and out of consciousness and unconsciousness even though their eyes are open.

Celebrate the goodness of all things. Happiness is a choice…choose it and watch what shows up.

Our attempt to define reality is what holds the parallel universes together. Just our mere attempt to give meaning is the big bang that started it all! When G-d said “I have a plan and you can have eternal life,” we gave the plan meaning and here we are!

Reality is created when we all agree in a moment of time, thus agreement in reality. The struggle is the ego. You are not your mind. So, who are you? Thus more eternal searching and giving more meaning, thus more agreements in reality, and further expansion of the universe. Remember we are still limiting our being to a one dimensional world “The Universe.”

The garden that G-d created is absolutely fascinating. That is were G-d gave us choice and from that choice we exercised our free-agency. For without choice there would be nothing. IE: we would still be in the garden not knowing right from wrong…little from big…G-d from Satan…Luther from Calvin…right from wrong…mystic from non mystic.

What happened is that the power of possibility was exercised and that we enrolled into the possibility, thus here lies meaning! When a possibility is created…it is the atonement that allows us to enroll into the possibility of the creation of agreement in reality. For it is G-d that gives us meaning and thus we give G-d meaning and thus we exist. This is a multi dimensional thought because if we give meaning to this world, don’t we also give meaning to the here-after and on and on. It is the collective consciousnesses that keeps the universes intact.

Our soul is divine-infinite and seeking understanding in a one-dimensional world is were we get trapped IE; the tree of knowledge. The tree of life is where we find eternal life. Where we realize and give meaning that the light is the same light that made the universe, that made mankind and made all things. We are all the same light and all of molecules that make us are light the same light reflecting that vastness of the universe. A perfect reflection of the meaning that we so freely choose.

Trying to define mysticism is a one dimensional view of the universe and does not take in consideration all of multi dimensions of this universe and infinite universes.

“When you create with possibility you create an environment in which all things are possible.

Since our exchanges early last November (2007), I have not only read Mel Fish’s book, but have talked to him on the phone several times. Although I was initially troubled by his theology and what I thought was his deliberate avoidance of identifying Mormon sources. This seemed manipulative since he readily identifies Biblical references. Nevertheless, every time we talked I felt his spirit to be bright, honest and straightforward. When I mentioned William Baldwin’s *Spirit Releasement Therapy*, he said he knew the book and valued it greatly. I then wondered if he had published only after reading Baldwin (Baldwin published first in 1991; Fish in 1999). However, my estimation of Fish grew when he disclosed that it wasn’t until *after* he published that he became aware of Baldwin because of a call he received from an emeritus LDS general authority asking him if he knew of Baldwin’s work! Learning this I became determined to meet Fish face to face. The opportunity came this past March, when one of my sons and I attended a small class that Fish conducted not far from where we live in New Mexico. He and I hit it off immediately and have since become friends.

Regarding Fish’s and my personal encounter, my son and I came to Mel’s class with separate, undisclosed personal issues in mind. When it came to my turn to experience his healing techniques, Mel’s wife Gwena (who seems to be clairvoyant) whispered something for him to become aware of. I was surprised by what she saw and described, acknowledged its significance and shifted my original issue to focus on her perception. I won’t disclose that here, but it made an immediate difference in the spiritual health of my family.

Identifying oneself as a mystic in our Mormon culture — I should more precisely say society — can surely lead to being marginalized by that society. But, by daring to reveal our true selves by sharing inner (and outer) experiences as well as heart-felt beliefs, we can find and build the kind of cultural community that can nourish our spirits. That kind of community flourished in the early years of our Mormon culture, albeit with flawed leaders who demanded obedience to flawed ideas and revelations. But, we are more aware these days, are we not? Aware and less judgmental of the experiences and beliefs of others? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. It is a mixed bag. Thanks for risking where you are on your present path!

In a separate posting I want to share with the Sunstone community my discovery of a true latter-day saint, whose name is Father Arseny of the Russian Orthodox tradition. He spent most of his life in Soviet gulags.

When I was active in Church and would share my most beloved spiritual experiences, I was occassionally taken aback by the looks of disbelief from members or comments that I was “weird.” That, naturally, disturbed me since the Church is a Church of prophesy, revelation, visions, healings, etc. (Article of Faith #6). In the Church, these experiences were referred to, or labeled, as from the Holy Ghost…..outside the Church, language such as intuitive, psychic, healer, etc are substituted. It is all the same thing…the fruits of the spirit…the fruits of a rich interior that allows one to “hear” voices, see spirits, receive direct revelation, etc. However, these things can also be bestowed upon a person by “grace.” I, however, found that when I cultivated a highly personal spiritual relationship with God that I would have more “mystical” experiences. I personally felt that I needed to prepare my body, mind and spirit to receive the things of the spirit.

One thing that I disagree with as far as Mormon Doctrine is that I was also told that if excommunicated that the “constant companionship of the Holy Ghost” would no longer be with me. I have found that to be totally untrue. I am the same, and God is the same. My relationship with God is independent of my relationship with an organized religion. However, I do think there is purpose in organized religions to help us develop in spiritual stature through service, trials, missionary work, sharing testimonies, etc. With all of that being said, however, I found that I was so busy “doing, doing, doing” as a strong LDS, instead of “being, being, being.” The more active I became, the less time I had to cultivate my interior because I was always working on the exterior. It is that “control” thing, I think. The more active I became “doing, doing, doing” the more I could also see the faults of the members in their gossip and backbiting, etc. That was not exactly what I was going to Church for! I would often take six month breaks into inactivity to restore my spirit. It is that beautiful, personal relationship with God that is what matters the most.

I also agree with Rob #41 that Satan and his angels get too much credit and are used as “fear” tactics to control and blind men. When we are no longer afraid of Satan or what may be in those “anti-Mormon” books is when our EYES are opened! Imagine that! Who, then, is Satan?

Although the Church is a church of revelation, how many really know how to discern the gifts of the spirit…to know the difference between the burning in the bosom that reveals truth and the burning in the bosom from reading a great fictional novel that also moves the soul…that brings a man to tears and on his knees? How much do we impose into the experience and how much is the actual experience itself imposing on us? How much does “belief and interpretation” play into all of this? How much does “faith” play into all of this? And, finally, how much does “love” play into this? AOF #13…”If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after those things.” There needs to be more “seekers,” don’t you think?…TRUE seekers. I think Mormonism, and religion, in general, needs more mystics. Jesus was a great mystic…his message was seek and abide in the “inner” kingdom. That was the truth that made you free, and that IS mysticism.

Melvin is the nephew of the late Silas Fish, who just happened to be my long-ago high school seminary teacher in Phoenix! As a teen-ager I loved “Brother Fish” dearly. He was for me a fatherly role model. Melvin published his HEALING THE INNER SELF: From Darkness into Light in 1999, which was BEFORE he learned about William Baldwin’s 1991 Spirit Releasement Therapy. This makes Melvin’s book all the more remarkable! It was a “Church leader” who alerted him about Baldwin. Melvin has been active in the institutional LDS Church all his life and has held many positions. He is currently busy traveling around the country teaching and applying his healing methods.

I have just finished a first reading of his book and have a ton of questions. Before reading it again and testing the techniques he proposes, I want to resolve as many of these questions as possible. While there are uncanny similarities between his and Baldwin’s approaches to and views of spiritual reality, there are significant differences. These need to be compared and discussed. My wife is eager for the two of us to get on with it and test Melvin’s techniques together. Melvin’s book is shorter, simpler and directed to a more general audience than Baldwin’s magnum opus. Baldwin’s audience is professional health care practitioners.

I’ll post another report here after asking my questions and testing Melvin Fish’s techniques.

Eugene

I know that he lives (or lived) in Cedar City, Utah. I checked 411.com and got:

Melvin C Fish
4118 W 475th N
Cedar City UT 84720
(435) 865-0993

I have been told that someone in the Church has put pressure on him regarding the generational healing which he was both performing and teaching. There may be some hesitation on his part.

I have never met him, only heard of him. Only heard the best, too.

Steve

This sounds very much like the work of Melvin Fish with generational healing. Many have been aided with his advice, too.

Steve

Truth wears no mask
Bows at no human Shrine
Seeks neither place nor applause
She only asks a hearing

The book is Spirit Releasement Therapy by William J. Baldwin, D.D.S., Ph.D. It is a technique manual for professional therapists and it will open your eyes. I met the late William Baldwin at a conference in Kansas in March 1991, not knowing about this book which he had just published three weeks earlier. The book came to my attention only a year ago, and it has changed my life.

We are all mystics, Mormon or otherwise, if we choose to look within. Jesus said that, but who out there believes it? Baldwin’s book will teach you how. He will show you the Light.

Namaste

Eugene Kovalenko

I just started reading this thread, so my comments are late and may be of little or no use.

I am convinced that we know little of what lies beyond the veil, both good and bad. I am also convinced that there are some among us who are sensitive to things which we cannot feel, much less see and touch. Perhaps your wife is one of these. Have you considered giving her a blessing or having someone who has the Spirit with them give one to her? Have you considered blessing your home and casting out any unclean spirits or influences? Have you looked at generational healing?

Steve

David Littlefield

It is a euphemism for “relying upon human ability alone.”

Kindest,
Joe Swick

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

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060215model.html

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

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

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!

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

“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!

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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