The Mystery of Godliness

[_ClarkGoble]

Yet in matters of exaltation, the outcomes for the Mormon vs. the Buddhist are strikingly different. For the Mormon, the result seems to be a heightened individuality and separateness. God/esses are men and women of holiness, separated from common or natural things. In Buddhism, the result is the opposite - the breaking of the karmic cycle leads to the dissolution of the (false?) boundaries that appear to separate all things back into their true nature. In a sense, it appears to be the opposite of godhood, because it is singularity rather than exaltation. Or so it seems. Yet the Gospel of John also speaks of "becoming one" and coming to know God in some way that appears to transcend knowing of Him. Maybe there is a similarity there after all?

I'm not sure I'd agree with the idea of exaltation as heightened individuality. The way that Mormons read the intecessory prayer in John tends to privilege it in terms of an increased unity with the godhead. That is the goal is a kind of unity of the sort Jesus and the Father have.

It's true that for a period in the 20th century a more nominalistic take on the unity of the godhead tended to get emphasized (characterized by say Bruce R. McConkie). That is what the unity of the godhead is consists just of goals and knowledge that were identical in content. However even that is still a very heightened sense of unity even if perhaps not what either the Buddhists in the east or the neoPlatonists in the west held to.

Even in the 20th century though there were significant other strains of Mormon thought like Orson Pratt's with a far more extensive sense of unity. While Pratt's theology is still nominalistic (reality consists of individual intelligent atoms in space) he has an expansive spiritual fluid pervading the universe. Divine unity is a kind of significant unity with this fluid. It becomes a kind of materialist take on the Trinity with the ouisa being this unity. Really his views basically were Stoicism but with the persistence of the individual eternally. (The Stoics were closer to the Buddhists in terms of the immortality of the self)

The comparison I'd make with Buddhism is that we can recognize all is one in some strong sense yet simultaneously keep some kind of personal identity. Now it's true that many strains of Mormon thought including all the dominant ones in the 20th century have eternal persistence of the individual backwards in time. But not all do. Brigham Young for instance held that intelligence was the raw stuff out of which spirits were made but that these principles were themselves not identical to persons or consciousness. Roughly a position akin to contemporary physicalism. He also allowed individuals to be absolutely destroyed as an individual (although he thought this only for sons of perdition) So there's certainly major traditions in LDS movement that are more reconcilable to Buddhism here.

Once we leave that question of individual existence though I think much more of Buddhist thought is conducive to Mormonism.

[_ClarkGoble]

Unlike the Hotei, I sought to be the Zen Master of Mormonism. Your question about the purpose of exaltation struck me today, as I realized I had never put any thought into what is exaltation, but only the pursuit of Zen Master.

Or one might say one wanted the master part without the zen part.

The common feature of neoPlatonism, Stoicism, or many forms of Buddhism (especially Zen) is that this seeking for power isn't right. Rather it is doing ones part in the larger organism of the universe in a steadfast way that is appropriate. This is why meditative practices can be found even mundane practices like caligraphy or serving tea.

My favorite koan along these lines is that before seeking enlightenment mountains are just mountains. Upon seeking enlightenment mountains are no longer just mountains. When enlightened mountains are just mountains.

I actually think that there is a strong element of this in Mormonism although I'd simultaneously say most Mormons miss it. As John put it, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

[_honorentheos]

Yet in matters of exaltation, the outcomes for the Mormon vs. the Buddhist are strikingly different. For the Mormon, the result seems to be a heightened individuality and separateness. God/esses are men and women of holiness, separated from common or natural things. In Buddhism, the result is the opposite - the breaking of the karmic cycle leads to the dissolution of the (false?) boundaries that appear to separate all things back into their true nature. In a sense, it appears to be the opposite of godhood, because it is singularity rather than exaltation. Or so it seems. Yet the Gospel of John also speaks of "becoming one" and coming to know God in some way that appears to transcend knowing of Him. Maybe there is a similarity there after all?

I'm not sure I'd agree with the idea of exaltation as heightened individuality. The way that Mormons read the intecessory prayer in John tends to privilege it in terms of an increased unity with the godhead. That is the goal is a kind of unity of the sort Jesus and the Father have.

It's true that for a period in the 20th century a more nominalistic take on the unity of the godhead tended to get emphasized (characterized by say Bruce R. McConkie). That is what the unity of the godhead is consists just of goals and knowledge that were identical in content. However even that is still a very heightened sense of unity even if perhaps not what either the Buddhists in the east or the neoPlatonists in the west held to.

Even in the 20th century though there were significant other strains of Mormon thought like Orson Pratt's with a far more extensive sense of unity. While Pratt's theology is still nominalistic (reality consists of individual intelligent atoms in space) he has an expansive spiritual fluid pervading the universe. Divine unity is a kind of significant unity with this fluid. It becomes a kind of materialist take on the Trinity with the ouisa being this unity. Really his views basically were Stoicism but with the persistence of the individual eternally. (The Stoics were closer to the Buddhists in terms of the immortality of the self)

The comparison I'd make with Buddhism is that we can recognize all is one in some strong sense yet simultaneously keep some kind of personal identity. Now it's true that many strains of Mormon thought including all the dominant ones in the 20th century have eternal persistence of the individual backwards in time. But not all do. Brigham Young for instance held that intelligence was the raw stuff out of which spirits were made but that these principles were themselves not identical to persons or consciousness. Roughly a position akin to contemporary physicalism. He also allowed individuals to be absolutely destroyed as an individual (although he thought this only for sons of perdition) So there's certainly major traditions in LDS movement that are more reconcilable to Buddhism here.

Once we leave that question of individual existence though I think much more of Buddhist thought is conducive to Mormonism.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, ClarkGoble.

My personal view is that you highlight one of the tensions inside of Mormonism. While neither the idea of exalted and holy separateness nor unity and oneness are unorthodox beliefs, I think this isn't because they both reflect deliberate theological views within the doctrine or teachings so much as Mormonism allows both to exist without overlap between them but entirely inside what is considered acceptable belief. A believer who pursues either is likely to find doctrine and thoughts that will support them whichever road they choose.

What I then think is interesting is how this ends up playing out in the here and now. Is there a difference in the life and well being between the two potential avenues of thought?

What struck me about Rock and JHP's thoughts in the other thread is how much the end result they were seeking seemed to require a supernatural manifestation of some kind external to their own actions but triggered by something they did. Honestly, I don't see any of the mainstream options available to the membership offering something that is both different and meaningful. If you take the view of the leadership, is unity really defined? Or recognizable as result of discipleship? If we define it in mundane terms of remaining faithful to the Church and it's version of the Gospel, ok. But that's a bit tautological, right? There's inertia at work there rather than any kind of "becoming". Maybe this is where you see stoicism having some sort of relationship to Mormonism? I don't see it, to be clear so I'm curious if you'd share some details regarding your thoughts here.

One can feel sympathy for those seeking something more alive, more active like the promises of Denver Snuffer that seems to be very much a call for right action, right result...but the result is seeing Christ again. The unity it seems to offer is that of seeking to shrink the circles of exclusivity smaller and smaller to those who are truly seeking the right path, the right actions, and the right result. The company of the righteous, or at least the community of the faithful who truly believe. Right?

That's a long winded way of asking you to elaborate a bit on your thoughts on how the LDS faith overlaps with the idea of exaltation being a state of unity of some kind, achieving oneness. I think the possibility is there, but the person going down that path seems likely to find themselves very lonely in the pews where Conference Talks are more likely to celebrate some individual achievement by a single member than extol the virtues of honest, heartfelt love of humankind absent boundary definition and exclusion. One is much more likely to hear a modern prophet preach distance from the lepers of the world to retain one's cleanliness than to meditate on one's own beams in one's own eyes.

I don't know. Again, the institution might have room for that kind of thinking but there is a reason Brigham Young is revered while Orson Pratt is cited as a man whose thoughts are to be approached with caution.

[_RockSlider]

The 'old school' doctrines of the structure of the heavens would seem to me to be anything but unity doctrines. The mere fact that there is a separation between Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial is anti-unity. Especially where very drastic punishments, as it were exists. For examples

no family/family
no sexual identity/sexual identity as well as sex
no association with Jesus/association with Jesus.

With the Celestial being further divided into sections where the lowest section dwellers are servants to the upper section.

The Elect of God. The Latter Day Saints. God's covenant people. Promised lands for the special people. Its all about elitism even among "The Saints" (i.e. degrees of Celestial). How can any of this be considered to have potential unity teachings? And are these things not the very foundational teachings of Mormonism? i.e. There is nothing more important than being with your spouse and children, finding Exaltation in the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom?


screw all the poor losers who are unworthy

[_honorentheos]

To build on this, Rock, I think if we look at the basic story of creation as understood in Mormonism, the role of God and the gods of the Book of Abraham is that of creating identity. Mormonism defines the chaos pre-creation as unorganized, lacking in a defined, unique status from that of the other matter or spirit that needs to be organized and separated one from the other into unique form. The entire language of the Book of Abraham is that of election, separation, division into class.

I really hope ClarkGoble comes back to provide more detail regarding his view that Mormonism doesn't just allow members to see the gospel as a call for unity, breaking down of boundaries; rather he suggested the membership that fails to realize this are missing out on the central message. I can agree that Mormonism allows for it, but I don't see how Mormon beliefs and doctrine favor it over exhaltation being the same as elevated unique individual identity as God. One is above the other, and above all is God.

[_ClarkGoble]

To build on this, Rock, I think if we look at the basic story of creation as understood in Mormonism, the role of God and the gods of the Book of Abraham is that of creating identity. Mormonism defines the chaos pre-creation as unorganized, lacking in a defined, unique status from that of the other matter or spirit that needs to be organized and separated one from the other into unique form. The entire language of the Book of Abraham is that of election, separation, division into class.

I think there are double moves, which is actually traditional in neoplatonic texts of say late antiquity. Depending upon your focus you're either moving away from the One towards differentiation or towards the One and unity. Typically neoplatonists especially in the religious tradition took this as psychological or experiential. The idea of mystic union really comes out of this tradition.

I really hope ClarkGoble comes back to provide more detail regarding his view that Mormonism doesn't just allow members to see the gospel as a call for unity, breaking down of boundaries; rather he suggested the membership that fails to realize this are missing out on the central message. I can agree that Mormonism allows for it, but I don't see how Mormon beliefs and doctrine favor it over exhaltation being the same as elevated unique individual identity as God. One is above the other, and above all is God.

Not quite sure what you're asking here. I think a call for strong union is pretty much part and parcel of Mormon theology. How to understand the ontology is an other matter and there's really no agreement upon that. Prior to the revelation on spirits as matter a more neoplatonic conception was common as say among the Pratt brothers. So our creation was seen as literally out of God's substance. After the material revelation they then reformulated their theology to the odd near Stoic view of Orson Pratt that remains popular for some Mormons.

Beyond the ontological question though I think there's a strong emphasized idea of unifying ourselves with God. "If you are not one you are not mine" is the common phrase you hear. The way this is emphasized tends to be with the vague "hearts as one" phrase. That avoids the ontological issues (since there's no agreement upon them and there's a certain anti-metaphysical tendency in Mormon thought).

A common example of this is Elder Eyring's talk from a few years back:
https://www.LDS.org/general-conference/ ... 1?lang=eng

As I said this unity of the godhead might be described in nominalistic terms. You rarely get the focus on the ousia you do in other forms of Christianity. But then Mormonism lacks the ontological difference from God that creation ex nihilo demands. So it's very easy to see unity in Mormonism actually being stronger than in traditional Christianity due to there being no essential ontological gap.

The emphasis on individual personality actually goes back to Joseph. As you mentioned, this comes out of Abraham and Joseph makes that connection explicitly in some of his sermons like this one:

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1844/16Jun44.html

So I certainly agree that after exaltation we don't loose our identity. Yet in an other sense there is that unity. The analogy in Buddhism I'd make is to those who are enlightened, feel the unity with all things, yet still are an individual. Within Mormon thought, while clearly there are some big differences from Buddhism especially in practice/ritual, there's a strong sense of experential unity via the spirit but also a shared kind of conscious unity given as a gift of the spirit. I'd say that there are even practices that emphasize this such as say when a priesthood blessing is given. The ideal is a kind of shared unity between God and the individual where they are one speaking the blessing and divisions are effaced. (As an aside this then becomes problematic from a quasi-feminist perspective since there aren't the same opportunities for that kind of ritual of unity for women and I agree that's a problem)

An idea in Mormonism that I think comes somewhat similar to these other traditions is the duality of the natural man and man of God. The latter walks in the spirit an is upward oriented (say by way of analogy to neoPlatonic emmantion theory) while the former is lost to such things and can't find that unity. Thus the natural man is just a beast. Again while there are obvious philosophical differences you can see that the way that duality is used in Mormon thought tends to emphasize a spiritual unity and oneness of a kind of enlightenment. The rhetoric is quite different but the practical emphasis quite similar.

Hope that helps.

[_ClarkGoble]

If you take the view of the leadership, is unity really defined? Or recognizable as result of discipleship? If we define it in mundane terms of remaining faithful to the Church and it's version of the Gospel, ok. But that's a bit tautological, right? There's inertia at work there rather than any kind of "becoming". Maybe this is where you see stoicism having some sort of relationship to Mormonism? I don't see it, to be clear so I'm curious if you'd share some details regarding your thoughts here.

Unity in terms of definition is pretty vague. Usually it means same heart and mind. As I mentioned that can be seen nominalistically where they are identical states but not anything beyond that.

As an aside when I talk of nominalism here I'm thinking of Ockham vs. the Supreme Court in the medieval debate - roughly a debate about whether things that are the same are same only in name or in substance. To to a nominalist two sheep are the same only in name and not in any stronger sense. To a realist there is something mind-independent that is the same although this need not be some same substance. It could just be the same structure. The realist/nominalist debate is a bit subtle of a philosophical dispute and I'm not sure in practice in necessarily amounts to much beyond a question of how much a knower's mind is involved in making true statements.

Anyway, back to your question, Stoicism is relevant in that it (along with neoPlatonism which adopts Stoic conception of the universe here) sees the universe as a single organism. Parts have their meaning only in terms of the whole, much like a gear in a clock has its meaning associated with the purposes of the whole. For Stoicism enlightenment is thus seeing ones part in the whole and participating in it with an eye to the whole.

Now there are problems with the Stoic view since it tends to encourage individuals not seek change. The best known criticism of Stoic views is how it doesn't push sufficiently for individuals to change their place - such as slaves seeking to end slavery. There are some ways out of this that Stoics took but it is a pretty compelling criticism and a big problem in many types of emphasis in unity over individualism.

You can see that same tension in Mormonism albeit not quite as pronounced. We see this life as a test that develops our character in some essential way. That is the meaning of life is wrapped up in something bigger and our place in it. The danger is that a Mormon could always justify suffering due to it being what we need to learn. Now in practice you see that not happening as much since there's also a strong emphasis in Mormonism on overcoming rather than the quietism you see in most mystic movements which is more passive. Again though there is that essential tension in Mormonism between binding oneself to ones place in the whole versus overcoming and progressing.

To the degree anything like quietism appears in Mormonism to the way it does in Buddhism or western mysticism in the neoPlatonic or related movements it's merely functional. So one is quiet to create a space where something new can occur. This is I'd argue it functions in a fashion similar to "clearing" in other quasi mystic thought. So for instance in Heidegger's thought you have a clearing to enable being to shine forth. I think you find something pretty similar in Mormon thought and scripture.

[_moksha]

Fry sauce in the little cups. Chicken nuggets on the passing trays.

A noise is heard in the foyer. A bearded man dressed in robes bursts in and says, "My chapel is a house of announcements and talks and you have made it a den of munchies".

[_Maksutov]

Fry sauce in the little cups. Chicken nuggets on the passing trays.

A noise is heard in the foyer. A bearded man dressed in robes bursts in and says, "My chapel is a house of announcements and talks and you have made it a den of munchies".

My bosom is still burning from this. Probably from the nuggets.

[_honorentheos]

Hi ClarkGoble,

Interesting thoughts, though I find myself sensing we're outside of a conversation about what is likely shared belief among adherents to Mormonism and into a very niche view that has interesting aspects to it but not something I think even you seem to believe so much as enjoy discussing academically. If that's true, who is actually living after this view? You answered quickly if buried in the first post what I tend to think - that calls for unity may be well-recognized as expressions in Mormonism but what is actually meant by unity lacks agreement. At best, the Eyring talk you provided is exactly the kind of ambiguous but firmly stated use of the term that suggests more than it provides. Unity...as community? As the first born of the lamb? As wards and families? As the mind of God? Any interpretation is possible. But the more mundane seems to be the most likely given the implications and examples. One might read it as a call for simply surrendering one's own will to God's will. But it waters even that down.

There is something interesting in looking into Neoplatonism to find parallelism with Mormonism. There is a lot to Joseph Smith's practice of folk magik, ritual, and promise of being in the company of the divine while on earth that I can see in the contemporary writings about theurgy. Mystery arts, Egyptian lore, magik, keys and tokens - these all seem to be very much the sort of glimpsed chimera that suck people into the promise of hidden truth buried behind the mundane in Mormonism.

I would argue that Buddhism does not extend enlightenment into persistent identity but rather void, and escaping the karmic cycle is precisely to stop participating in separation. Becoming a God in the divine realms is not to have succeeded but just a nice way to have failed again into another carnation. If there is some potential parallel here, it's that it is necessary to become human to have the chance to escape which seems to be shared between your three examples (Mormonism, Buddhism and Neoplatonism). But we're not talking about that. I only note it because I think we ought not extend Mormonism so far that it begins to warp other religious views when we are looking at how they may parallel.

So, back to the notion that Mormonism borrows its understanding of deification from Neoplatonism since that seems to be the heart of the discussion here. I'm really curious what brought you down that path given I can't say I've heard it from anyone before and it seems very...unlikely I guess. But I'm open to seeing what evidence is available to show this isn't just parallelism but intentional.

Going beyond that discussion, I do wonder how the view Mormonism is Neoplatonist is any different from the belief that exaltation is given after one practices the proper righteous acts? It seems to trade "proper thought" for "proper action", but both seem necessary to open a door through which one is ushered. Is that really the difference? Or something else? Or when it comes to the purpose of action - Whether or not one overcomes through adversity to develop a better self or sees adversity revealing a higher truth that impose the sublime onto ones self so one "follows the cart" if you will, is there really room in Mormonism for the latter?