HiJolly

Well, aside from mystical states of mind being clearly linked to brain physiology, there's also the fact that you'd have to say that Mr. Richardson is a Son of Perdition, which I'm not willing to do. So I'd say it's very different, but not necessarily exclusive. Wait---- That was a rhetorical question, right? I mean, since the Church teaches that if you're not LDS you can't have the Gift of the Holy Ghost... And I'm assuming you believe that? HJ

Thanks for sharing, sounds like you did great! Here is my profile: Hi I'm Cliff B | baptism of fire, zen, truth, love, joy, Mormon. HiJolly

Briefly put, a mystic is someone who has had a personal experience with God, typically referred to as a "one-ness" with God. It can also include people who have successfully disciplined their left-brain into a non-functioning state, to produce an effect of right-brain only processing which is a roughly mystical state of mind. See Jill Bolte Taylor's stroke of insight | Video on TED.com It can also include people who haven't had the experience, but are trying for it. Links that might help: Mysticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Christian Mystic Explained What is Christian mysticism? The Mystical Gnosis Event and the atheist That last one is really interesting. The guy was and is an atheist. Just about made me cry when he describes seeing the old bearded guy. HiJolly

Max was a mystic, first and foremost. And as such, his views on religion and spirituality were extremely idiosyncratic. So he carries on at great length about pride and "ornaments upon the tree" and doesn't realize that 90% of that message was for him alone; tailored to his weaknesses and needs. So if the reader has his exact set of weaknesses, then they are well served to read his books. If not, then they are still of interest, but perhaps not quite as useful. Max deeply saddened many of his fans by publishing his temple book. He has been spoken of in other threads in this site, you can search on it. HiJolly

I agree, although perhaps you forgot about the resurrection as taught by Alma the younger in the Book of Alma. There is an incompatibility there in regards to resurrection vs. reincarnation. And there is a clear difference in the approach of eastern religions versus the approach of western religion, pertaining to enlightenment or salvation. The Eastern path typically involves a direct personal ascension to God, without much interaction with other people or institutions or whatever. Whereas the Western path necessitates creating a heaven on earth as a part of salvation. Thus, Western seekers are required to join an institution and use that as a vehicle to assist in saving others along the way, even in a physical way. So we see things such as Mother Teresa going to India to save the poor and sick, where we see no Indian guru doing the same sort of thing. The Book of Mormon clearly states that God works with all people. I am sure that other religions throughout the world have truth and validity in their own spheres. The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded see only the differences. -- Author Unknown HiJolly

I don't think so. HJ

I invite you to search for some previous threads on this very subject. HJ

Really? How so? HiJolly

Ss, that's not how it should work. You are the one that made a claim about definitions. Please show a source or *some* sort of supporting evidence for your claim. Thanks. I have to admit I've never heard such a thing, and am quite curious myself. HiJolly

Welcome. I'm making baked teriyaki chicken for dinner. HiJolly

Well, practically every bishop I've known would put you at ease. They're usually very kindly about it all. Best wishes! HJ

What I love is his journal entry on being baptized by fire! HJ

Ah! Thanks. I'm not touching that one with a 10-foot pole! HJ

You may have hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia - MayoClinic.com HJ

Could you please contextualize the question? I have to say I've read the posts in this thread and can't quite understand where you're coming from. Please enlighten me. HiJolly

Well, I hesitate to engage you on this. I understand where you're coming from, and I don't really want to get into a debate. This last interchange with super-cool phil has just about worn me out. But there are some things you need to hear concerning the individual and the institution. I'm not going to lay out dozens of scriptures. Nor quote dozens of wise sayings by Church leaders. I'm too tired for that. I would like you to consider a few things that are very clear to me. 1. Jesus saved individuals. He taught individuals. The only reason He set up a Church, was to continue the work of saving individuals after His departing. 2. It's just like the Sabbath is made for man teaching. The Church (or, Kingdom of God) is made to assist man in his pursuit of exaltation. That's it. 3. ZION exists only when *individuals* become Christlike, and one in God. 4. The articles of faith primarily concern individuals. The Gospel is 100% about individual development. The Church, not so much, though it does facilitate the process. And that's why it exists. 5. After the commencement of Church correlation, many members have lost sight of this. It is a tragedy. 6. Recently (in the last year or less) I have heard two Church leaders make profound statements that emphasize the individual responsibility to obtain exaltation. We'll hear more in the near future, I'm hoping. Here's just one: http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/seminary-centennial-broadcast/2012/02?lang=eng&vid=1414473431001&pkey=AQ~~,AAABJMwIxCk~,V-s4Hivdj0tPNypCoK3-U7EDiMwrZ90Q&pid=1302760218001 President Packer. Especially note his statements between 11:28 and 12:12 in the broadcast. When I heard it in the fireside, I felt like jumping up and cheering. You go, President Packer! BTW, I know this doesn't affect you, but all mystics know well the paradox of the one and the many. If you want to research it, it may benefit you. HiJolly

AMEN. I'm feeling the love, my friend. HiJolly

I would like to help you, but have no desire to be your fool. HJ

That's a gross mischaracterization, and you should know it. The fact is, I've discussed the issue with you. Many of us have, in an effort to help you see the 'issue' with a more helpful perspective. But you are not able, or refuse, to understand. I don't know which it is. No, that's not what Moroni says. Flat out 'not'. You are wrong. I hope that's clear enough. That because, as I said before, the answer is subjective. It's up to you and your personal spiritual development as to whether it's "consistently, unambiguously recognized". Told. you. that. No, it just wasn't what you wanted to hear. You are clouding the issue yourself. No, you wouldn't. I haven't, although I agree that I am no longer what most LDS would consider a "true-believing mormon'. But I know the Church is true (straight, or as someone else said, the verb 'true' works) and I declare it in fast-and-testimony meeting (when my calling allows it), and I know that there is indeed a great and glorious God (even if he/she may not be exactly as the LDS Church teaches it), and I know that I could not have arrived at my current state of belief and/or knowledge without the Church's truth to set me on the path as a child. I do believe that 90% of human spirituality is driven by biology. Absolutely. But there is no question that there is also something else, that makes this Church 'living'. True and living. If evidence accounts for anything, this is a true statement. I think you want to be a robot. Not a human. Sad. Baloney. You know, if you listen to the Morg-bots, then fine, you may have a point. But they know nothing deeper. They're just reacting to stimulus without thought. And you seem to want to say that they are all the church is. That's nuts. That's blind. You're doing a 'fine' job of it. And apparently, you can't even see it. You are holding the LDS Church and Mormons in general to a standard you can't live yourself. That's so unkind to both parties. Then you didn't understand what the Gospel really is. There are only two commandments. You've been taught that, surely. I hear it every year or so in General Conference. Why don't you? The temple endowment tells you that everything taught to you is compromised. That the ONLY pure source of 'teaching' is from divine messengers. You are taught to filter all of what you hear in Sacrament meeting, Sunday School, Priesthood, General Conference, the Ensign and more, but you don't understand that. You understand so very little! Why not slow down? Why not ponder these things deeply, slowly, and personally, taking your non-rational thinking into account, since your 'rational' thinking is hopelessly compromised? Think! Feel! I suspect that you are angry and resentful because you've found that things aren't the way you thought they were. I'm sorry. They aren't. But that doesn't mean they are wrong. Bend to the truth. HiJolly

If I may be so bold, pntkl says 'yes, but also today and through the millenium as well' to that question. Then you have a lot yet to learn about the Gospel. As do we all. In this life. #9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. HJ

Wow. I guess you're a black-and-white viewpoint person with little or no capacity to deal (in a mentally healthy way) with ambiguity. That's unfortunate for you, I really sympathize. So the fact that the panel knew all the falacies, what they are, what they mean, doesn't impress you? You know more than they, I suppose. And the fact that the brain physiologist understands physical brain functions (and quotes Robert Burton's On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not ) (which I have read also - what a great book!) doesn't phase you -- you understand it all better than either of them. Uh-huh. I'm thinking you need a lot of introspective thought about yourself and your thinking methodology. Best wishes. HiJolly

I have no problem with that, my view is a bit unique as well. HiJolly

Welcome, MoonSkin. Do you have faith in anything? God? Science? Flying Spaghetti Monster? HiJolly

You seem to associate all these with the witness of the Holy Ghost. I disagree. Have you studied brain physiology? I highly suggest you listen to these two podcasts: 77-78: Recognizing “the Spirit” | Mormon Matters HiJolly

Already answered you, I did. HiJolly