A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience, Part 1
Myriad Answers to Prayer
By Kevin Christensen

When I considered all these things and that that being seeketh such to worship him as worship him in spirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go. [Joseph Smith, 1832] [1]

Why make a model of religious experience?  Ian Barbour writes that models are “organizing images used to order and interpret patterns of experience.” [2]  

Take one aspect of Mormon religious experience.  How do you answer the question, “How are prayers answered?” Mormonism contains a far more comprehensive answer to that question than we generally realize. The stock answer, based on the D&C 9 revelation to Oliver Cowdery, is a good beginning, but unfortunately, we too often stop there. In this paper, I list scriptures that describe at least thirty different ways that prayers are answered. The Bible contains just a few descriptions; the modern scriptures contain many.

Thirty different kinds of answers may sound like a lot to manage, but if you ponder them for a while, they do suggest patterns. The first pattern I noticed was the division between Feeling kinds of passages, such as D&C 9:8-9, and Thinking kinds of passages, such Alma 32:34.  This natural complementary relationship between Thinking and Feeling aspects is a very useful beginning in ordering the kinds of experience described in these scriptures.

But that beginning leads me to take the question a step further.  How do the kinds of spiritual experiences described in our scriptures compare to the kinds of spiritual experiences that underlie the spiritual experiences of mankind in general?  How do we orient ourselves in relation to everyone else? 

We can start by looking at doctrinal differences, but that immediately defines boundaries and erects barriers. What do we have in common?  Is there a common wine of core religious experience that remains fairly constant despite the differing doctrinal wineskins that we use to carry them in?  Scholars of religion like Rudolf Otto, Ninian Smart, and Mircea Eliade have made significant studies of comparative religion.  Where do we fit in their pictures?

Often our first attempts to orient ourselves place us squarely in the shoes of Joseph Smith when he began his religious quest.  We have our minds disquieted by a confusing array of religious claims.  The confusion is something that we all have to order and interpret at some point. It is difficult, if not impossible to communicate with those of differing views, or ever to take bearings on our own position without some place of fairly solid footing, a common ground upon which most people can at least comprehend.  Ideally, we seek a vantage point that can both explain and order commonality, and that can also account for differences.

Here is my suggestion for a model.  Consider three intersecting axes, with each axis describing a relation between complementary contraries.

Joseph Smith remarked that “by proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” [3]    By looking at the relations between these intersecting sets of contraries, I hope that certain truths can be made manifest. William Blake astutely observed that for any complementary relation of this sort, if one side of a contrary relation attempts to destroy its complement, it ends up negating itself. [4] For instance, thinking that neglects feeling demonstrates ignorance; feeling that takes no thought has no heart. After we look at thinking and feeling, we shall consider like relationships between the other contraries in this model.

 

Thinking and Feeling

Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart. (D&C 8:2)

“Study it out in your mind,” Oliver Cowdery was advised (D&C 9). Alma speaks of moments when your “understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand” (Alma 32:34). These, and many other scriptures, relate thinking, knowledge, and understanding to spirituality. But, of course, spirituality involves deep feeling as well. Nephi writes, “He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh” (2 Nephi 4:21).

The scriptures speak of feelings of joy and sorrow, sinfulness and forgiveness, consolation and pain, humility and strength. The mind and the heart participate together in spirituality. A feeling may provide the motivation to seek knowledge; knowledge gained may provoke other feelings. As you read through the scriptures in Appendix A, notice the range of and the respect given to both thinking and feeling experiences that come through the spirit, and the typical movement and relation between them.

Different people may prefer or respect either thinking or feeling more. A preference one way or the other is natural. [5] Even so, both thinking and feeling should play a role in spiritual experience. Because both contribute, an undue emphasis on one, without considering a balancing contribution from the other, can only serve to impede spiritual growth. But thinking and feeling alone do not completely define the experience of the sacred.

 

Numinous and Mystic

In a classic study, The Idea of the Holy, Rudolf Otto studied the characteristics of a type of religious encounter that he named the numinous. [6] Ninian Smart sums up numinous experience as “a mystery which is fearful, awe-inspiring... and fascinating.” [7]

But above all, the sense of presence which confronts a person in the numinous experience is majestic: marvelous in power and glory. In their rather different ways, the experiences of Arjuna, Isaiah, Job, Paul, and Muhammad are all numinous in character. [8]

Ian Barbour emphasizes the “sense of otherness, confrontation and encounter” when “man is aware of his own dependence, finitude, limitation, and contingency.” [9] This experience usually occurs in institutionalized worship situations involving personal models of God. The worshipper often bows to show humility, acknowledging inferiority and distance, and feels contingency and a moral demand. Worship involves sacrifice and petition.

Upon reading descriptions of numinous experience, those familiar with LDS scriptures should immediately think of Joseph Smith’s first vision, of the vision of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, of Lehi’s vision of the throne of God, of the climactic moments of Benjamin’s sermon, and of the manifestations at the Kirtland Temple. To a degree, at least, the Mormon experience partakes of the numinous. However, there is another kind of religious experience that has characteristics quite different from the numinous. This is mystic experience, as reported by such persons as the Buddha or Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Mystical union is characterized by “joy, harmony, serenity, and peace,” and a sense of the unity of all things and loss of identity. [10] Separation seems illusory, differences and dichotomies of opposites are transcended. Most often, the mystic stresses the ineffability of the experience and uses impersonal models of God. This experience usually occurs in response to contemplation, mediation, discipline, and possibly asceticism.

Some kinds of mystical experience are without question foreign to Mormonism, as discussed by Hugh Nibley in The World and the Prophets. Nibley cites such differences as the impersonal models of God, the emphasis on meditation as strict discipline requiring a teacher-guide, and the ineffable, incommunicable, and solitary aspects of the experience of mystic illumination. [11]

However, differences between mystic experience and Mormonism are not the whole story. Numinous encounter has predominated in the West and mystical union in the East, but all the major religions have included both types of experience, and this is true of Mormonism as well.  Mark Koltko’s insightful essay, “Mysticism and Mormonism,” explores parallels between various Mormon scriptures and certain characteristics of mystical experience. [12]   Koltko’s “eight central qualities of the mystical or transcendent experience” are the “ego quality” (cf. D&C 88:6; Moses 7:41); the “unifying quality” (cf. D&C 88:41), the “inner and subjective quality” (cf. Moses 7:48); the “temporal/spatial quality” (cf. Moses 1:27–29); the “noetic quality” (D&C 38:1–2), the “ineffable quality” (3 Nephi 19:19); “the positive emotion quality” (2 Nephi 4:21); the “sacred quality” (3 Nephi 11:15; Moses 1:11).

In a separate study, I observed some striking parallels in the “light” passages in D&C 88 and the language Emerson uses in his 1836 Nature to describe some of his experiences. [13] But even while it parallels aspects of Emerson’s experience, much of D&C 88 reflects numinous experience and eschatological intent that is totally alien to Emerson’s thought. So we arrive at the point of needing to understand the relation between numinous and mystic experiences. If we think of the numinous and mystical as poles on a continuum of experience, we can begin to appreciate the distinctiveness of Mormonism in relation to these experiences without feeling threatened by the comparison.

Commenting on the numinous and the mystical, Ian Barbour writes: “The polarity of withdrawal and approach, or distance and identity, seems to be present within the experience of the sacred, though for different individuals, one aspect or the other may be more prominent.” [14]

I see the experience of the sacred in Mormonism as bridging the numinous and the mystic. After a numinous theophany, Moses announces, “for this cause I know that man is nothing” (Moses 1:10). Yet a few verses later, changing perspectives, he makes a declaration amounting to intimate identity. “For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten.”

The tension of distance most evidenced in Joseph Smith’s first vision, D&C 76, Moses 1, Benjamin’s coronation speech, and Alma’s conversion, resolves towards a profound intimacy:

And then shall ye know that I have seen Jesus Christ, and that he hath talked with me face to face and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language concerning these things” (Ether 12:39).

But such intimacy in Mormon thought, even when described as Oneness is typically associated with a personal deity.

Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound. [15]

The implications of this bridging of kinds of experience go beyond a license to make historic and scriptural parallels. According to Ninian Smart, the numinous and mystic poles of experience influence patterns of doctrine.

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. [16]

Here, I believe, is an essential distinguishing characteristic of Mormonism — the blend of the numinous and the mystic. This explains the Orthodox discomfort with the Mormon idea of deification (something quite unthinkable to one caught up in a purely numinous tradition), as well as the Eastern discomfort with our literalism and personal God (again, something quite unthinkable to one caught up by the emptiness of pure mysticism). For the same reason, the blend in Mormonism explains Nephi’s insistence on combining grace and works — “By grace we are saved after all we can do.” [17] Our need for grace offends the self-reliant mystic, and our effort towards perfection offends those who depend on pure grace. By pointing out the experiential roots behind such doctrinal disagreements, I feel that we have much to gain. Against the background of comparative world religion, Mormonism appears as the more comprehensive and inclusive faith.

For one thing, it becomes apparent that by treating numinous and mystic experience as contraries, we can solve various problems that come up in other traditions because one or the other aspect of the sacred has been excluded. Mosiah deliberately strives to awaken in his people a sense of their nothingness (Mosiah 2:25, 4:5) in contrast to the numinous majesty of the Almighty. But when that necessary awareness has done its work, he describes his people as “the children of Christ” (Mosiah 5:7). [18]

The danger in a strictly numinous tradition is that humankind tends to be seen as depraved and contingent. For example, “Luther’s outlook, with its undue respect for power and authority, and its sense of the complete sinfulness and evil in the human being when left alone” [19] can be seen as unhealthy to the human psyche.

On the other hand, a mystic like Emerson can preach an admirable “Self Reliance.” [20] But even the memory of an experience of unity with an impersonal Oversoul turns out to be altogether inadequate when he had to confront the death of his son, Waldo. [21] Self-reliance was not enough. And even his Oversoul could not bring Waldo back. [22] Mormonism provides the strength gained from the union of complementary experiences. [23]

Additionally, an awareness of mystic kinds of experience within our own tradition should provide grounds for better communication with peoples raised in those traditions. For example, David Peck suggests that 2 Peter 1:5-11 “stands out as an example of the Christian correlative to the mystics conceptualizations... whether we adopt the terms employed by Peter [faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, and charity] or those of the mystic (knowledge, discipline, devotion, and pure love), the path is generally the same.” [24]

The last thing one might expect Joseph Smith to have in common with some Eastern mystics might be an interest in seer stones and treasure seeking as a transitional stage in their spiritual development, but here it is. Craig Miller provided the following quote:

In yogic practices, the crystal plays a very important part. In South India there is a particular science called anajan, meaning not known. It consists of different methods of projecting the illuminating superphysical facility through a crystal... When the illuminating facility is directed towards a person or an object which is missing, it can be immediately known where that person or thing is. Thus, treasures which are buried underground, or objects which are very distant can be directly observed. [25]

This kind of comparison provides a positive context for Joseph Smith’s involvement with seer stones and money digging (cf. Joseph Smith — History 1:56), making the experience a vital preparation, rather than somehow tainting his mission. Even so, while this comparison provides parallels, still others provide enough contrast that we cannot explain Joseph as “just” another mystic.

Of the translation process, Blake Ostler made the following observations:

Joseph’s state of consciousness differs from shamanistic possession, classical mysticism, and most reports of automatic writing in that he did not lose consciousness of his surroundings or become dispossessed of his personal identity. Further, there is no evidence that he claimed to hear a voice or take dictation from another personality, unlike cases of spirit writing or channeled texts. [26]

While studying near-death experiences, I noticed that researchers have made comparisons between the aftereffects of the NDE and the aftereffects of various mystic experiences. In my turn, I noticed several points that should be of interest to Mormons. Along with distinctive attitude and behavior changes, some NDErs report “new-found psychic powers; according to the researchers, telepathy, precognitive insights, out of the body sensations, deja vu episodes occur with unusual frequency.” [27]

Kenneth Ring uses this increase in psychic development as a point of comparison between NDE aftereffects and the kundalini experiences with higher consciousness. Ring quotes Gopi Krishna:

One who has attained to a higher state of consciousness... should be characterized by four exceptional attributes, namely genius, psychic talents, lofty traits of character, and an expanded state of consciousness... He finds himself in possession of channels of communication which, acting independently of the senses, can bring him knowledge of events, occurring at a distance, and also visions of the past and future. His utterances may become prophetic and he may acquire a healing touch. [28]

Joseph Smith, of course, displayed all of these traits. Recall the striking reports of precognition and clairvoyance (such as those involving Oliver Cowdery’s arrival), and the later visions, especially in relation to the Book of Mormon translation. Joseph’s description of the revelatory process compares with NDE reports of access to pure knowledge.

This first comforter, or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence... expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge... It is calm and serene... A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas. [29]

Compare this from Reverend Carol Parrish-Harra’s NDE account, quoted in Ring’s Heading toward Omega.

It seemed whole Truths revealed themselves to me. Waves of thought — ideas greater and purer than I ever tried to figure out — came to me. Thoughts, clear, and without effort revealed themselves in total wholeness. [30]

Also, from NDE experiencer Tom Sawyer in Ring:

You realize that you are suddenly in communication with total knowledge. It’s hard to describe... You can think of a question... and immediately know the answer to it. As simple as that. [31]

Where does all this knowledge go when an NDEr returns to life? Carol Zaleski comments that along with access to knowledge, “Forgetfulness, which has as important a place as remembering in the mystical literature of the world, is a recurring element in near-death reports.” [32] During the Book of Mormon translation, Oliver Cowdery attempted to translate and failed, and through Joseph Smith received the revelation that became D&C 9, which combines themes of knowledge and forgetfulness.

All of this goes to suggest that looking at Latter-day Saint religious experience in comparison to other accounts, whether numinous, mystic, or something with bridging and in-between characteristics like the NDE literature, can only enhance our appreciation of the strength of our tradition. For example, in light of these sorts of comparisons, attempts to explain Joseph Smith as a deceiver appear as pitifully inadequate. And considering the abundance of light that Joseph Smith provided when compared to that returned by other visionaries, attempts to explain Joseph as “just another” visionary appear woefully weak.

As you read the scripture references that describe spiritual manifestations that can come in answer to prayer, [33] notice that some dramatic experiences might emphasize the numinous side of things, and some the mystic. Others seem best described as something in between, more like a loving “close embrace,” an at-onement with Christ.

The next question is, how are we to understand such accounts and experiences? Are they literal encounters with the divine, or something wholly psychological? Do they concern the inner life only (no trivial thing), or do they also define a connection to an external reality?

 

Literal and Symbolic

For by the Spirit are all things made known unto the prophets, which shall come upon the children of men according to the flesh. Wherefore, the things of which I have read are things pertaining to things both temporal and spiritual. (1 Nephi 22:2–3)

The Book of Mormon sets the pattern for Mormonism by combining the physical and the spiritual, the literal and the symbolic, the unique historic event and the mythic recurrence.  Nephi tells us that he is writing a history, but that history is organized around the vision of the tree of life. We can neither separate the history from the symbols of the vision, nor the symbolic vision from the narrative history. The vision is a historic event, and the symbols of the vision come from the physical landscape. [34] Yet the vision enacts current tensions and future events in the history of Lehi’s family, just as it depicts eternal realities. [35]

Even when Nephi refers to history, he does so, not to merely recite facts, but to “liken” the history to his people, that is, to relive the patterns of creation and Exodus, and make them actual in the lives of his people and his readers (cf. 1 Nephi 19:23; 2 Nephi 11:2). [36] The literal and the symbolic illuminate and give meaning to each other; attempts to separate them make no sense at all.  Indeed, the tension in the between the literal and the symbolic corresponds to quite neatly to the Jung’s distinction between Sensing and Intuitive modes of thinking. [37]   While individuals may have a natural preference for one or the other, the modes compliment one another and each performs essential functions beyond reach of the other.

Mircea Eliade’s The Myth of the Eternal Return explores the tension between the archaic view, that nothing was truly real unless it repeated a pattern or archetype, and the modern view that embraces unique events and linear history. [38] Eliade argues that the archaic view sought to abolish time and history through “eternal return.”

While this view had several strengths, especially in giving meaning to suffering, it can also lead to a kind of fatalism. He suggests that Judeo-Christianity possessed a unique historic consciousness, a respect for irreversible events as theophanies, and an appreciation of personal freedom. But the Book of Mormon has the risen Christ conducting the central Temple rite of eternal return for the Lehite peoples, taking them back to the beginning for a new creation in which “Old things are done away, all things are become new.” [39] Yet during that rite, Jesus’s teaching to the people involves extensive prophesy regarding the future of Israel, showing an intense concern with human freedom and linear history (3 Nephi 20–26).

A paradox? Once again Mormonism provides a marriage of complementary contraries, embracing both temporal existence and eternal archetypes.

His paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. (Alma 37:12)

The literal and symbolic aspects of religion encompass types of experience common to nearly all religions.

Read Part Two

Next:  Encountering Order and Creativity in the Physical World