Spong’s "Beyond Theism"

I really like those thoughts – and I have heard elements of it in General Conference, but only rarely and only from specific apostles who think like that. Joseph Wirthlin was one of those who thought like that – and, while he used “Mormon-speak” a lot, he also said much of what this post says, especially in his later years. It’s just that his delivery was hard to follow often. I had to go back and read his talks quite often to realize the full depth of them.

I see Pres. Uchtdorf a lot in this type of thought process, as well as George Albert Smith (if we are going back in time).

I wish we heard it more often, but I also understand that most people just don’t think like that.

I have been quite impressed, today, with a short segment of a talk by John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ…I typed out what I heard from this video:

“Suppose we change our God definition. Suppose we take God out of the sky and strip God of the supernatural power which we have created and placed on this divine being. And suppose we begin to think of God as a presence at the very heart of life…If God is the source of life, as I believe that God is, then God is present in all living things.

I would love to hear a talk like this at general conference…

To me, this sounds like a form of pantheism which is not really a new idea even though people are likely to think of it on their own without necessarily having to hear the same idea from others.

question — how do we interpret the following:

He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things…

As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

or this:

He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.

or this:

The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

I believe that Spong’s concept is completely consistent with Section 88 of the Doctrine and Covenants. In Joseph Smith’s evolving definition of god gods and the like, i believe that he had the mystical experience of understanding the unity of all that is. moreover, 88 lays out that the law of the kingdoms are gods power: God’s power IS the law of nature itself. God is not “supernatural”, for he is the essence of natural law itself — God works through natural law!

He gave section 88 a special name, “The Olive Leaf — plucked from the tree of Paradise”. There is something in his writing in 88 that goes beyond and defines god in the most mystical terms, as well as the direct accessibility of god to the person:

Behold, that which you hear is as the voice of one crying in the wilderness—in the wilderness, because you cannot see him—my voice, because my voice is Spirit; my Spirit is truth; truth abideth and hath no end; and if it be in you it shall abound.

And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.

Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will.

This language, to ‘single to god’ ‘filled with light’ exactly equals the terms “buddhiyogad” in hinduism and buddhism — the idea of the unified, enlightened pure consciousness event. the terms ‘see the face of god’ is mystical language, meaning to have that event where even god’s presence is fully apparent to you.

The point is that Joseph Smith was a mystic at times, conpletely apparent here, and encouraged the saints to have their own direct experience with god. And, once having that experience, coming to the realization that god’s power is nature itself, and that god is being one with nature, and is present throughout all that is. this, to me, is the core of the gospel doctrine. Is it panentheism? yes. Is it scriptural? absolutely! do LDS understand this doctrine? …I suspect not…

question — how do we interpret the following:

He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things…Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne…

He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.

…I believe that Spong’s concept is completely consistent with Section 88 of the Doctrine and Covenants. In Joseph Smith’s evolving definition of god gods and the like, i believe that he had the mystical experience of understanding the unity of all that is. moreover, 88 lays out that the law of the kingdoms are gods power: God’s power IS the law of nature itself. God is not “supernatural”, for he is the essence of natural law itself — God works through natural law!…The point is that Joseph Smith was a mystic at times, conpletely apparent here, and encouraged the saints to have their own direct experience with god. And, once having that experience, coming to the realization that god’s power is nature itself, and that god is being one with nature, and is present throughout all that is. this, to me, is the core of the gospel doctrine. Is it panentheism? yes. Is it scriptural? absolutely! do LDS understand this doctrine? …I suspect not…

I would interpret all this as being mostly just Joseph Smith’s speculation not unlike Brigham Young’s claim that Adam is God. I’m not sure how most TBMs would interpret these ideas; it would be interesting to see someone bring it up in Elder’s Quorum or Sunday School and see how people react. My guess is that most Church members would have a hard time dealing with this idea in part because of all the correlated material about the first vision and how God supposedly gives prophets specific directions about things like tithing, the WoW, and temple marriage almost as if he is basically like a man that just happens to be perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful. I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to see divinity in nature but the idea of God as a distinct intelligent being that can influence things according to his own independent purpose also makes perfect sense to me and I don’t see any obvious problems with this kind of god either so if some people prefer a different view of God or no God that’s mostly a matter of opinion as far as I’m concerned.

I would interpret all this as being mostly just Joseph Smith’s speculation not unlike Brigham Young’s claim that Adam is God.

no question about it — it was his speculation, but in this case, very enlightened, and consistent with much of mystical language throughout the world. I was paralelling what JS wrote in 88 with Spong’s redefinition of god — and finding significant commonality.

The difference between section 88 and BY’s Adam-God theory is that the latter never made it into ‘scripture’. 88 is absolutely canonical gospel doctrine — providing a defendable framework for a more inclusive definition of god.

I’m not sure how most TBMs would interpret these ideas; it would be interesting to see someone bring it up in Elder’s Quorum or Sunday School and see how people react. My guess is that most Church members would have a hard time dealing with this idea in part because of all the correlated material about the first vision and how God supposedly gives prophets specific directions about things like tithing, the WoW, and temple marriage almost as if he is basically like a man that just happens to be perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

I once came in contact with a recent RM who was trying to proscelyte on a daoist group i moderate. when I introduced him to the scriptures that supported the ‘Way’, and this (as you say) uncorrelated view of god, he really melted down, called me an apostate and most likely shook the dust off of his feet. it was a little disconcerting.

I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to see divinity in nature but the idea of God as a distinct intelligent being that can influence things according to his own independent purpose also makes perfect sense to me and I don’t see any obvious problems with this kind of god either so if some people prefer a different view of God or no God that’s mostly a matter of opinion as far as I’m concerned.

granted, there are enough definitions of god, the first vision, and cosmology among the writings of JS to have any number of views of god… but specifically, the idea of “distinct intelligent being” — how does that work?

Let’s take the correlated view that God is an exalted man (man of holiness, son of MAN, imago dei…)– that clearly would include the ‘as man is god once was’ couplet. How do you address infinite regress of gods? This isn’t a fringe issue: if we start talking about god having distinct individuality as an exalted being, it necessarily means that there was a time when god was not an exalted being. Who was god’s god? und so weiter… infinite regress. can’t be avoided.

then there is the whole issue of ‘eternal progression’ of god. does god progress? I think this concept has been anathematized for obvious political reasons to stay in the mainstream, but the concept of an exalted god with eternal progression says that at some point either progression is not eternal or god is less than omniwhatever. ‘taint both ways.

personally, the entire god concept as portrayed in the creeds AND in correlated mormonism is fraught with problems.

who says that ‘god’ has to be a single, personal being that is all powerful, all knowing, all good, omniwhatever? these terms get thrown around by people who wrote scripture but what did they know? We eventually come to a philosophical concept that god is the highest being whatever and get to this great big santa-claus in the sky who can listen simultaneously to seven billion prayers, answer every one (or deliberately ignore them), involve his puppet strings into every human and physical transaction. oh yeah, that’s the one.

You may guess that I don’t buy this concept.

John 10 seems to have an answer that amazes me. While I was on my mission, if ever I had a revelation, it was one saturday night. During that night I woke up and felt commanded to read John 10. I was thinking for some time that Jesus never really declared the nature of his divinity as a god.

I and my Father are one.

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

“Ye are gods” (Psalms 82:7) “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of god came”. “Before Abraham was, I AM”. this is scripture: humans can be gods, if they are in the position of operating with the word (power) of god. Scripture: to be one with god’s power, even for the moment of being a judge, is to be god. this is not a trivial matter. this isn’t splitting hairs. The scripture is clear and unambiguous. the internal realization that christ made in saying that he, in perfect alignment with the power of god, is god (‘I AM’), he is declaring the single most important principle of the gospel — where is god? Who is god? is god the “OTHER”?

And now consider this:

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one

If jesus is praying that the disciples might be one in the same way that Jesus is with the Father, and if that means father in jesus, jesus in father, disciples in jesus and vice versa, that all are made perfect (whole, complete) in one, then in what sense is Jesus, God? Is that sense any different than disciple? “Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most high” (Psalms 82:7).

The creeds and correlated mormon definitions of god have placed god outside of the realm of being. God is forever ‘the other’. Sure, in mormon speculation, deification has to do with growing up to have your own little world to be god over and populating it with billions of your own little kiddies with your harem of plural wives. That speculative concept completely loses the idea of deification. God is not ‘out there’. God is ‘in here’.

let me more specific — i had a spiritual experience one morning driving to work where I felt that god wanted to visit with me. it got specific. I had a vision in my mind of a specific railroad overpass, that the savior would be there (you know, poor wayfaring man of grief stuff). I even moved the junk off the seat next to me. Lo and behold, i’m passing under that bridge, and there is a vagrant hitchhiking there. No-one hitch-hikes in this area. and it was cold out. I thought, nawww… and passed by. then that old wayfaring man of grief thing got to me and i turned back and picked him up. I’m trying to have a conversation with this guy, because, he has to be THE MAN, right? nothing. nada. zip. I dropped him off where he had to go, then I went to work. I talked to my AA sponsor later in the day, and he said, “one of gods children needed a ride, what’s the big deal?”

hmm.

here’s my interpretation. call it my speculation if you’d like, but here is what i gained from the experience. When a person listens to the spirit (whatever that may mean) and in so doing blesses the life of another person, that person acting in harmony with the spirit is god for that moment. the more i act in harmony with the spirit, the Way, the more god-like i am, until ultimately i am god. since one acting one with the way is one with all others acting in oneness with the way, then god can be said to be one, even if there are many ‘ye are gods’.

later, i have found an ancient chinese text which defines ‘shengren’, the holy man, the one who’s spirit is one with the way, as being the internal mind within the mind aligned with dao. in advaita hinduism, there is no difference between atman, the divine personal soul of man, and brahman, the eternal one god. in mysticism, the spiritual connection reveals the oneness of all that is: subject and object become one, and in this state of oneness, there is no difference between god and man.

this leads me back to the concept reflected in Section 88: god’s power, the Way, is in and through all things, and realizing that, my oneness with that power deifies me. then i come to see the face of god…in the mirror. but not the person that I so often am, i see the god within and am filled with joy and humility.

ah yes, then back to painful daily humanity. ain’t it wonderful? I leave with one last note, literally:

Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

that’s not a quote from god. the psalm refers to god all the way through in the third person, then this verse appears in the first person, not as a quote, not as ‘thus saith the Lord’, but a personal mantra — it’s something for me to sing in the first person in the psalm. and in singing that, what does it mean?

kind of blows the mind, doesn’t it?

I have to “cogitate” on this for alittle bit.

You just blew my mind.

Thanks!

Mike from Milton

I’m back.

When we get to this level of discussion, it seems from my vantage point, we have to be very careful.

I can see where someone reading this for the first time might think, I’m God.

it’s equally true that without the power of god, I am nothing. this seems a paradox. See what Joseph Smith wrote in Moses:

And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.

Note that the presence of god withdrew from moses and god’s glory was not upon moses. What is this presence? What is this glory? This is the light which proceedeth forth from the immensity of space in section 88 — it is the power of god in the universe. I have come to understand this as the “Way”. The chinese call it ‘Dao’ or ‘Tao’. Jesus called it ‘the way, the truth, and the life’. it is the ground of being. It is not being itself, it is the ground from which being arises. It is not conscious. It is the ground from which consciousness arises. It is what Spong calls ‘god’ – but not to be confused with a ‘being’ who, being one with the Way, with the ground of being, can also be called ‘god’. Jesus was such a being.

When peter walked on water, he wasn’t thinking, initially, ‘i’m god’, but when he started to come back to his humanity he sank. this is a symbolic story. You and I might say with some experience that when we think we are god, we get drunk. there is something to be said for that. But there is a separate consciousness within us, a natural one, aligned with nature itself. Call it instinctual, spiritual, whatever you might. when the marvellous complexity of a snowflake emerges from the freezing of tiny droplets of water in atmosphere, and underlying attraction of hydroxyl molecules at a specific angle creates the marvellous emergent structure of the snowflake. the power of god — these natural laws, infuse all that is, even to the point of instinctive, spiritual tendencies among humans to sense need among each other.

These feelings are not deterministic. they are tendential. Observe a flock of birds organizing for migration — they begin chaotically, then after a while, there is some innate ability to flock and act as one, with a distinct, emergent consciousness of the flock.

As God, I am not bound by the normal laws & restraints.

and such would be a false definition of god, in my humble opinion. How can god create a rock so great he cannot lift it? Why do we need to define god outside the realm of natural law? is not nature wonderous beyond all definition?

We have to be careful. For one person it is divine inspiration. To another, “I’m lucky to be alive.”

and that’s why i say the Way–the power of god–is tendential and not deterministic. We learn to adapt to the spirit (intuition) as it reveals things to us. The more we learn to listen, the better we get at it. No human, ever, is fully god — it doesn’t work that way. Perhaps, if we believe in the idea of growth beyond this world, we may become so natural at unified action that we become fully god — not sure — and this would be my interpretation of eternal progression within the LDS doctrinal model.

wayfarer, you said:

I once came in contact with a recent RM who was trying to proscelyte on a daoist group i moderate. when I introduced him to the scriptures that supported the ‘Way’, and this (as you say) uncorrelated view of god, he really melted down, called me an apostate and most likely shook the dust off of his feet. it was a little disconcerting.

I’m curious, did your contact with the RM just end this way? or did he go to the Bishop?

Can you imagine presenting this topic at a Priesthood meeting or a sacrament talk?

Always curious.

Mike from Milton.