DiscussMormonism.com

Pasted below is Spong's comment on this recently formed effort:

The Parliament of the World's Religions is a reputable organization, developed by competent people, one of whom is The Rt. Rev. William Swing, retired Episcopal (Anglican) Bishop of California. Whether it is now or will be an effective organization is still a question. Only time will tell. The direction in which it seeks to move is quite obviously the correct one.

Transcending a cultural faith tradition in the name of a vision of a world religion is not easy. It demands that all religious systems sacrifice their claims to possess exclusive truth or to be the sole pathway to God. It invites people to live in the insecurity of uncertainty and to embrace the fact that we are creatures bound by time and space talking about a God who is not.. True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers.

Will the Parliament succeed? All I know is that every new movement begins with a new idea and a single step. This organization seeks to bring about a conversation where none has previously existed. Unless we find a way to transcend tribal limits and the religious systems (including our own) that have their origins in tribal thinking, I do not believe that there will be a realistic hope for the future of humanity. Far too many human beings have already been killed by others in the name of their God.

What do You think? Is it a 'good' move towards ecumenicalism? Pros/cons? Warm reards, Roger

Roger,

The Parliament of the World's Religions is a reputable organization, developed by competent people, one of whom is The Rt. Rev. William Swing, retired Episcopal (Anglican) Bishop of California. Whether it is now or will be an effective organization is still a question. Only time will tell. The direction in which it seeks to move is quite obviously the correct one.

If it's effective, doesn't that imply that brother Swing will eventually rule the world? Is there some stock to the idea of letting factions compete in order to keep one group from having all the power? Is Spong really going to put all his faith in one man's nontheology? If this is going to fly, sign me up quick, I want to get in early! I want a big crystal chapel and glass microphone for myself once the dividends start flowing.

True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God.

Soren Kierkegaard suggested this some time ago. The problem remains, how to institutionalize existentialism?

Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers.

Which religions pretend they have all the answers? It seems to me, that religions tend to have answers to what they feel are the most important questions, not all the questions. And those most important questions tend to be along the lines of what it might take to get you out of the other guy's religion. Hinckley almost sounds like he thinks Joseph Smith didn't learn a damn thing in the grove. Even the apologists get upset at the suggestion that God told Joseph Smith, per the D&C, that all other religions were false.
And born again ministers? How often do they rant and rave that religion is evil, that the church (going back to "the Greek" even) is not in the walls but in the people? That true religion is a personal relationship with God.

There's no single interpretation of "Either/or", but while Kierkegaard clearly tends to favor the true religious walk of faith, he's consistent with his subtextual battle against 'truth' and provides no clear ground (metaethical) whereby to privilage the religious over the aesthetic or ethical. Now contrasting Kierkegaard to Spong, isn't this sentence more than a little awkward, "True religion is not about possessing the truth." And in practice, what exactly are they going to preach on Sundays for at least an hour which entirely escapes being "truth"?

that have their origins in tribal thinking, I do not believe that there will be a realistic hope for the future of humanity.

There's one easy way to save humanity on the cheap. And every religion or nonreligious religious-like organization can be the savior in that way. If everyone, today, joined Swing's church as fully comitted members, a lot of the fighting might end (that sort of gets assumed away). But it's also true that if everyone became Mormon, or if everyone became the same faction of Muslim, also, we'd have something a lot closer to world peace.

I suppose my repeating disagreement with Spong can be a bore. Is it more interesting to observe that I Think Gadianton drew a pretty accurate objection.

I was thinking that the interest in any of the various religions often lies in their particulars. The urge to erase them seems represive. I think I would prefer Carlos Castenadas rather fanciful concoctions to the bland God outside of time and space we don't know. Carlos has a sense of humor. I wish Spong did.

But God outside of time and space is one specific idea that Spong seems to believe is true instead of false.. A person can actual agree or disagree. Or perhaps ask if the description means anything in particular. I doubt that it means.

Roger Morrison wrote: Is it a 'good' move towards ecumenicalism?
Warm regards,
Roger

It is very good. I wish them the best. I hope my Church participates in these type of discussions.
Thanks for bringing this here Roger.

Roger Morrison wrote:Pasted below is Spong's comment on this recently formed effort:

The Parliament of the World's Religions is a reputable organization, developed by competent people, one of whom is The Rt. Rev. William Swing, retired Episcopal (Anglican) Bishop of California. Whether it is now or will be an effective organization is still a question. Only time will tell. The direction in which it seeks to move is quite obviously the correct one.

Transcending a cultural faith tradition in the name of a vision of a world religion is not easy. It demands that all religious systems sacrifice their claims to possess exclusive truth or to be the sole pathway to God. It invites people to live in the insecurity of uncertainty and to embrace the fact that we are creatures bound by time and space talking about a God who is not.. True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers.

Will the Parliament succeed? All I know is that every new movement begins with a new idea and a single step. This organization seeks to bring about a conversation where none has previously existed. Unless we find a way to transcend tribal limits and the religious systems (including our own) that have their origins in tribal thinking, I do not believe that there will be a realistic hope for the future of humanity. Far too many human beings have already been killed by others in the name of their God.

What do You think? Is it a 'good' move towards ecumenicalism? Pros/cons? Warm reards, Roger

I think it's a good move, but don't imagine great or immediate success, if ever, because "transcending tribal limits" is pretty much another way of saying "transcending ego," and there will never be very many people on earth at one time very interested in doing that.

Good responses...different perspectives. I don't see/think "...ruling the world..." is the objective in the minds of those involved in any fence-breaking effort--especially this one--could be wrong???

Might such an evolution incubate an open-thought environment where defending one's opinions/ideas/philosophy is unnessessary? At least in antaganism? Not taking the metaphore to the extreme (then maybe, why not?) We attend movies, watch TV, etc. simply as a matter of free choice, and personal gratification. No reward, or punishment edicted by a third party/authority. We take what appeals to US regardless of the prejudices of OTHERS and abide the personal consequences.

My few months at this site leaves me with the impression that many here would find much satisfaction in a learning/living environment that did not censure or restrict expression or action that did not pose threat or abuse to another person's 'being' or safety... Actually, i see this board made up of such good folks; as i see society generally.

One of the impediments to this 'utopian' aspiration of course, as pointed out, is "ego". Often, if not always, agitated by personal insecurity, self-doubt, and ignorance. Most of which can be remedied by education/knowing-the-truth/proving-all-things. None of which can honestly, and thoroughly be done behind sectarian, mytho-logical walls. IMSCO... Might this "Parlimentary effort" be somewhat Joshuanian??? :-) Warm regards, Roger

Honestly, this idea sounds very similar to the ideas I put forth with Universalism. They are not saying that the religion you subscribe to is incorrect, but that there is no "exclusive club" in the course of one's life to find God. I would be very interested in such an organization if there is one. Where can I find more information about such a thing?

don't see/think "...ruling the world..." is the objective in the minds of those involved in any fence-breaking effort--especially this one--could be wrong???

Roger, two points.

1) anyone who launches, or gets in on the ground floor on an effort that successfully unites all the worlds religions in an organization that spans billions of people, is effectively going to be ruling the world. No?
(obviously this guy is going to fail...i'm just speaking hypothetically)

2) i don't want to quote cliches, so, i'll just say that when these guys are in the position of running the largest institution in the world, with all the money and fame that will naturally follow, then we'll see if their "objectives" remain unchanged.

Nephi wrote:Honestly, this idea sounds very similar to the ideas I put forth with Universalism. They are not saying that the religion you subscribe to is incorrect, but that there is no "exclusive club" in the course of one's life to find God. I would be very interested in such an organization if there is one. Where can I find more information about such a thing?

Nephi, how do you feel about Mormon beliefs that do not sit well next to Universalism. Why baptize the dead if there is no "exclusive club" with handshakes and dunking fonts? Why would you be one of those 60,000 LDS missionaries who teach about Joseph Smith's "exclusive" priesthood authority, or why would you support that effort?

Moksha wrote:It is very good. I wish them the best. I hope my Church participates in these type of discussions.

Do you imagine them abandoning the testimony that Joseph Smith restored the most true religion?

Mr Spong refers to a new movement seeking to transcend the limitation of tribal thinking in world religions.

I was a little puzzled with the idea of new movement. I guess this particular effort is starting out so is new. I just have some memory that efforts of this sort have been done in the past. There is even a world religion Bahia which expressly asserts it is the culmination of the effort. (already in place and active for 150 or so years)

In a serious way the world religions we have were efforts to overcome the tribal limitations of ancient religion. The movement could be said to be about two thousand five hundred years old,give or take some centuries. Buddism, Judism, Christianity, Islam are each unifications overcoming tribal differences. There were efforts that are not as longlasting. Hellenistic philosophical thought had a component of religion overcoming differences.