Reader comments
Theology: LDS god is in harmony with the Bible
395 comments | Read story
Just Thinking | 9:10 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Mormons are not unique in teaching the deification of humankind. The Catholics
teach it as well. Here is one of their catechisms:
The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
79 St. Irenaeus
80 St. Athanasius
81 St. Thomas Aquinas
The main difference is our interpretation of what it means to join in the nature of God. President Hinckley says this is a doctrine that he doesn't know much about nor do we emphasize. Thus, I think it important that we don�t assume we have a complete understanding of our salvation. It may yet be that we join in the nature of God and continue his work rather than stand as his equal. Just thinking.
The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
79 St. Irenaeus
80 St. Athanasius
81 St. Thomas Aquinas
The main difference is our interpretation of what it means to join in the nature of God. President Hinckley says this is a doctrine that he doesn't know much about nor do we emphasize. Thus, I think it important that we don�t assume we have a complete understanding of our salvation. It may yet be that we join in the nature of God and continue his work rather than stand as his equal. Just thinking.
Moon | 9:15 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
OF COURSE Mitt Romney knew he would have to take the nation to Sunday School. He
is not ignorant. He is as discerning as any other intelligent individual. His
candidacy was and is the perfect forum to take the Nations to Sunday School. And
may it ever so be.
Comments continue below
Steve M | 9:17 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Kathy,
I was once a Traditional Christian until I started questioning the creeds of my religion(s). Once a traditional Christian realizes that the god they pray to has body, parts, and passions and that the scriptures support their beliefs - they deny the god of their church (and Plato's). I'm afraid that you (and all those others who believe the godhead to be comprehendible) are part of the threat that traditional religions (preachers) fear. I dare say that your leaders would not appreciate you teaching contrary to the creeds of your religion.
This seems to be a problem that the Baptist are finding. The LDS believe in Christ and what He taught. Too many Baptist are leaving their congregations to draw close to the god they know and pray to. This creates a great divide among the preachers, but not such a great divide among the members of the congregations - as you have discovered.
I was once a Traditional Christian until I started questioning the creeds of my religion(s). Once a traditional Christian realizes that the god they pray to has body, parts, and passions and that the scriptures support their beliefs - they deny the god of their church (and Plato's). I'm afraid that you (and all those others who believe the godhead to be comprehendible) are part of the threat that traditional religions (preachers) fear. I dare say that your leaders would not appreciate you teaching contrary to the creeds of your religion.
This seems to be a problem that the Baptist are finding. The LDS believe in Christ and what He taught. Too many Baptist are leaving their congregations to draw close to the god they know and pray to. This creates a great divide among the preachers, but not such a great divide among the members of the congregations - as you have discovered.
Brent | 9:19 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Let's all meet @ the Garden of Eden in Missouri to discuss this. Bring your
wives!
Man is God? | 9:23 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
When a religion suggests that man can become like God - you have a situation
where the human ego has become completely self-serving and out of control.
Impressed | 9:31 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Thank you, Brother Card, for "your" Sunday School Lesson. I have many
close friends who are non-Mormon Christians from various denominations. And I
have had many opportunities to discuss the subject of God with them. Without
exception, they say that they visualize a benevolent Father when they pray. But
when they try to explain what God is like, the final sentence is almost always
that God is a mystery. One even went to his Minister and was told that God is
incomprehensible and that it doesn't matter what we believe about God as
long as we are a good moral person and as long as we are true to our Religious
beliefs. Even though I prefer the teaching in John 17:3 as far as my personal
relationship with God and Christ is concerned, I think this Minister has hit the
nail on the head when it comes to judging the religion of a Presidential
candidate. I think Mitt Romney is well qualified to be the President of the
United States, and that you are a great Sunday School Teacher.
actually | 9:35 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Geometry as a science doesn't deal w/evolution, time, existence of God,
etc. It's a spaatial science that can be used to explain relationships in
space and by using mathmatical equations to illustrate it.
Simply put a parralell line that is an inch apart at one point is going to be an inch apart at a different point...Be it one inch or a trillion miles away from where you originally measured
It was an illustration of logic as to why 1 individual entity can't be 3 indidual's entities and 3 indidual entities can't be 1 individual's entity.
No different than the egg as an attempt to explain the trinity that I've heard used.
Only his example concisely illustrates the illogical nature of the concept!
Simply put a parralell line that is an inch apart at one point is going to be an inch apart at a different point...Be it one inch or a trillion miles away from where you originally measured
It was an illustration of logic as to why 1 individual entity can't be 3 indidual's entities and 3 indidual entities can't be 1 individual's entity.
No different than the egg as an attempt to explain the trinity that I've heard used.
Only his example concisely illustrates the illogical nature of the concept!
Don't forget on thing. | 9:41 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Mormons still believe they can become gods though, whether or not they are
worthy is not the point.
The entire basis of the church is that, if you're a good little Mormon and you marry in the temple, you can one day be a God.
The fact also remains that the Mormon God is not the only God in Mormon theology, as he himself had a God. Meaning that Mormons inherently accept the concept of multiple Gods, which makes them... Polytheistic.
Finally, Mormonism is the only major religion I can think of that believes humans can become Gods, making it not only a seperate religion from Christianity, but from Judaism and even Islam (The Abrahamic Traditions).
On the Eastern front, Hindus believe you can return to oneness with God, but not actually become your own separate, honest-to-goodness G O D.
The entire basis of the church is that, if you're a good little Mormon and you marry in the temple, you can one day be a God.
The fact also remains that the Mormon God is not the only God in Mormon theology, as he himself had a God. Meaning that Mormons inherently accept the concept of multiple Gods, which makes them... Polytheistic.
Finally, Mormonism is the only major religion I can think of that believes humans can become Gods, making it not only a seperate religion from Christianity, but from Judaism and even Islam (The Abrahamic Traditions).
On the Eastern front, Hindus believe you can return to oneness with God, but not actually become your own separate, honest-to-goodness G O D.
christine | 9:41 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Kathy, the whole point of this article is to explain that Mormons are accused of
not believing in traditional godhead doctrine...so of course it's fine to
have a Mormon discuss this. This is the very thing we're being accused of!
Ernie | 9:43 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Hardy, evolution is only one part of science. Just because God is not mentioned
as part of evolution does not mean that evolution is not part of God's
plan. Today's mathematicians do not include God in their discussion
either. Also, when do we call any form of science fact? Wasn't Aristotle
considered factual for his day before Newton's time? And wasn't
Newton considered factual before Einstein? I do agree with you that "any
old mortal can change what we believe" and I don't have a lot of
confidence in believing any mortal concerning their idea of what is fact. In
the Western Civilization class that I took in college, (from an athiest I might
add), we were taught that the Council of Nicea's disscusion of three
individual Gods versus "the Trinity" as it is understood today was a
very large point of contention and that many left the council in dusgust. I do
agree with you on Romney.
JMSteele63 | 9:46 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
A Mormon science fiction writer deigns to authoritatively define Christianity?
I've no doubt of the sincerity of Card's beliefs and passionately defending one's faith is noble and worthy. It is, though, an entirely different matter when one attempts to dismiss thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teaching in an attempt to equate Mormonism with Christianity.
It is neither slander nor bigotry to point out the truth that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity, any more than it is to say that Jehovah�s Witnesses, Scientologists, Hindus or Buddhists are not Christian. It is simply fact. Because one invokes in some measure the name of Jesus is not, nor has it ever been the measure of what qualifies as "Christian."
We love all our brothers, no matter their faith, for they were all made in God's image. It is not, however, an act of charity or religious tolerance for Christians to simply hold their tongue while the very meaning of Christianity is redefined before our eyes.
I've no doubt of the sincerity of Card's beliefs and passionately defending one's faith is noble and worthy. It is, though, an entirely different matter when one attempts to dismiss thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teaching in an attempt to equate Mormonism with Christianity.
It is neither slander nor bigotry to point out the truth that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity, any more than it is to say that Jehovah�s Witnesses, Scientologists, Hindus or Buddhists are not Christian. It is simply fact. Because one invokes in some measure the name of Jesus is not, nor has it ever been the measure of what qualifies as "Christian."
We love all our brothers, no matter their faith, for they were all made in God's image. It is not, however, an act of charity or religious tolerance for Christians to simply hold their tongue while the very meaning of Christianity is redefined before our eyes.
Fredd | 9:48 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Mr. Card's explanation of my belief was very educating. I didn't know
I believed that. That must be what it feels like to be Mormon and hear people
discuss your beliefs incorrectly. I have no beef with the LDS faith. I think
LDS people are great also. I have a problem with the LDS teachings as related
to anthropology and archeology. If the teachings of your church on physical,
historical issues doesn't stand up to logical scientific analysis, then it
makes it difficult for me to muster the desire to explore your theological
views. It doesn't mean i'm anti-LDS, I just don't concur with
your belief. You ae welcome to your beliefs. As far as Romney goes I have zero
problem he is a Mormon. I may vote for him. But I do wonder what his views are
on Lammanites, limied geography, etc. Because that tells me something about his
intellect.
Two Cents Worth | 9:54 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I think the hard part about defining what "traditional Christians"
believe, is that there is no one tradition. Even among churches there are
different interpretations -- even among people of the same church!
For that reason, we need to respect each other's freedom of religion, and seek first to understand our own religion, then offer to others the same respect & understanding.
Thank you for your article -- it helped me understand both sides better!
For that reason, we need to respect each other's freedom of religion, and seek first to understand our own religion, then offer to others the same respect & understanding.
Thank you for your article -- it helped me understand both sides better!
Anonymous | 9:55 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I'm sure this guy read the Greek and Hebrew texts. I don't see the
value added. I know a person can spend years and not be able with unconvinced
that he knows the original intent of the Bible. This guy may not know the cross
is a metaphor for the Tree of Life. Only a Utahan has a big enough ego to say he
knows the unknowable.
To Joel | 9:56 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I have visited more than a few Christian websites that touch on this very
subject of the metaphysical existence of God outside of time and space.
They base their ideas on the Greek mythology Platonic ideas were based on, and their belief in the creation of matter, angels, evil, etc.
I unfortunately can't post the links here.
You may be as uninformed about the basis of your beliefs as you intimate the Mormons that didn't believe in the potential to become like our Father in Heaven are.
Ironically all the uninformed would have to do to learn about our potential is attend church. It's openly taught!
If you listen to the missionary discussions it's taught there!
They base their ideas on the Greek mythology Platonic ideas were based on, and their belief in the creation of matter, angels, evil, etc.
I unfortunately can't post the links here.
You may be as uninformed about the basis of your beliefs as you intimate the Mormons that didn't believe in the potential to become like our Father in Heaven are.
Ironically all the uninformed would have to do to learn about our potential is attend church. It's openly taught!
If you listen to the missionary discussions it's taught there!
tj | 9:58 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Excellent job Bro. C.,
your geometry parable was an accurate example of the dialogue LDS members go through with those who believe in the popular "trinity" belief.
When people stop worrying about which faith Romney belongs too, and start focusing on actual issues and policies, the republican party will realize Governer Romney is their man. We need a president who will run this country like a business. Mitt is the canidate who will do that.
your geometry parable was an accurate example of the dialogue LDS members go through with those who believe in the popular "trinity" belief.
When people stop worrying about which faith Romney belongs too, and start focusing on actual issues and policies, the republican party will realize Governer Romney is their man. We need a president who will run this country like a business. Mitt is the canidate who will do that.
God told him? | 10:00 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I always get the biggest kick out of those people who proclaim "God told me
..."
I'm reminded of this:
Amidst charges of mishandling resources, Richard Roberts resigned from his post as president of the debt-saddled Oral Roberts University, saying God told him to step down.
Looks like Roberts is applying the Christian ideal of apologizing and walking away once the you-know-what has hit the fan.
I'm reminded of this:
Amidst charges of mishandling resources, Richard Roberts resigned from his post as president of the debt-saddled Oral Roberts University, saying God told him to step down.
Looks like Roberts is applying the Christian ideal of apologizing and walking away once the you-know-what has hit the fan.
Dewey | 10:01 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Bravissimo, Orson. Neither you nor Mitt gave in to the temptation to invoke the
imperial name of Constantine.
grundle | 10:01 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Mr Card - If you read this...How about more Sci-Fi! The Ender series was the
best I have ever read!
Roland | 10:02 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Kathy and Joel,
As a former "traditional Christian" I'm afraid you're way off base about Mr. Card's characterization of TC's view of the Trinty. The protestant church I attended described God as, among other things, unknowable--and that was the least of the confusing, not to mention contradictory, descriptions of the Trinty we collectively recited every Sunday in the dictated Creed.
Joseph Smith learned in just a few moments during the First Vision what clerics had debated for centuries. To wit: there is God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Ghost. They are separate, distinct individuals with an absolutely identical purpose in every aspect.
I find that so much more reasonable, understandable
and, more importantly, true. Nothing I've read in the Bible suggest otherwise.
I have been to protestant churchs which "treated the bibical physicality of God as a metaphor. Nothing makes me more sad than to deny the physical reality of a loving Heavenly Father that I can visualize and who I hopeone day will enfold me in His arms--not figuratively but literally.
As a former "traditional Christian" I'm afraid you're way off base about Mr. Card's characterization of TC's view of the Trinty. The protestant church I attended described God as, among other things, unknowable--and that was the least of the confusing, not to mention contradictory, descriptions of the Trinty we collectively recited every Sunday in the dictated Creed.
Joseph Smith learned in just a few moments during the First Vision what clerics had debated for centuries. To wit: there is God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Ghost. They are separate, distinct individuals with an absolutely identical purpose in every aspect.
I find that so much more reasonable, understandable
and, more importantly, true. Nothing I've read in the Bible suggest otherwise.
I have been to protestant churchs which "treated the bibical physicality of God as a metaphor. Nothing makes me more sad than to deny the physical reality of a loving Heavenly Father that I can visualize and who I hopeone day will enfold me in His arms--not figuratively but literally.
Tom | 10:07 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I joined the church so that I may become a God. Looks like I was wrong. Darn.
Next.
Next.
Pammie | 10:08 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Ephesians 2:8-10 "God save you by his special favor when you believed.
And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is
not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.
For we are God's masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so
that we can do the good things he planned for us long ago."
It's all about God...not us. We are the created being, not the Creator (see book of Job 38 & 39). Christianity is not what we do, it is all about what Christ has "DONE"...He is the sacrifice for our sins so we may be saved by grace. He has redeemed us from death. It is heresy to say we can become a god (10 Commandments, Exodus 20). Christ has always existed...the Word ("Logos" in John 1:1). The Holy Spirit was given to us by God after Christ was resurrected (Acts 2; 13:52)--our "Comforter." The Holy Spirit gives us joy and power to live out our Christian lives, infallible as they are here on earth. Be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and get into your Bible, dear friends.
It's all about God...not us. We are the created being, not the Creator (see book of Job 38 & 39). Christianity is not what we do, it is all about what Christ has "DONE"...He is the sacrifice for our sins so we may be saved by grace. He has redeemed us from death. It is heresy to say we can become a god (10 Commandments, Exodus 20). Christ has always existed...the Word ("Logos" in John 1:1). The Holy Spirit was given to us by God after Christ was resurrected (Acts 2; 13:52)--our "Comforter." The Holy Spirit gives us joy and power to live out our Christian lives, infallible as they are here on earth. Be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and get into your Bible, dear friends.
Wow | 10:09 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Looks like Mr. Card should stick to writing books. He's much more accurate
when writing fiction.
To Fredd | 10:12 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
On the contrary, it tells you something about his faith.
To Jeremy (A Christian): | 10:13 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Your reference to John 4:24 that "God is Spirit" is actually a verse
that LDS feel has been mistranslated since it conflicts with so many other
Biblical references speaking of the nature of God. LDS scripture says, "For
unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship
in spirit and in truth" (JST John 4: 26). This translation actually fits
better into the context of the previous versuses in the chapter and makes a lot
more sense with what is being discussed.
Reality | 10:17 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Mormons know what they mean by the term God and becoming Gods because they
belive God himself is glorified man and Mormons following the example of Jesus
can become Gods following the same path to Godhood as God himself traveled. It
is hard to follow brother Card's dance around this Mormon doctrin.
John | 10:17 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I am waiting for the other candidates, on both sides, to do the same thing Mitt
has done. Imagine hrc waffling if asked during one of those phony debates, to
explain her faith, in the manner that Mitt voluntarily put forth?
Some of you are demanding doctrinal explanations, and as such, I demand the same from hillary, edwards obama, rudy, et al.
Why do I get the feeling not a one of them could get it done anywhere close to the way that Mitt has done, and why the bigotry towards only the Mormons. Let us hear the catholics, and the others rise and give THEIR side of things.
Some of you are demanding doctrinal explanations, and as such, I demand the same from hillary, edwards obama, rudy, et al.
Why do I get the feeling not a one of them could get it done anywhere close to the way that Mitt has done, and why the bigotry towards only the Mormons. Let us hear the catholics, and the others rise and give THEIR side of things.
David | 10:22 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
No offense Fredd, but the Bible has some trouble standing up to scientific
analysis, too. And that's after much more time to study it and many more
people doing it. There's no evidence of Noah. Little evidence of Moses,
and probably more to the contrary, and the only witnesses we have of Jesus
himself were members of his small religious group with everyone else calling him
a fraud. The way I see it, the Book of Mormon story stacks up about as well.
As time goes on, more and more of its claims are actually shown to be plausible
(ie. horses in America, currency, roads, large cities, the belief of almost
every single Native American/South American group in a 'great white
God' who cam and visited them, etc) where they were once mocked as
impossible.
The only evidence we have that Jesus was the Son of God is the word of a handful of witnesses. The only evidence we have that God restored Christ's church today is a handful of witnesses. Pick your battles. Personally, I rely on the Spirit, not scientific analysis for spiritual things.
The only evidence we have that Jesus was the Son of God is the word of a handful of witnesses. The only evidence we have that God restored Christ's church today is a handful of witnesses. Pick your battles. Personally, I rely on the Spirit, not scientific analysis for spiritual things.
Researching Religion | 10:26 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I have looked into several different Christian religions over the span of two
decades and of all the religions I visted, researched, and, yes, prayed about,
the Mormon church was the only one that made sense to me in its interpretation
of the Bible and the doctrines therein. They actually had "real"
explanations. All the other Christian religions just had hocus-pocus
explanations that didn't make sense, and they couldn't explain all the
contradictions found in the Bible. Most of the members of other religions had
no idea either....they just did what the preacher said.
who cares | 10:29 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
This theology stuff is getting seriously old. I thought that we are having a
presidential election. I am hoping that every candidate that is running is up
standing, honest, and serving. How do we ever know, until a scandel comes
about. Do presidential candidates need to take an exam, both physical and
psychological? Romney is on the bottom of my list simply because of his
ulterior motive. He knew that a minister was winning the polls, so he pulled
out the religion card out. It is unacceptable behavior. I care about illegal
immigrants, social security and the war. I care about the future of our country
and what is at stake.
Ed | 10:35 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Scott, regardless of the negative reaction which will always be with us your
remarks were beautifully articulated, thank you! True to the faith of our
fathers.
R Biddulph | 10:36 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
The Nicene Creed�s definition of the Trinity was
influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes
embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and
Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions
of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the
Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."
Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. .
Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. .
Romney08 | 10:38 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Joel,
Poor misunderstood Joel. I understand what you were trying to say, but Mr. Card was trying to explain a complex issue in a brief essay. The gist of what he said was accurate, however the Neoplatonism you could take issue with and I would agree. BUT, he did give references so you could investigate more.
It's very sad that you feel the way you do. I think your opinion may not be your own. It sounds like there are other influences in your life that are effecting your own weak arguments. It may be a good idea to separate your wife's opinions from your own...Good luck with that!
Poor misunderstood Joel. I understand what you were trying to say, but Mr. Card was trying to explain a complex issue in a brief essay. The gist of what he said was accurate, however the Neoplatonism you could take issue with and I would agree. BUT, he did give references so you could investigate more.
It's very sad that you feel the way you do. I think your opinion may not be your own. It sounds like there are other influences in your life that are effecting your own weak arguments. It may be a good idea to separate your wife's opinions from your own...Good luck with that!
time to push back | 10:40 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Liberals and progressives have no apologies to make, or at least no more than
libertarians and conservatives do. Cherishing the freedoms protected by a
secular society need not imply any disrespect for religion. But when candidates
like Romney and Huckabee press the boundaries of the Constitution to promote
themselves as candidates of faith, it is time to push back.
Is science like the weather | 10:41 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Fredd | 9:48 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
The old saying of if you don't like the weather stick around for a while...Sort of applies to the archeological sciences.
Turn a shovel full of dirt and discover something new and it upsets the apple cart of accepted theory.
Not all scientists(No I'm not talking LDS scientists.) believe the Bering land bridge was the prime mode of arrival to the New World for example.
They even believe they have evidence to back it up.
An open mind would serve you better intellectually!
The old saying of if you don't like the weather stick around for a while...Sort of applies to the archeological sciences.
Turn a shovel full of dirt and discover something new and it upsets the apple cart of accepted theory.
Not all scientists(No I'm not talking LDS scientists.) believe the Bering land bridge was the prime mode of arrival to the New World for example.
They even believe they have evidence to back it up.
An open mind would serve you better intellectually!
Paul C. | 10:44 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I respect all the opinions and information provided, but couldn't this be
classified as anti-Traditional Christian rhetoric? It's in the same tone
as some anti-Mormon speech.
Henry Drummond | 10:45 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I enjoyed your article Scott and have seen many of your plays including the
production of Stone Tables that was performed at BYU many many years ago.
My own take on the "traditional Christianity" versus "Mormon Christianity" is that we are using the wrong terms. Its Mormon Christianity versus "popular Christianity".
Mormon beliefs that man can become like God were really not all that strange in Joseph Smith's time. Charles Finney, the father of the "Second Great Awakening" taught the same thing.
Today such beliefs have gone out the window with former "popular Christianity" beliefs like "pre-destination".
Ultimately this is the problem we get into when we start to mix any religion with politics. Those who oppose Romney don't seem to get that and frankly I don't think Romney gets it either. You can't appeal to the Religious right on one set of issues (Gay marriage, Abortion) and then be surprised when they turn against you on more parochial issues.
My own take on the "traditional Christianity" versus "Mormon Christianity" is that we are using the wrong terms. Its Mormon Christianity versus "popular Christianity".
Mormon beliefs that man can become like God were really not all that strange in Joseph Smith's time. Charles Finney, the father of the "Second Great Awakening" taught the same thing.
Today such beliefs have gone out the window with former "popular Christianity" beliefs like "pre-destination".
Ultimately this is the problem we get into when we start to mix any religion with politics. Those who oppose Romney don't seem to get that and frankly I don't think Romney gets it either. You can't appeal to the Religious right on one set of issues (Gay marriage, Abortion) and then be surprised when they turn against you on more parochial issues.
D Mickel | 10:51 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I'm quite certain our scriptures speak of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as
gods. To say we don't really believe we'll be like 'TC'
gods is accurate, but a bit of sleight of hand.
If our god is the same as the bible's, then why do we teach that that a god told joseph smith that all creeds before that the Restoration were an abomination? And there were creeds holding that GOD (whatever that means) has a body; hardly revelatory stuff there.
Maybe we don't actually worship the 'same' god, but different ones (there are many, after all)?
If our god is the same as the bible's, then why do we teach that that a god told joseph smith that all creeds before that the Restoration were an abomination? And there were creeds holding that GOD (whatever that means) has a body; hardly revelatory stuff there.
Maybe we don't actually worship the 'same' god, but different ones (there are many, after all)?
Hey Fredd | 10:54 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
If you are depending on science, anthropology and archeology to define your
existence, you are in for a long bumpy ride. Scientist have been want to change
their theories on a regular basis throughout history. Scientist's truths
will change as time goes on until the second coming of Christ. Scientist's
believed the earth was flat, the earth was entering another ice age (in 1970),
now we are all doomed according to the all knowing scientist because of
"global warming". I wonder what it'll be next week.
You hang to your sad little belief system (or lack of one), depend on the "arm of flesh" and as my grandma taught, "You will suck sorrow by the teaspoonful". I truly pity you and your types.
You hang to your sad little belief system (or lack of one), depend on the "arm of flesh" and as my grandma taught, "You will suck sorrow by the teaspoonful". I truly pity you and your types.
Fredd | 11:03 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
No it doesn't. When Christians thought the earthwas flat and the universe
revolved around the earth, and other incorrect notions their faith didn't
require they ignore scientific logical evidence. I guess its alittle different
because for the LDS the issues science is challenging are more central to the
belief system. But I do not challenge your theology. You are free to believe
what you wish about the nature of God. You are probably better educated then
myself in those areas. I do challenge you to show me the civilizations from
ancient America. I think that is what is central to the "Mormon"
issue. There are assertions madeby the BoM and early proohets that should be
verifiable.
A Rational Perspective | 11:07 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Card says, "The main point of disagreement between Mormons and traditional
Christianity is that we believe in the biblical God � the
God in whose image we were made, the resurrected Christ with a perfect body of
flesh and bone � and they don't."
Historically, the confusion of God, Godhead, Trinity, Salvation, etc. actually centers on Paul, not Plato. Neoplatonicism came well after Paul and can actually be seen a the defining moment of Paulism.
Paul, not Peter (who defected from the authorized apostileship in Jerusalem), became and was the Father of the Romanized church, that was in complete opposition and competition with the Church of Jerusalem. From there it goes south as the popular consent and support for the cult of Jesus (as it was then known) is taken up by Constatine and from there the rest is history.
So the question begs to be answered, "To a truth seeker, why has the Church of Jerusalem factor, that was headed by James (the brother of Jesus), been factored completely out of the picture?" Because Paul and his pagan beliefs and background supplanted the whole of what the Church of Jerusalem represented both during Christ's lifetime and after. Hence Confusion!
Historically, the confusion of God, Godhead, Trinity, Salvation, etc. actually centers on Paul, not Plato. Neoplatonicism came well after Paul and can actually be seen a the defining moment of Paulism.
Paul, not Peter (who defected from the authorized apostileship in Jerusalem), became and was the Father of the Romanized church, that was in complete opposition and competition with the Church of Jerusalem. From there it goes south as the popular consent and support for the cult of Jesus (as it was then known) is taken up by Constatine and from there the rest is history.
So the question begs to be answered, "To a truth seeker, why has the Church of Jerusalem factor, that was headed by James (the brother of Jesus), been factored completely out of the picture?" Because Paul and his pagan beliefs and background supplanted the whole of what the Church of Jerusalem represented both during Christ's lifetime and after. Hence Confusion!
Doug Van Duker | 11:13 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
That was one well thought out and well written article!
I also find pretty humorous the comment written to Kathey Riodan--"If you want to understand something to the fullest extent possible, you first have to understand the definition of it (i.e., traditional Christian). Your definition does not make it so!"
The logic corollary is � �If your definition differs from mine, and only one of these two differing positions can be correct, then yours MUST be wrong.�
There is also another implication that can be inferred: �The majority of Christians collectively have a common belief; therefore, a differing belief must be wrong.� If that argument were valid, then a Hindu could reasonably assert that Evangelical Christianity is incorrect, because there are far more Hindus than Evangelicals.
I also find pretty humorous the comment written to Kathey Riodan--"If you want to understand something to the fullest extent possible, you first have to understand the definition of it (i.e., traditional Christian). Your definition does not make it so!"
The logic corollary is � �If your definition differs from mine, and only one of these two differing positions can be correct, then yours MUST be wrong.�
There is also another implication that can be inferred: �The majority of Christians collectively have a common belief; therefore, a differing belief must be wrong.� If that argument were valid, then a Hindu could reasonably assert that Evangelical Christianity is incorrect, because there are far more Hindus than Evangelicals.
Chantel | 11:21 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
To those who quibble over where to get your information on anyone's
beliefs: ask a person about his individual beliefs, and he'll tell you what
he believes; consult the official written doctrines of the church if you want to
know a particular church's official teaching on a subject. Every
congregation everywhere is filled with many individual understandings and
misunderstandings of what they hear over the pulpit.
Rigger | 11:22 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
Well, Orson Scott Card can write his next science fiction book about planet/star
Kolob and kill two birds with one stone: advance his career and profess a tenant
of his faith.
He isn't one of the script writers for Battlestar Galactica is he?
He isn't one of the script writers for Battlestar Galactica is he?
Justin L. Powell | 11:25 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I am currently a Divinity student at a "traditional Christian"
university. I am also a former resident of Sandy and consider many Mormons my
close friends. As such, please allow me to share some thoughts on why this
article may be offensive to those of us tradtional Christians (given space
limitations, this response may require several posts, so please indulge me).
First, Mr. Card states some narrowly defined dogma ("God of Abraham"..."Son of God"..."Cleansed of our sins", etc.) and then states, "As far as I'm concerned, anybody who believes that is a Christian". While I appreciate Mr. Card's opinion, I am not sure that it is his role to define the creedal beliefs of Christianity. There is nearly 2000 years of history and theology that has been devoted to defining the nature and essense of Christianity and I am not sure that Mr. Cards pithy comments do justice to the full definition of Biblical Christianity.
That being said, that does not stop Mr. Card from doing what Mormon's normally accuse others of doing. For you see, after his historically inaccurate description of the Christian reliance on Neoplatonism as the foundational concept of the doctrine of God,...(continued in next post)
First, Mr. Card states some narrowly defined dogma ("God of Abraham"..."Son of God"..."Cleansed of our sins", etc.) and then states, "As far as I'm concerned, anybody who believes that is a Christian". While I appreciate Mr. Card's opinion, I am not sure that it is his role to define the creedal beliefs of Christianity. There is nearly 2000 years of history and theology that has been devoted to defining the nature and essense of Christianity and I am not sure that Mr. Cards pithy comments do justice to the full definition of Biblical Christianity.
That being said, that does not stop Mr. Card from doing what Mormon's normally accuse others of doing. For you see, after his historically inaccurate description of the Christian reliance on Neoplatonism as the foundational concept of the doctrine of God,...(continued in next post)
RockOn | 11:27 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
I wish I had a dollar for every "christian" who, when read the Nicean
Crede threw up their hands and said that was utter nonsense. I'd be
Trump-wealthy.
Anyone who thinks those who don't believe in the nonsense of the Nicean Creed aren't Christians denigrate a great number of faithful Christians murdered by Rome. Afterall, the Nicean Creed is NOT Biblical but came about by a vote 300 years after the Bible!
If Mitt Romney had stood before Nero and said what he said about Jesus he would have been executed for being a Christian.
Too bad Baptists and their ilk have become the self-annointed Samuel Johnsons of the word "Christian." They would be in Nero's arena holding the robes of the Romans.
Anyone who thinks those who don't believe in the nonsense of the Nicean Creed aren't Christians denigrate a great number of faithful Christians murdered by Rome. Afterall, the Nicean Creed is NOT Biblical but came about by a vote 300 years after the Bible!
If Mitt Romney had stood before Nero and said what he said about Jesus he would have been executed for being a Christian.
Too bad Baptists and their ilk have become the self-annointed Samuel Johnsons of the word "Christian." They would be in Nero's arena holding the robes of the Romans.
"Like God" | 11:30 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
On the idea that becoming a father makes one equal to one's father:
This is inaccurate, because this assumption ignores a simple fact: When one attains the status of Father, one simultaneously awards the promotion of one's father to the status of GRANDfather. The Father remains the Grandfather's son, and becomes neither his replacement nor his equal. To continue in that line of thought, when the same Father's son takes the mantle of Father, the Father becomes a Grandfather, and the Grandfather is promoted again to GREAT Grandfather.
As we benefit via the successes of our progeny, so our Heavenly Father achieves greater happiness, Himself, through the achievements of his children.
This is inaccurate, because this assumption ignores a simple fact: When one attains the status of Father, one simultaneously awards the promotion of one's father to the status of GRANDfather. The Father remains the Grandfather's son, and becomes neither his replacement nor his equal. To continue in that line of thought, when the same Father's son takes the mantle of Father, the Father becomes a Grandfather, and the Grandfather is promoted again to GREAT Grandfather.
As we benefit via the successes of our progeny, so our Heavenly Father achieves greater happiness, Himself, through the achievements of his children.
Justin L. Powell | 11:36 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
He goes on to say, "The main point of disagreement between Mormons and
traditional Christianity is that we believe in the biblical God...and they
don't." Now, put the show on the other foot. How would you react if
I called you a non-christian who didn't believe in the Biblical God? Mr.
Card's comment is both incorrect and intentionally divisive.
Mr. Card uses this tactic to set up the next stage of his argument - a hypothetical debate between a "TC" and an "LDS" in which the "TC" says, "The Trinity consists of three parallel lines, which touch each other." I would like to challenge Mr. Card to find a single example of a "TC" Creed (Nicene, Apostles, etc.), Confession (from any Christian denomination) or statement of faith (from any Christian denomination) that defines that Trinity as "three parallel lines, [sic] which touch each other". If Mr Card cannot produce such a document then his entire argument (as one post above noted) is nothing more than a false strawman that he has disingeniously created in order to destroy.
In short, his description of the Trinity is neither suffienct or, quite frankly, honest. Someone above asked for a treatise on the... (continued)
Mr. Card uses this tactic to set up the next stage of his argument - a hypothetical debate between a "TC" and an "LDS" in which the "TC" says, "The Trinity consists of three parallel lines, which touch each other." I would like to challenge Mr. Card to find a single example of a "TC" Creed (Nicene, Apostles, etc.), Confession (from any Christian denomination) or statement of faith (from any Christian denomination) that defines that Trinity as "three parallel lines, [sic] which touch each other". If Mr Card cannot produce such a document then his entire argument (as one post above noted) is nothing more than a false strawman that he has disingeniously created in order to destroy.
In short, his description of the Trinity is neither suffienct or, quite frankly, honest. Someone above asked for a treatise on the... (continued)
steverb | 11:36 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007
J-DOG--The purpose of the BOM (the other testament) is to confirm the teachings
of the bible--the extra stuff--some of the doctrines unique to mormonism-- comes
through modern prophets in order to clarify the teachings of the Bible. The BOM
is very simple in doctrine for the most part. I recently read a story about a
baptist preacher who uses it--thinks it preaches good old baptist
doctrine---power to him.
Perhaps you, too, should read the BOM. I highly recommend it.
Perhaps you, too, should read the BOM. I highly recommend it.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Orson Scott Card
Related content
- Today on TV 12:49 a.m.
- Wanted: Bank robber with bad breath 12:40 a.m.
- Philippine police clash with clan 12:28 a.m.
- Officer responding to call killed 12:28 a.m.
- Editorial: Fine-tune state workweek 12:18 a.m.
- Let's keep energy money in the U.S. 12:18 a.m.
- How to pay for the war 12:17 a.m.
- Feast of Guadalupe nourishes soul 12:17 a.m.
- Obama's strategy is a road map 12:17 a.m.
- Letters: 'Political priestcraft' 12:17 a.m.
- BYU and Utah's bowl games
- Y., U. to learn bowl destinations
- BYU professor remembered
- The forgotten ship: USS Utah
- Branch president without a congregation
- Utahns want health care reform bills
- BYU basketball: Cougars crush Dons
- Kurt Bestor: Joy for the world
- Jazz upset by Wolves
- Urn of baby rests with sailors
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
257 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing214
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry189
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage130
- George lost in rivalry hatefest113
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl110
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan105
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony97
- Harpring's NBA career is over95
Trolley Square's annual Holiday Open House will feature visits with...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
Sorry earlier I meant to say that tracks seems to travel at 35 miles an hour...
'Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of...
The Non-BCS crowd ought to create their own title game...their own brand, and...
That's the whole of your defense of GOP resistance to badly-needed ethics...
Your criticism should hardly be focused on Bennett alone. What about all the...
'Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a...
The reality of climate change is supported by multiple lines of evidence and...
I had the priviledge of staying in the LeBaron home on severl occasions as I...
So the unemployment rate has dropped to "just" 10%, huh? I wonder what that...
Ahh for the love of money...what money can buy!!!
Advertisements
To be fair to them I think this is a good explanation as to why the triune God cannot logically exist, but it isn't the way they would explain it.
I'm sure there will be creedal christians that will write in saying that's not what we say we believe...Which is true in the sense that when I've heard it explained they compare it to an egg...Shell, white, yolk.
Still geometry, sphere's w/in spheres.
Still doesn't work!