Mormonism's "Godhood"? Orson Scott Card hits it out of the park -- again

[Vort]

While I don't always agree with Orson Scott Card, I agree with him more often than not. More than that, I admire his ability to express himself clearly and unambiguously. This is never so apparent as in this column in the Deseret News. I encourage all to read it, especially those non-Latter-day-Saints who may have fretted over their LDS acquaintances' strange beliefs in deification.

EDIT: I just made a correction. I had misread the date as 1 December and assumed it was published today. In fact, the date is 7 December 2007, so it is nothing like a "new" column. But I still think it's a good one.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Vort

[doss]

OSC's "Ender's Game" is one of my favorite books!

[Vort]

What happened, doss? Decided you didn't like Ender's Game, after all?

[maiku]

THANK YOU for putting up that article! It was pure genius. I love how he took Neoplatonism and turned it around on the traditional christian belief with the geometry example. GENIUS!

[annewandering]

I do not like his writing but I do love his blogs and articles. He is a very interesting man.

[Justice]

I believe his example of the 3 lines is very good, and I think I'll have my friend read it to get his take on it. I'm sure he'll come up with a different way to understand the line analogy. I can't wait to show him!

[applepansy]

I loved the 3 lines parable too. Thanks Vort for posting this. I don't care much for Orson's fiction writing but he does have a remarkable way with words.

[Traveler]

I think the idea that Traditional Christians do not believe that G-d has a physical presents is most interesting – but I think it can be a little misleading. If not for Prisonchaplain I would agree with everything here. But before we go off accepting all this we should listen very carefully to what Traditional Christians say.

Sometimes I think that PC is little shy and not so bold in making full statements concerning his beliefs on this site – realizing that here he would be a lion in a den of Daniels and not wanting to offend. Non-the-less we should allow those with a different opinion to respond before we make up our minds.

Back to the notion of G-d with a physical presents. I am not sure but I think most TC tend to think that G-d (including Jesus) did not have a physical presents. Thus Jesus was not just G-d but fully man in his physical presents. The G-dness of Jesus was not physical. I admit that I do not buy the argument that Jesus was fully (100%) G-d and fully (100%) man. For me the scriptures do not use words only to change the meaning of them in creating conflicting ideas (same with the line example). I have never liked the expression of giving 110% because the idea is conflicting with what is complete or 100%. Therefore the expression is not just inwardly conflicting but in essence a lie with intellectual intent to deceive.

Again – I do not see that G-d can fulfill the definitions of G-d as given in Holy Scriptures and not have a physical presents. But it also appears to me that in the tug-of-war over ideas that G-d is spirit and only spirit and never physical is in part a limited intent of what I believe is part of what scriptures allow in understanding. I guess what I am saying is that I think I am beginning to understand the TC position concerning the nature of G-d. Generally we LDS like to think their notions are wrong – but I am starting to think that is not how we should view their stance – rather we should view their thinking as incomplete.

As LDS we believe that we have additional revelation – because we have something that they do not – there will be a difference. A difference, I am beginning to believe we should not blame on them. Perhaps we should have the attitude that we may be viewing things from a “different place” that allows us to see more. Thus instead of thinking they are wrong, that they just do not see all that we are allowed to see.

The Traveler

Edited December 2, 2011 by Traveler

[Forget-Me-Not]

Thanks for posting that Vort. I loved it too! :)

[mikbone]

I'm going to start referring to myself as a biblical Christian.

[annewandering]

ok I am sorry to be nitpicking but I see this on here a bunch. Its presence. Thank you.

:)

[Windseeker]

True story - I was at my neices baptism and there was striking late 20 year old man in attendance with a full red beard and long curly hair. He had a kind and merry countenance. When all was silent my 5 year old son turned to me and in a loud voice asked pointing at the young man, "Daddy is that Jesus?" I turned and looked at Orson Scott Cards son and said "yes son..yes it is"

:)

[FunkyTown]

ok I am sorry to be nitpicking but I see this on here a bunch. Its presence. Thank you.

:)

"It's presence".

The apostrophe denotes "It is" while Its without the apostrophe denotes ownership. If Thing from the Addam's Family drove a car, they would say that was its car. If they were saying something was great, it would be "It's great!".

Just so that someone can correct me, I am going to end a sentence in a preposition:

My posting is perfect throughout.

[Forget-Me-Not]

Where's that laugh button anyway?

[Blackmarch]

reminds me of "A romance of the Dimensions"/"Flatlander"

[mordorbund]

I don't think the 3-line story was presented properly. Sure the fella comes and proposes something that sounds a little loony, and you say "What! that makes no sense!" but his response shouldn't be "well, that's just because you have a finite mind." His response should be "I'd agree with you if those 3 lines are euclidean. But I don't think they are." That's where theologians stand on the Trinity. God is not bound by space-time, so some can argue for modalism. God is not a part of creation, so this rule that person=being does not apply to Him either.

[Vort]

I don't think the 3-line story was presented properly. Sure the fella comes and proposes something that sounds a little loony, and you say "What! that makes no sense!" but his response shouldn't be "well, that's just because you have a finite mind." His response should be "I'd agree with you if those 3 lines are euclidean. But I don't think they are." That's where theologians stand on the Trinity. God is not bound by space-time, so some can argue for modalism. God is not a part of creation, so this rule that person=being does not apply to Him either.

It amounts to exactly the same thing. God isn't really a line (or three) in space. It's a comparison, a parable of sorts. So saying "Ah, but we're using non-Euclidian space" is saying, in essence, "Ah, but the rules of existence and inferential logic you are using do not apply here, because God dwells in a mysterious non-spatial space using non-lawful laws."

Well, heck, if you're going to propose that, you can say literally anything about God. After all, no rules of reason with which we are familiar apply to any degree!

Which is utterly useless, even if true.

And the point is, they are claiming that our beliefs "don't make sense". No fair calling the kettle black and then saying that your own blackness doesn't count.