Mormon author Orson Scott Card recently wrote a piece in the Mormon Times called “Gospel has no place for ‘mysteries’ ” (10/14/2010). In his mind, Christians who use the word “mystery” when confronted with an issue that is impossible to understand are taking the low road. He believes that the high road is understanding how “’mysteries have no place in the gospel of Jesus Christ.” “In other words,” he writes, “when we Latter-day Saints confront a ‘mystery,’ we expect it, eventually, to be resolved…as the boundaries of our knowledge are extended.”
He makes light of Christians who try to understand the Incarnation, or how God became man, because Mormons believe “that human beings are not fundamentally different from God, since we all carry within us the divine potential, and God and Christ have behind them the experience of mortality.”
There we go again, the couplet “As man is, God once was” once more at the forefront in LDS theology. According to Card, this concept is not a mystery but a fact, and the idea that we have divine substance within us—the DNA of divinity is something we’re apparently born with—is just something he assumes.
Isn’t it the epitome of ignorance to say that “original Christianity, partaking of the Old Testament as well as the New, had no difficulty seeing God as manlike (and vice versa)”? Without supplying out-of-context proof-texts, the burden of proof remains on the Mormons’ shoulders, and too often they end up pointing to pagan philosophies, liberal theologians, or Eastern Orthodox thinking to support their case–to no avail. But lest the reader think that Card is advocating that Mormons understand everything, he writes, “Any Mormon who says ‘we have all the answers’ really doesn’t get it.”
My goodness, isn’t this exactly what Christians are saying when they use the word “mystery”? Certainly Christians understand that it’s impossible to grasp the concept of eternity, comprehend every nuance of the Trinity, or fully explain the sovereign will of God. Obviously an incomprehensible God cannot be fully understood by finite minds which are built with many limitations. But who says that God’s people won’t understand more in the next life as “mystery” becomes “knowledge” and we begin to see Him as He really is? Card’s argument sure smacks of the Straw Man logical fallacy.
His rant against “mystery” is meaningless tripe since he admits that Mormons also don’t have the answers to their mysteries. This can be seen at the end of the article when he writes, “The true statement is, ‘There are clear answers to all questions, and someday we will learn both the questions and the answers.’” If the questions are what Mr. Card needs, I can clear this part up with just a few questions about Mormonism of my own:
- Who was the first God? I’m not asking about Heavenly Father or the name of His God, but I’m searching for the one who started the whole domino effect. Wouldn’t it be nice if we knew that God’s name? Perhaps this is the God that ought to be worshipped.
- Which came first: the first God of all time or physical matter? It matters.
- Was God the Father once a sinner since He is “fundamentally” no different than we? If so, then why does God require so much from us if He failed before we did? Is God a hypocrite?
- How can God be “everlasting to everlasting God,” as Psalm 90:2 puts it, if He wasn’t always God, as Card advocates in his article?
- Will the oldest child on every God’s earth always be the Savior? Will that child’s brother always lead a third of the spirit brothers and sisters astray and be cast out of heaven? If so, that sure sounds like foreordination or election, a concept typically mocked in Mormonism.
- Moving away from the topic of God, how is it possible to “do all you can do”? I’m referring, of course, to 2 Nephi 25:23, which says we’re “saved by grace after all you can do.” Isn’t it possible that you could always do a little more than what you think your best allows? So please explain this concept in a way that isn’t contradictory.
I believe Mr. Card is hiding behind “mystery” more deeply than what he accuses Christians of doing. But perhaps there’s a Mormon reading this who would like to help make one of these mysteries a little less mysterious for the rest of us who are apparently baffled.
I thought you would receive little by little even after the resurrection/judgement…
Don´t you have a verse in D&C that talks about if you have more knowledge in this life you´ll have more advantage in the next?
But that's just it Falcon,
Eric is arguing above that there will be answers to all the questions according to Traditional Christians as well, that it is not just a claim from the LDS church. Fmelo seems to also think the same. Does that mean that they also believe that they will be omnipotent?
And since when does omnipotence make one a 'god'? Aren't there some things that Jesus and the Holy Ghost don't know that Heavenly Father does (well at least one thing)? This is foud in Matt 24:36 – "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" He does not say – My Father and Myself and the Holy Spirit. Nor does He say 'Only God' (ie Trinity). He says ONLY His Father.
Sarah,
I've been reading your posts with interest, and I find myself agreeing with much of what you posted. I can't speak for the Mormons who might be on the receiving end of your communications, but I think your strategy of engagement and trying not to react in an "anti" way is the right one.
Further, I suggest that it's easy to get bogged in an argument about why Mormonism is wrong, when actually what we need to do is bring people (all people, not just Mormons) to a faith in Christ. So, we also need to articulate what's right, not simply react against what's wrong.
Regarding the historicity and translation of the Bible, the short story is that the Bible has been reliably transmitted and translated. There's good historical evidence that it has not been vandalised to the extent that Mormonism (and Dan Brown) would like, and it's an urban myth that we can't see what its authors intended for us to see in their writings.
Also, 8AoF claims that the Bible is the Word of God. Not was. To me, this is a clear contradiction to what Mormonism believes. In other words, who cares if it was changed because the end result – what we have today – is the Word of God.
And it has been translated "correctly" (or, at least they made a far better job of the translation of the Bible than the so-called Book of Abraham). If translations are such an issue, why insist that the Book of Abraham is a translation (it's not even close – it's like translating Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream and ending up with the telephone directory of Greater Tokyo). Why persist with the King James version of the Bible?
You're right on one thing though – you'll never convert anyone. That's God's prerogative.
Hang in there. You don't know where the seed will fall (Matt 13:18-23)
Ralph,
I'm expressing my own opinion. Eric and fmelo can answer for themselves. I notice you deftly avoided the question of the Mormon eternal progression and the growing in more knowledge of wisdom and knowledge of the gods of Mormonism, which, I'm sure, you believe in and hope to be one. On the Mormon escalator of eternal progression, you will never catch-up to the Mormon heavenly father, grand father, great grandfather etc. They will always know more than you and have more wisdom.
In regards to Jesus' and what He knew, we go to Phillipians 2:5-11 which talks about the Kenosis or emptying of Jesus. There's a relationship between the Persons of the Godhead.
Actually Ralph you seem to be arguing against yourself. On-the-one-hand you are arguing for all knowledge, wisdom and the revealing of all mysteries, and on the other you talk about things the Father knows but that Jesus and the Holy Spirit don't.
You're going to have to pick a side of your argument and stick with it. You can't have it both ways.
Even though i believe all mysteries will be revealed, some things still will be beyond our comprehension.
Like Walter Martin once said, in order for you to understand God you´d have to be God.
Only the egotistical Joseph Smith thought he could comprehend god – but for that he made god human.
"you will never catch-up to the Mormon heavenly father, grand father, great grandfather etc. They will always know more than you and have more wisdom."
Falcon, you nailed it!
I think a good place to begin in a discussion of the acquisition of knowledge is to look to Genesis 2:16-17 with the fall of man. God tells Adam that he can eat freely from all of the trees except from the tree "of the knowledge of good and evil" and added to the command "…..in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." When Satan tempted Eve he told her: "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil." The temptation becomes a hook "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate…."
Mormons are a lot like Eve in that they have been told that if they follow a certain prescribed format, they will grow in knowledge and wisdom, be perfected, and become gods. This temptation, to be as a god, is as old as mankind. Now Satan is very clever with Mormons in that they think that this is a desire of God, that they become gods. Nothing could be further from the truth but the desire that is created by the lie is seductive and Mormons succumb to it.
Without knowing God there can be no salvation. Mormons need to reject the temptation that Satan has dangled in front of them and come to the living God.
Ralph,
Of course you're arguing against yourself. But I'll leave it at that.
So the Mormon gods do not progress? Is that right? It's all about who the Mormon god helps make it into the god club? I guess this must be that situation where every Mormon gets to have their own opinion.
The Mormon god club includes the notion, according to you, that these gods will know everything. Let me clue you into the attributes of God and those that we as Christians may share and those that we may not.
First of all even though we know some of God's attributes, we don't know all of those that could be known. And even the attributes that we do know, we can't understand them fully. God is incomprehensible. There are attributes that are "incommunicable" and can't be shared with us. These are: God's self-existence, His eternality (He is not limited by space and time), His unchangeability, His immutability, His omnipresence (he is every where), His omnipotence (He is all powerful), and His omniscience (He knows everything). We can't share these.
We can however share God's holiness, justice, goodness (love, grace, mercy, general benevolence) and truth.
This is why Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is more like Hinduism, a religion that has many gods. Mormons have their own karma and process for purifying themselves to a more improved state. The Mormon god is really a substandard "god" when compared to God. Mormons settle for a pretend god who cannot save them.
I got this off of the Mormon Research Ministry under the topic "Godhood and Theosis". It seems this whole topic of progression in Mormonism is up for grabs. Orson Pratt's model of eternal progression, holds that when we achieve full godhood we will cap out in knowledge and power, having become equal with God in all divinity, subsequently only progressing in the worlds and progeny under us. Brigham Young, by contrast held the view that all gods continue to progress in all divine attributes, including knowledge and power. He said, "All organized existence is in progress, wither to an endless advancement in eternal perfections, or back to dissolution. Nothing less than the privilege of increasing eternally, in every sense of the word, can satisfy the immortal spirit. If the endless stream of knowledge from the eternal fountain could all be drunk in by organized intelligences, so sure immortality would come to an end, and all eternity be thrown upon the retrograde path."
In-other-words, everyone is, with respect to knowledge and power, on a sort of divine escalator. We will reach God's current level of knowledge and power someday (if we are found worthy and meritorious unto godhood), but by that time God will have advanced.
The First Presidency (Brigham Young) rebuked Pratt's view. Bruce McConkie condemned Young's view. According to the late Mr. McConkie there are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is Teaming new truths. This is false-utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression.
Ah Mormonism, Mormonism, who's a person to believe? You can have your pick of a limited Mormon god who has maxed-out in the progression to more knowledge; a limited god view who plateaus out and just works to build his organization. Or you can choose a god that is busying himself sucking in as much knowledge as he can hold and digest until he can suck in some more.
I guess what a Mormon could do is pray about it and which ever view he/she feels good about is true. Right?
So the point is that Christians don't think they are going to be a god and be all knowing while Mormons, depending on whom they follow, either will grow in more and more knowledge or plateau out. The plateau group believes that the upline gods grow in that they are developing their organizations and getting more of their progeny in the god zone. Mormonism really is goofy, isn't it? All of this in "known" by means of revelation. So it all depends on whose revelation a Mormon wants to follow. Brigham Young is either the crazy uncle in the attic or he was a prophet. We can see how much of his revelation is dumped by the LDS church. He's out the door on Adam-God, blood atonement and the Mormon god having actual physical sex with the Virgin Mary. I believe he also said that there were men living on the sun! But, it doesn't matter since Mormonism is based on a feeling any way and evidence that shows the Church and its leadership, past and present, are a couple bubbles off of plumb really doesn't matter to the hard core Mormon.
falcon, You've delineated some of the differences between Mormons and traditional Christians.
These differences could'nt be greater, as different as night to day. Mormons can eventually be
worshipped as Almighty Gods, while christians will enjoy the presence and worship of the
One True Majestic God of all creation. One is fanatasy, the other is reality. May the prescious
Mormon people walk away from their prophets, and walk to the The Prophet — Jesus .
Thanks for hosting this blog.
The Bible Dictionary in the official LDS King James Bible defines mystery thusly:
MYSTERY Denotes in the N.T. a spiritual truth that was once hidden but now is revealed, and that, without special revelation, would have remained unknown. It is generally used along with words denoting revelation or publication (e.g., Rom. 16: 25-26; Eph. 1: 9; Eph. 3: 3-10; Col. 1: 26; Col. 4: 3; 1 Tim. 3: 16).
The modern meaning of something incomprehensible forms no part of the significance of the word as it occurs in the N.T.
For example, we "Mormons" believe that "God unrevealed remains unknown." The person who, like Peter, has had the fact that Jesus is the Christ revealed to him is now one of what Paul referred to as "stewards of the mysteries," (Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 4:1) or at least a steward of that particular mystery. Now he understands the mystery. It is still a mystery, because a mystery is simply information that God must (and will) reveal to you or you will never understand it. The natural (voluntarily locked inside his 5 senses) man cannot receive such information. It is foolishness to him. (1 Cor 2:14)
Eric Johnson, in his 18 Oct 2010 post asks several excellent questions. A few have simple answers, but several are mysteries that we urge him to pray for answers from our Father in heaven. He has all the answers, and I know He is delighted to answer one of His children who pleads for knowledge and wisdom with a determination to do what He tells one to do. (Jms 1:5, 6)
Man’s relationship to Jesus Christ and to God the Father, however, is hardly a mystery to any Bible reading Christian. Jn 20:17; Rom 8:16-18; Rev 3:21; 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Tim 2:12; etc. etc. The Prophet Joseph didn’t originate this doctrine or even need to have it revealed. The Holy Bible clearly teaches that we are God’s children and joint-heirs with Christ, not their lap dogs.
I'd like to start answering some of these questions:
1. Who was the first God? I’m not asking about Heavenly Father or the name of His God, but I’m searching for the one who started the whole domino effect. Wouldn’t it be nice if we knew that God’s name? Perhaps this is the God that ought to be worshipped.
The first God would also be the last God. There is but one God. God (or the Divine Collective) enjoys all things in one and has always existed. When one becomes one with God, one "joins the club" of the Gods, so to say, and inherits "all that the Father hath".
2. Which came first: the first God of all time or physical matter? It matters.
Both "God" and "matter" have always existed. The premise of the question is wrong. There was no "beginning" to either. They have always been.
3. Was God the Father once a sinner since He is “fundamentally” no different than we? If so, then why does God require so much from us if He failed before we did? Is God a hypocrite?
God the Father has never been a sinner. In His station as God, He has ALWAYS been perfect, holy, complete and sinless.
Neverthess, the Personage who is now God the Father has not always filled that role. He was once mortal, frail and (potentially) failing, as are we, and likewise dependent upon the grace that is available through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, an eternal sacrifice by which all beings of the same order may be purified and perfected.
4. How can God be “everlasting to everlasting God,” as Psalm 90:2 puts it, if He wasn’t always God, as Card advocates in his article?
Because the "quorum of the Gods" has always been. Initiation into this Order entitles One to lay claim to all attributes and accomplishments of the Whole, past, present and future. They share ALL things in common. Nevertheless, there are lesser Gods and greater Gods, even as Jesus said: "My Father is greater than I."
5. Will the oldest child on every God’s earth always be the Savior? Will that child’s brother always lead a third of the spirit brothers and sisters astray and be cast out of heaven? If so, that sure sounds like foreordination or election, a concept typically mocked in Mormonism.
This question presupposes a chronology which is not clear or certain. Is one's first mortal child the oldest, spiritually speaking? I see no reason to believe so. (Jesus clearly wasn't the first "son of God" on earth. The scriptures declare that Adam was.) While "one third lost" may not be an eternally requisite ratio, logic dictates that there will always be those willing to lead the "loyal opposition" (and start their own "Mormon Coffee" blogs!)
6. Moving away from the topic of God, how is it possible to “do all you can do”? I’m referring, of course, to 2 Nephi 25:23, which says we’re “saved by grace after all you can do.” Isn’t it possible that you could always do a little more than what you think your best allows? So please explain this concept in a way that isn’t contradictory.
When we're done doing our best ("after all you can do") that's it! We're done! The phase connotes making one's best effort — which also includes doing one's worst, the sum total of one's effort — not some pre-determined measure to be reached. "After all you can do can" means "and inasmuch as even our best efforts will fall short, Christ's grace makes up the difference. Nevertheless, we are not excused in committing sin or in giving less than our best — even though, by nature, we are prone to do so. It is, after all, by grace that we are saved AFTER ALL WE CAN DO."