Well said....AMEN.

To bad that those who need to understand this will not be reading it. It makes so much sense, why is it so hard to understand? Could it be that they don't want to understand?

Very good Brother Card very good.

Mitt's talk was awesome to say the least on a par with Reagan and George Washington I would say.

God Bless The Romney's.

So where, then, do the turtles come in?

Beautifully written and explained. Thank you.

Brother Card, you speak of accuracy. I found your explanation of our becoming Gods less than accurate. I had the distinct impression that you were apologizing, as if to say, "Well, that's not exactly what we believe," when indeed it is.

You said, "We are forever his [God's] children and will never be his equals." That is neither accurate nor true.

You are a father today just as much as your father was to you, in every sense of the word.

Those who reach exaltation will be Gods to their children as much as our God is to us, in every sense of the word.

Our becoming Gods does not diminish His standing or capacity as our God any more than our becoming fathers diminish our fathers' standing and capacity as our fathers. We don't replace them, we join them!

I do agree with you on the point that more people need to attend their Sunday school classes--all of us!

I really enjoyed the geometry parable. It does the job to explain the differences.

I just learned something. Good old Plato, I wonder what he feels about his influence now?

Well said, Orson. I don't believe we ever had to be this specific when we taught the Brasilians the gospel in Sao Paulo, ne? And what's with the full head of hair? Congrats on your success in writing and thanks for sharing this with us. Elder Bird

Best explanation yet.

Unfortunately, that's a completely incorrect characterization of the traditional Christian concept of the Holy Trinity, which actually is much more close to the LDS concept of "Godhead" than most LDS realize.

What is the expression? If you want to know what a Mormon believes, ask a Mormon?

If you want to know what a traditional Christian believes, ask a traditional Christian. Not a Mormon.

Kathy,

I have a conversation on this very topic with a Traditional Christinas and he believed EXACTLY what Mr. Card said, so I think he did his research. Well done Orson!

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!

Kathy,

I had a conversation on this very topic with a Traditional Christian and he believed EXACTLY what Mr. Card said, so I think he did his research. Well done Orson!

Where do you get this parallel line business? First you present a faulty understanding of the Trinity and then you shoot it down. That's called a straw-man argument.

Orson--BULLS EYE!

To me, the only question of relevance in the debate about who is and is not a Christian is to what degree does one's concept of Christ influence his or her daily decisions. If my concept of Christ deepens my commitment to live His teachings, isn't that preferable to making sure your dictionary and my dictionary have the same definition for Christian?

When a Mormon kneels and pleads for divine guidance, I doubt she envisions a much different God than the Evangelist on his knees, and I doubt the God who hears their prayers applies the dictionary test in deciding whose prayer to answer.

You have hands and fingers (unlike the God you appear to worship). Please stop telling us what we don't know and tell us what we "don't know."

Brother Card, if you're reading this, I would implore you to use your incomparable literary skills to draft a new set of Articles of Faith that would help define the Mormon faith. The current set was written prior to the Nauvoo period and doesn't include our cornerstone beliefs about the eternal nature of the family. I would like the Church to define our core beliefs rather than allowing critics to seize upon the extraneous and outlandish. Thank you for your wonderful essay.

It's interesting that Mr. Card introduces science into his article, knowing that science logically explains evolution as the beginning of time/man, without a God of any sort.
Also in regard to Christianity and Christ, Christianity existed with just the Father, until the Latin church introduced the "filioque" which inserted the word "Son" into the already established Nicene Creed without permission, therefore causing the split between the Christian Orthodox and the Christian Latin church which continues today, which means any old mortal can change how and what we believe whenever they want, and we have seen a lot of that. Still, Romney's my man.

Kathy,

Please share with us the traditional concept of the Holy Trinity. I would like to get it correct.

Thanks

Kathy,

Please share with us the traditional christian concept of the Holy Trinity. I would like to get it correct.

Thanks

Mr. Card, I do not think Mr. Romney has any disqualifications to be president, neither constitutional nor character base. The problem is on the nomination of his party. Political parties are allowed to have as many disqualifiers as their members see fit.

I have talked to more than a few people who called themselfs Mormons but didn't believe that it was possible to become a god. Does this mean that Mormon doctrine doesn't teach that you can become a God? No. It just means that those Mormon's didn't know what their church actually taught.

If you want to know what traditional christianity is, go to a church like Calvary Chapel and ask the pastor. Even if you don't agree with what they believe you are getting the information from a better source than someone from another team.

Btw, the plato arguement was weak and missinformed. I've never been to a christian church that "treated the biblical physicality of God as metaphor".

Have a great day,
Joel

Being non LDS but a former resident of Utah and graduate of USU I think Mitt did a great job of covering what needed to be said. In this country we believe in freedom of religion and the right to practice it as long as it does not impact others rights to do so as well. Tolerance for other views is expected but of course there will be some who won't, on both sides.

Mitt is a classy guy and good Presidential material.

Would someone from the "Traditional Christian" side please provide their explanation of the Godhead?

No matter your belief in God, or greater power, or Mohamad or whatever. Mitt is great at pointing out that the end result of your belief is the same. Muslime, Jew, Christian all have common beliefs regarding treating others well, making yourself a better person, having integrity, and making the world a better place than we found it.

Our Presiden should be a person who can unite us in our common goals to do this. Our beliefs that drive us to be better are irrevelant so long as we have a belief that causes us to just be better as a country.

Mitt understands this as do other do other good candidates like Huckabee. So the issue of which religion or God should be a non-issue and the issues of the ability, competance and character of a candidate to lead the country to be better should be our focus.

I will join with any person who desires us to be better no matter what religion.

The following Bible verses confirm the possibility we all have, as children of God, to become like God (gods)

Genesis 1:26-27
Psalm 82:6
Romans 8:17
Revelation 3:21
Ephesians 4:13
Matthew 5:48
Luke 24:39

To Mr. Card,

Love your books, but your article is a little misleading. To say that modern Christians have twisted Biblical doctrine because of Plato, is untrue. We believe that God is spirit because there are many Biblical references that say so. John 4:24 is one, "God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in Spirit and in truth." You now could argue all day about the context of this and what it really means, but to say that Christians are incorrect about God being spirit, and how it doesn't agree with the Bible, is a little short sighted.

--Jeremy

The geometry example is the best I have ever encountered. The words of Lorenzo Snow; "As man is God once was and as God is man may become" gives the TC crowd considerable heart burn. Little do they realize, they believe it too.

They believe the Christ is God and was once a man on earth subject to all the problems we have even sin (except he declined to participate). They further believe that Christ is now resurrected and lives in heaven in glory.
We are now on the earth as mortal beings and hope to be resurrected and live in heaven just like Christ. So, in that sense, the whole Christian world belives that God was once as we are and they we may become as Christ is now. They just don't realize it.

Evangelicals. Yes, Baptists and other folks on the "extreme" fringes of reglion. Not all Baptists are extreme just like not all Muslims are terrorists however... many are unfortunately. Give Scott's explantion of Godhood(which is very well said) to an evangelical and what you get is is the old "hear no evil- see no evil pose". That's right, you have seen the monkey with his eyes closed and his hands over his ears. They simply shut down, close their minds and refuse to consider. Why is that? For many, it is because they are completely ignorant of their own Baptist history as well as christian history including the apostacy from truth and priesthood power on the earth. They simply "choose" to block it out. They also "find" a minister who spins the bible to their liking and they stick with that. I call it "Chuck-A-Rama" religion - you get to pick what you want and leave out what you don't like. Most of evangelical christianty is like this today. True Christianity is not something you get to pick and choose. You simply follow as did Christ's early diciples.

When I was growing up I was strictly schooled to never discuss religion or politics, and yet I always prefered those subjects to anything else. Thanks very much for your very coherent explanation and your WILLINGNESS to break the taboo and discuss your beliefs. I somehow managed to survive reading your article without the bottom falling out of my world, with my own views intact, and with a much better understanding of my Mormon peers. Rock on.

Thank you, Jay, for you comments. When are we going to stop apologizing for our beliefs? Just because one or several groups thinks that our beliefs are strange, doesn't mean our beliefs are wrong; truth is independent of popular opinion. The trinity makes no sense to me; only two afterlifes--heaven and hell--are ludicrous. Our doctrine is based on scripture and revelation, not man-made councils that lack any hint of divinity.

As for mortals' potential to become Gods: are we blaspheming the Ominpotent by saying we can be like Him? Absolutely not. "All that my Father hath" is promised to us. Mortal parents would give the world to their children. God, being perfect, is even more generous. Why would He deny us the opportunity to advance when He is merciful and loving?

Members should never be ashamed of our beliefs.

Brother Card, your comments were wonderful and quite enlightening, especially as far as Plate is concerned. Loved the geometry metaphor.
Thanks!

Hence the often points of confusion with so many Christians offer differing points of view: embracing some notions, discarding others; giving more importance to some, less emphasis on others. Thus you get the Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. etc.

Well-written, and slippery, doctrinally speaking.
That fact is, godhood IS taught for exalted human beings. To say otherwise is to ignore Church President Lorenzo Snow, who in June 1840 stated: "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."
Or, consider Apostle Bruce McConkie: "Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation ... They are gods." (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

How about this for a radical concept. When was there ever a father, who's children could not grow up and become like him? Apparently that's not true though if you are the offspring of God! Why is such a basic and beautiful concept so hard to understand. If we are truly in His image...don't we contain the potential to become like Him???

Actually, if you want to know what a Mormon believes, I suggest you ask two people, a current and a former member. And if you want to know what a traditional Christian believes, ask someone who is one and someone who used to be one.

What LDS faithful fail to acknowledge is their personal bias. Just as Evangelicals are convinced that any non-believer is either ignorant or decieved, far too many Mormons see their "friends of another faith" as tragically off track.

I fully acknowledge that as a former member, my bias leads me to give church doctrine the doubt of the benefit. But if my perspective of the LDS faith would be considered incomplete, how is a faithful follower's testimony any better?

Nicely done, Mr. Card. Thank YOU for the Sunday School lesson. :)

I love the way Orson describes the LDS view of the afterlife and what we can all potentially do and become there. The problem is that when described in different, less eloquent terms others not of our faith understandably tend to bristle. They generally don't hear it as "participating in the important work of continuing creation". They hear it instead as "becoming Gods and creating or own worlds and spirit children". Which necessitates the idea that pro-creation continues in the next life. And even the idea seeps into that description that procreation continues with a plurality of wives. My point is that we have done a nice job of describing our beliefs in eloquent, more acceptable terms as done in this article and numerous conference talks. But others often hear the same thing in a much more straightforward way - and do think we are insane!!

Well, that's the point. Different Christians have a different concept of the Godhead, but I think Mr. Card explained the main one well. If you talked to several random different "traditional christains" (wouldn't those be catholics?), you would get quite varied answers from each. The Christian world is putting up this idea they all agree on the doctrine of Christ, but then WHY ARE THERE SO MANY DIFFERENT CHRISTIAN CHURCHES???

On the other hand, Kathy, I think you are right. I have spent alot of time reading the literature of the evangelicals--alot of it is totally awesome, and I agree more than not, but the ideas are indeed varied. I wish more of them would read mormon literature and see what they COULD agree with.

"'We are forever his [God's] children and will never be his equals.' That is neither accurate nor true."

Jay-I disagree with you on this part. While the faithful are promised "everything the Father has," they will never be "equal" with God. I may be a father, but I will never be equal with my father, and so on. I think Card is right on that one. How could we possibly be equal to God when he's already infinitely ahead of us in his progression?

I suppose that's a different argument though, i.e. is God still progressing or not. And there are plenty of statements from GAs on both sides.

Kathy,

I was a traditional Christian before converting to the LDS church.

As a Traditional Christian I was taught that the Trinity consists of three persons/beings in one God all three are distinct and co-eternal persons, and are of one indivisible Divine essence.

The Latter Day Saints believe that the Godhead consists of three separate beings, one in purpose. Not of one indivisible divine essence. This is all that the author was trying to say in a comical way.

I went to several different Protestant Churches growing up, and this is what I was always taught. The only church that I have attended that believes that the Godhead consists of three separate beings that are not of one indivisible essence was the LDS Church.

I do agree that if you want to know the full truth you should go to the source not go off your own definition, and in my case that is exactly what I did.

Interestingly, while Card's description is what the vast majority of non-LDS Christian preachers believe. Several in their flocks, while thinking they understand the trinity, actually believe something more like LDS beliefs. And these members happily co-exist in their flocks with those that actually do understand and believe the trinity concept.

Kathy may very well have more opportunities with this type non-LDS Christian.

I am a father just like my father was to me. Yet, I still look up to him. Our God will still be our God even if we are like him. Anyway, there is a lot to learn before we ever get to that point. Of course, scientists are a little closer to that than most people, having already learned physics, chemistry and biology. Oh, and humility.
I liked the explanation. Written and clearly defined as only Bro. Card can do.

If you want to know what a "traditional" Christian belives, you would have to ask a thousand of them, and you would get a thousand different answers. Mr. Card is correect in stating Christian docterine as laid down by the Nicene Creed in the Fourth Century. This Crede has been the guiding docterine for the majority of Christian theologins since then, and is very similar to Plato,s philisophies.

The problem for Romney is that he himself is using religion as a litmus test, insisting that non-believers ("secularists") are not qualified to be president. Mitt openly condones Chrisitians using religion to judge candidates' suitability, but he bristles when they draw the line in a different place than he does. His position should be that it is character, not religion, that counts. Unfortunately, the Christian nuts responsible for the Republican nomination, don't accept that. Poor Mitt, indeed.

If Mormon theology is so clearly expressed in the Bible, why is there a "second testament" to explain everything?
Where are the supernatural spectacles, the golden tablets, and the archaeological evidence of the American tribes?
I understand Orthodox Christian theology, and have not taken any college courses on the subject.

I wish all could hear and comprehend this explanation. Saddly, it won't happen in this life at least until the return of the savior. Carry on, Carry on! Go Mitt - outstanding speech!

Kathy,

That is pretty good advice given that many (I hate to lump all people together) traditional Christians are pretty good at telling Mormons what they are (a cult) and are not (Christians) and what they believe and don't believe (i.e., correct vs. incorrect concept of Christ). Card got the nature and futility of the debate correct and THAT was the focus on his essay. As Christians (by either definition) and imperfect beings, mutual respect vs mutal agreement should be our goal .

That is a completely false example of what we believe as traditional Christians. The test of whether or not you are a Christian by our definition is if you believe that Christ died on the cross as a sacrifice to atone for your sins. Believe in that, and through faith alone you are saved. Nothing about doing anything, because we can't become worthy of returning to God's presence on our own. To think that we can is arrogant.

And the discussion of the Trinity is completely off base. We're taught that God is three persons in one, lines and geometry don't have anything to do with it. One God, three faces, three functions. There is only one God, and no more. Belief in more than one God excludes a belief system from traditional Christianity.

You are free to worship and believe as you wish. I won't ever try to convert you. But you can't tell me what my beliefs are, or are not. And I ask you not to misrepresent them. I'll give you the same courtesy.