I was given a link today to a commentary by my favorite author, Orson Scott Card, posted on Deseret News . Oh yes, indeed he's my favorite author. I mean, my favorite book wasn't written by him, but he's the one whose books I most consistently enjoy. I realize what this means to my readers. Sideon may just disown me forever.
(You can bet that I will enjoy the kiss and make up session with him!)
So I'm pretty convinced that OSC is pulling his peter. Oops!! I meant, he's pulling a Peter. If you ever read the Ender's Game series, you'll know that the character Peter would submit essays and commentaries under a false name, to help sway the global flow of economics and politics. It was his little form of control, which escalated into a very powerful form of control. Peter ended up holding the most important position in North America, partly because of the way he was able to shift public opinion.
I doubt that OSC is using a false name. Although, the man does go by Scott in his regular life. Who would want to go by Orson??
Regardless, a man with his knowledge and history of research cannot possibly believe the words he uses in that article. I respect him, insofar as he uses logic. But the only speck of logic in the article is where he refutes a "Traditional Christian" point of view. Why does he not utilize the same logic in his own comments, such as (but not limited to) "After this life, all who have become perfect in their obedience to God and are forgiven their sins by the grace of Christ will spend eternity serving God in his great work of continuing creation. Only thus can the best of us humans obey Christ's commandment to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect."
To the Traditional Christian, he uses phrases like "that doesn't make any sense", "that's just crazy" and "your lines are imaginary". He uses LOGIC to refute the beliefs of the Traditional Christian.
Why can't he use LOGIC to refute the non-sensical, "crazy", and "imaginary" beliefs of the Latter-Day Saint Christian as well?
He must be faking it.
6 comments:
He's not pulling his peter.
He's not pulling a Peter.
He is a peter, and a short and thin one, at that. He's not even a grower. He's the little p.r.i.c.k. of Morgdom and I can't stand him, whether he goes by Tom, Dick, Harry or even Harry Dick.
You and I can further discuss this over sangria.
Interestingly, Card left out a strong counterpoint in the "who is really a Christian" argument - LDS theology expressly notes that only the LDS church has the full truth. In their own way, Mormons claim the same thing that mainstream Christianity claims: that everyone else is wrong.
Catholics feel that the protestant churches (among others) are missing out on the full truth, just as the LDS church believes the Catholic church (among others) is missing out on the full truth. In fact, some would point out a long-standing semi-official tradition of labeling the Catholic church as the abominable church of Revelation.
Also, his hypothetical discussion between a "traditional Christian" and a "Biblical Christian," which he means to be a believer of the LDS faith (and no one else, presumably?) contains the cyclic logic that most Mormon apologists employ. It stand to reason that if you're going to believe in an unprovable entity that created everything, his argument about parallel lines which are simultaneously unparallel doesn't hold much weight - parallel lines that don't follow the rules of their own existence is as implausible as an unprovable omnipotent entity. That is, his counterargument to the typical Catho-theological dogma of the Trinity is as inane as applying the laws of logic and physics to "Someone" who exists outside those same laws of logic and physics.
Lastly, if I follow the typical belief in LDS deityism, there should be a Grandfather and a Great Grandfather god, and so on and so forth. While I understand that Card is saying we can never match the position of our own father (because we can't be out own father, he already exists and begot us to begin with), therefore we can never be God in the same sense as our own God, he slides right past the LDS belief that we can become Gods of our own existence. Sure, we keep our God, but we get to be like our father in our own time. But doesn't that mean there would also be a God before God? Or that God has a nearly infinite number of brothers and sisters also running their own existences? Isn't that what becoming like our own father will get us? The world is populated almost entirely by distant relatives. We have grandfathers and grandmothers, and they had fathers and mother, too. If any of us, the LDS church especially, is going to hint that we can be like God in this way, we have to assume that the same sense of logic applies to Godhood that applies to us here in mortal existence.
Yet, there is no God before (higher in importance) our own God - even though, theoretically, we will expect our own spiritual children to worship only us as well, knowing there really is a God before their God.
It's one of the biggest inconsistencies in Mormon theology. We expect to apply mortal logic and relationships to something outside of the mortal existence, but not apply the reality of mortal existence to the infinite after/pre existence.
When you think about it, not giving any explanation to how things are, as most Christian religions do, makes more sense. You can just claim faith in your argument and win the overall debate. You don't actually have to follow the logic because it is entirely devoid of logic in itself.
I think I'm going to have to blog about this.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "Orson Card has pulled a boner." The boner, here, is mangling the shit out of platonic philosophy. Wow.
Okay, I'm off to read Eric's take.
By the way, I posted this article at the internet infidels (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=231114)to see if anyone there has an interesting take. Thanks, La.
Just for clarification, I'm not suggesting OSC is writing under a false name. I'm suggesting that he's writing things he cannot possibly believe to help sway public opinion. I can't see how he can use logic against a Tradition Christian way of thinking, but not against his own LDS Christian way of thinking. I don't believe he could really be so inconsistent.
K, nuff said.
I finally posted my thoughts on this subject.
I'll attempt to refrain from future OSC comments in the future.
Attempt.
I'll ATTEMPT.
To refrain.
Post a Comment