Mormons: Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?

[LivingWaters7]

So let me boil this down, you cannot find any scriptural evidence to support your assertion that, “There is a qualitative difference between a pure thing and a purified thing.”

Well I think the point boiled down is that there is no scriptural evidence for the need for scriptural evidence for everything.

 

[Janderich]

I have done as you have asked. I have considered and found it lacking. Please explain how that scripture is “relevant” to the question of God sinning or having the potential to sin? He is not saying, “Dear Me, now I am a child of Myself, and what I will be has not yet been made known. But I know that when Christ appears, I shall be like him, for I shall see him as he is. I who have this hope in him purify myself just as he is pure.” 1 John is written to human people who lived no earlier than two thousand years ago. It was not written to God two million or more years in the past. The question is, what did God have?

In other words, our Scriptures do not apply to God’s alleged pre-divinity.

Sure I can explain how the scripture I provided is relevant. Your claim, and I believe the catholic claim, is that there is a difference between God’s purity and man’s purity. That God is pure because of who he is, whereas man can only derive his purity from God which purity is of a different sort. And yet despite this assertion you cannot find any scripture supporting the claim.

Further, the scripture I provided points to quite the opposite of the Catholic claim when it says, “All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.” How can we be pure “just as he is pure” if we are of a different sort? This comparison by John would be completely invalid.

This is another piece of scriptural evidence, showing that if God sinned he could have purified himself completely and thus if we sin we can also do the same.

 

[Janderich]

As a Mormon female, I’d look around at all the Mormon men I knew, including family, who were walking around believing themselves to be gods. Some really do think that of themselves in a fashion, now. Then there are the boys who are being trained to be gods.

I found it entirely pretentious and wanted nothing to do with a God who was once like any man I know. Seriously, I like guys, but I don’t believe any of you are a God.

To imagine and then actually teach, this view of GOD, the actual God not all the Mormons who think they are gods, makes for a false God.

What? Do you really think that I believe I’m a God? This is such a misrepresentation Rebecca. I know that I am nothing. Our scriptures proclaim this truth over and over again.

 

[Janderich]

Well I think the point boiled down is that there is no scriptural evidence for the need for scriptural evidence for everything.

Yet I just provided a scripture that tells us that we can purify ourselves just as God is pure, but Tarquin can find nothing to the contrary.

You and I may not have scriptural evidence for every point but I expect that such a statement as he made in bold can be supported instead of contradicted by the scriptures.

 

[Tarquin]

Tarquin, do you believe God is 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect?

And you still didn’t answer it.

You noticed!

Tarquin: "However, I do not understand -* in the context of Mormon beliefs*** about the purity of God on his planet before he became truly God - why you are even asking me that. Please explain and I may offer one."

Because establishing the basic truth that God is blameless, without blemish, pure, and perfect is essential to the explanation of LDS beliefs posed by the OP. This was not meant to be a difficult subject to agree upon, and I surprised by the amount of resistance I am meeting from you on it.

Well, then, in that case, it makes no sense for you to ask those questions, since my answers are Catholic, not Mormon, and thus would neither “establish a[n alleged, Mormon] basic truth”, nor “explain LDS beliefs”. Really, you need to find your own way of explaining your beliefs, without relying on my answers. If you cannot explain your church’s “basic truths” in your own words, there are others who can. Invite them to answer.

My answers to the questions would not “establish the basic truth” about how Mormons view God’s qualities. To “establish the basic truth” about God, which you believe in, you should rely largely on the Bible and plain reasoning.

I am trying to be objective, really I am. I can tell you the *Catholic *beliefs about God’s purity, and I can tell you *Mormon *beliefs regarding God’s “eternal progression.” But it is nonsense to think that my personal subjective beliefs regarding Deity contribute to the Mormon answer to the opening post. I’m not “resisting.” I am just refusing to answer an irrelevant question.

Tarquin: “blameless”, “without blemish”, “pure”, “perfect”. Jane_doe, we do not even agree on what it means for God to be perfect!"

If you desire to discuss any of those definitions, we can for sure do that.

If you will take the trouble to review recent posts, you will find that at least a couple of posters did do that very thing. The hang-up seems to be that Mormons who have posted here believe perfection includes imperfection and is *conditioned *by experience, whereas Catholics believe God’s perfection is inherent, absolute, and eternal. Likewise, as has been said, Mormons believe God *became *pure and thus went through stages of varying *relative *purity, whereas Catholics believe God is and eternally has been inherently and absolutely pure. As for “blemish” and “blameless”, I want to make sure I don’t misunderstand you, so whoever the “we” is in your offer should consider clarifying them.

I’m just asking if you believe that God is blameless, without blemish, pure, and perfect. It’s a super simple question, almost rhetoric. Just state your answer and we can move on.

I believe what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the necessary and absolute qualities of God. Let’s keep the discussion an objective one about Catholic beliefs and Mormon beliefs, as generally or widely or officially held by those two bodies of believers.

 

[jane_doe]

You noticed!
Well, then, in that case, it makes no sense for you to ask those questions, since my answers are Catholic, not Mormon, and thus would neither “establish a[n alleged, Mormon] basic truth”, nor “explain LDS beliefs”. Really, you need to find your own way of explaining your beliefs, without relying on my answers. If you cannot explain your church’s “basic truths” in your own words, there are others who can. Invite them to answer.

My answers to the questions would not “establish the basic truth” about how Mormons view God’s qualities. To “establish the basic truth” about God, which you believe in, you should rely largely on the Bible and plain reasoning.

I am trying to be objective, really I am. I can tell you the *Catholic *beliefs about God’s purity, and I can tell you *Mormon *beliefs regarding God’s “eternal progression.” But it is nonsense to think that my personal subjective beliefs regarding Deity contribute to the Mormon answer to the opening post. I’m not “resisting.” I am just refusing to answer an irrelevant question.

If you will take the trouble to review recent posts, you will find that at least a couple of posters did do that very thing. The hang-up seems to be that Mormons who have posted here believe perfection includes imperfection and is *conditioned *by experience, whereas Catholics believe God’s perfection is inherent, absolute, and eternal. Likewise, as has been said, Mormons believe God *became *pure and thus went through stages of varying *relative *purity, whereas Catholics believe God is and eternally has been inherently and absolutely pure. As for “blemish” and “blameless”, I want to make sure I don’t misunderstand you, so whoever the “we” is in your offer should consider clarifying them.I believe what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the necessary and absolute qualities of God. Let’s keep the discussion an objective one about Catholic beliefs and Mormon beliefs, as generally or widely or officially held by those two bodies of believers.

Tarquin, if you are unwilling to answer a super simple question, then this conversation is a waste of my time.

 

[Tarquin]

*Tarquin: “Something I have a big problem with is the Mormon claim that God is only accidentally perfect rather than absolutely perfect.”
*
Well, Mormons don’t believe God is accidentally perfect, so you can quit having a problem with it.

Tarquin: “In other words, according to Mormons, He is perfect because of changes He experienced over eons of time, rather than He is perfect because perfection is inherent, and has eternally been inherent, in His very Nature.”

This is a very different statement the first one I quoted.

I apologize. I made an incorrect assumption. I was using “accident” in the theological sense. I did not make that clear enough. My two statements you quote are essentially the same. Catholics believe God is God, of necessity, which is to say God’s existence and inherent perfection is dependent on nothing - it is Who He Is. Mormons believe God became God. The first is a “necessity.” The second is . … conditional or “accidental,” since its realization depends on something else. If this is a “misunderstanding,” it is a misunderstanding shared with every Mormon I have ever spoken with above the age of 12

Tarquin: “As I said, in the context of Mormon beliefs about the purity of God on his planet before he became truly God.”

Again, you are very much misunderstanding LDS beliefs.

How odd. Every Mormon so far that I have read (until most recent revisions) have said that God the Father had a Father who went through his “mortal probation” as all men must do. Not only that, but most have been insistent that God was either “pure” while on his former world, or became pure thereafter. Your beliefs are different, it seems, in which case are you presenting personal beliefs or genuine, widely-held Mormon beliefs? If Mormon beliefs, I hope you will provide quotes now and then from authoritative Mormon sources.

Tarquin:* “- why are you even asking me that! I do not see that my beliefs would help explain anything about your belief that God was a mortal on another planet, a belief I reject. If you cannot explain this, do not expect a direct answer.”*

Dude (or Duddette) I’m not asking you anything about a guy from another planet, or asking you to accept anything about LDS beliefs.

(1) you are asking about “a guy from another planet” if you are asking about the Mormon concept of God, which includes the notion that he was on another planet. (2) I consider both “dude” and “duddette” - especially “duddette”! - to be vulgar and somewhat insulting caconyms.

 

[Tarquin]

So let me boil this down, you cannot find any scriptural evidence to support your assertion that, “There is a qualitative difference between a pure thing and a purified thing.”

Let’s boil it down even further. Why are you asking for “scriptural evidence”?

Well I think the point boiled down is that there is no scriptural evidence for the need for scriptural evidence for everything.

Well put, and correct. Thank you, LivingWaters7.

 

[Tarquin]

Tarquin, if you are unwilling to answer a super simple question, then this conversation is a waste of my time.

:yawn:

 

[RebeccaJ]

What? Do you really think that I believe I’m a God? This is such a misrepresentation Rebecca. I know that I am nothing. Our scriptures proclaim this truth over and over again.

I said some Mormon men. If you feel you need to clarify you are not one of those men, fine, but humility doesn’t really come through in your posts.

It doesn’t matter, you’re still walking around thinking you’re a god in the making, thinking that you are working on perfecting yourself. I find this pretentious. I find a God with a background, let alone a background of once being a pretentious, sinful man on another planet, the most unbelievable thing that ever came out of Mormonism. If I had to make a list of the unbelievable things that Mormons believe, this is #1.

It isn’t hard to see how it took hold in the hearts of Mormon men, as it appeals to the avarice of humans.

 

[Janderich]

I said some Mormon men. If you feel you need to clarify you are not one of those men, fine, but humility doesn’t really come through in your posts.

It doesn’t matter, you’re still walking around thinking you’re a god in the making, thinking that you are working on perfecting yourself. I find this pretentious. I find a God with a background, let alone a background of once being a pretentious, sinful man on another planet, the most unbelievable thing that ever came out of Mormonism. If I had to make a list of the unbelievable things that Mormons believe, this is #1.

It isn’t hard to see how it took hold in the hearts of Mormon men, as it appeals to the avarice of humans.

Actually, I not only think I am a god in the making, but I think all people are working towards this end, you included. C.S Lewis nailed this point on one occasion:

It is a serious thing, to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship… There are no ‘ordinary’ people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whome we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit – immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. (C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory”

 

[Horton]

Tarquin, if you are unwilling to answer a super simple question, then this conversation is a waste of my time.

And yet you continue to waste our time by not answering the OP question, which is “super simple”.

 

[jane_doe]

And yet you continue to waste our time by not answering the OP question, which is “super simple”.

I have answered it many times, starting with post number 2

 

[Horton]

Actually, I not only think I am a god in the making, but I think all people are working towards this end, you included. C.S Lewis nailed this point on one occasion:

I can guarantee that most on this site do NOT believe we will become a god. And since some of us are female that would rule us out anyway right? According to LDS beliefs.

“It is a serious thing,” says Lewis, “to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ‘ordinary’ people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whome we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit – immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously – no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner – no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment.”

–C. S. Lewis, From The Weight of Glory.

The whole C. S. Lewis quote giving it a little bit of context rather than just snippets to fit a theory. Lewis is talking about growing in holiness, seeing the face of Jesus in everyone we meet, of being the hands and feet of Christ in our daily lives. He is saying we are obligated to help others to holiness.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, I not only think I am a god in the making, but I think all people are working towards this end, you included. C.S Lewis nailed this point on one occasion:

C.S. Lewis is speaking of the Christian principle of seeing Jesus in all people. Treating all people as we would treat our divine God and as God has shown how he treats us, with unconditional love. We discuss this often as Christians. True charity looks at the “other” as Jesus looks at us.

You are taking Lewis way too literally.

Please don’t include me in your blasphemy.

 

[Horton]

I have answered it many times, starting with post number 2

So it’s “don’t know, don’t care”. You keep trying to derail this thread. If you feel we need a refresher on sin & redemption, start another thread.

 

[jane_doe]

So it’s “don’t know, don’t care”. You keep trying to derail this thread. If you feel we need a refresher on sin & redemption, start another thread.

That’s the short answer, as I’ve said repeatedly.

The long answer does involve a discussion on sin & redemption (as I’ve also said repeatedly), but if you think that’s thread-jacking, we don’t need to have to talk about the long answer.

 

[LivingWaters7]

That’s the short answer, as I’ve said repeatedly.

The long answer does involve a discussion on sin & redemption (as I’ve also said repeatedly), but if you think that’s thread-jacking, we don’t need to have to talk about the long answer.

Why don’t you just share your long answer and then those interested can discuss it?

 

[jane_doe]

Why don’t you just share your long answer and then those interested can discuss it?

I’ve been trying, and have! But people keep telling me that talking about sin and God is thread-jacking (despite the title of the thread), and won’t even agree with me that God is perfect.

I… frankly I don’t have infinite patience and feel that this is very unproductive.

 

[twf]

C.S. Lewis is speaking of the Christian principle of seeing Jesus in all people. Treating all people as we would treat our divine God and as God has shown how he treats us, with unconditional love. We discuss this often as Christians. True charity looks at the “other” as Jesus looks at us.

You are taking Lewis way too literally.

Please don’t include me in your blasphemy.

That being said, for us Catholics it goes beyond that. Central to our incarnational theology is the doctrine of sanctification or deification (what our Eastern brethren call theosis). See #460 in the Catechism. Our tradition does indeed use the language of men “becoming gods” - it’s right there in the Catechism… So it is not helpful to deny this in dialogue with Mormons. What we need to point out is that we understand this very differently. For Mormons, God and men are the same “species” if you will. We are literally the spirit children of God and we can become true gods in our own right. For Catholic and Orthodox Christians we never truly become God, but rather participate in divinity. It’s rooted in the incarnation. The Son of God became man, uniting His divine nature to our human nature, so that we too can share in His divine nature. Our Lady is said to be omnipotent by grace. Popes have used this language. She is greater than any so called goddess. Yet she remains a finite creature, a woman… But she participates so perfectly in the divine nature that Her glory outshines any goddess of any religion.