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

[IgnatianPhilo]

Do Mormons not find the idea of the being they are worshipping, being potentially a sinner? If God sinned he sinned once and he became a sinner and still is one for having even committed one sin. I suppose when I read the bible and God describes his law, his justice and abhorrence for sin it gives the impression that he is above it all. There are just too many problems that come into the mixture if we say God is possibly a sinner. From here on out I am assuming the idea that God sinned is true.

Hebrews describes Jesus as being able to sympathise with us yet he was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). We have here a clear statement that Jesus never sinned and thus acted as the one true high priest and sacrifice for us. Is the Father a sinner while the Son is not? Mormons appeal to where Jesus says he does what his Father does to show that Heavenly Father was once like one of us, so did Jesus do as Heavenly Father did but without the sin? Can we dare ask the question that since Jesus didn’t sin (as Hebrews indicates) is he greater than Heavenly Father who possibly did sin?

The idea of the father sinning and the son not sinning seems to make nonsense out of much of the New Testament specifically with regards to Christ’s submission to the Father. Why should Christ submit to a possible sinner? Why should he listen to someone who gave into sin? He seems in every way superior to his own Father.

It seems like a loose loose situation for Mormons as the argument for this view that God was a sinner is based on God being able to relate to us, yet if you accept that God sinned and Jesus did not you run into a problem based on Popular verses Mormons appeal to for God’s manhood.

 

[Old_Ephriam]

Greetings all,

This is an interesting thread. I think we can say with confidence that God was not a sinner because the Book of Mormon tells us that the Father is perfect. 3 Nephi 12:48. It’s probably correct to say that the Father had the potential to sin, just as Christ did when he was tempted by the devil. There is no reason to suppose that he succumbed.

 

[gazelam]

Do Mormons not find the idea of the being they are worshipping, being potentially a sinner? If God sinned he sinned once and he became a sinner and still is one for having even committed one sin. I suppose when I read the bible and God describes his law, his justice and abhorrence for sin it gives the impression that he is above it all. There are just too many problems that come into the mixture if we say God is possibly a sinner. From here on out I am assuming the idea that God sinned is true.

Hebrews describes Jesus as being able to sympathise with us yet he was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). We have here a clear statement that Jesus never sinned and thus acted as the one true high priest and sacrifice for us. Is the Father a sinner while the Son is not? Mormons appeal to where Jesus says he does what his Father does to show that Heavenly Father was once like one of us, so did Jesus do as Heavenly Father did but without the sin? Can we dare ask the question that since Jesus didn’t sin (as Hebrews indicates) is he greater than Heavenly Father who possibly did sin?

The idea of the father sinning and the son not sinning seems to make nonsense out of much of the New Testament specifically with regards to Christ’s submission to the Father. Why should Christ submit to a possible sinner? Why should he listen to someone who gave into sin? He seems in every way superior to his own Father.

It seems like a loose loose situation for Mormons as the argument for this view that God was a sinner is based on God being able to relate to us, yet if you accept that God sinned and Jesus did not you run into a problem based on Popular verses Mormons appeal to for God’s manhood.

Where does this notion of “once a sinner always a sinner come from”? Genesis 6:9 states that Noah was perfect and he clearly had sinned prior to that point because all except Christ have sinned. The same goes for Job (Job 1:1). Romans 8:17 states that the righteous will be joint-heirs with Christ. In spite of all the righteous except Christ having sinned, the righteous will receive the same reward as Jesus. Generally the Christian notion of repentance is that the sin is washed away and the repentant sinner is as clean as if the sin had never been committed.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Before I thought you were asking if Mormons have something equivalent to the official CCC, to which the answer is no. But there is systematic theology, just no CCC. LDS epistemology differs somewhat Catholic, such as an open cannon, acknowledgment that there are things we do not know at this time, and stress on personally asking God for answers.

So, do you believe that God the Father was once a mortal man with a god of his own? Is that official or just an opinion among LDS? Because when I ask most Mormons what they believe about God they usually tell me that God was once a man who was somehow raised to godhood and that he eventually created the world and that we are his literal spirit children.

 

[Tarquin]

The only point I’ll add to this thread is John 5:19 which states:
Jesus answered and said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, a son cannot do anything on his own, but only what he sees his father doing; for what he does, his son will do also.
This verse clearly offers the possibility of God the Father fulfilling a role as Savior in an earlier time living a sinless life among mortal beings, preaching truth, performing miracles, and atoning for their sins.

That is not clear at all! There is nothing in the Bible anywhere saying that God used to be a finite mortal being who “atoned” for the sins of aliens on some other planet. Nowhere. Maybe it says that in the Book of Mormon?

Abraham and at times Moses is considered to be the father of the Jews:
*Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may rest on grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring–not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. *Romans 4:16. Moses had great faith and patiently endured, and thus received the promise. Jesus likewise exercised great faith, patiently endured, and received the promise. Is this a more likely explanation of what Jesus meant by saying he was doing what he “saw” the father do?

If God had “atoned” for sins committed on an alien planet, and thus had qualified to become a full-fledged God, and was a full-fledged God when Jesus was in his presence, as he says to the Jews, then Jesus could not have “seen” God preaching, performing miracles, suffering, and atoning for anything, as that would have been, presumably, millions of years before Jesus’ own birth.

If one were to argue that it was in a vision that Jesus saw God as a fallible mortal on an alien planet, preaching and atoning, then what are the specifics that he saw and that he did, that would make John 5:19 significant to those who heard Jesus, *and *to modern readers? How does that help us in our path to salvation, how does that make us better people?

 

[Tarquin]

God the Father is perfect, stated plainly in scripture.

Then how was God once a mortal man with a god of his own?

The Mormon concept of “perfection” is different from the normal theological concept of “perfection.” As has been explained to me by Mormons, “perfect” refers to what God *knows *and *can *do, that having free will to do good or evil he *chose *to do good, and that he makes no mistakes (although he might have made mistakes when he was in his “mortal probation”). “Perfect” for Mormons does not refer to God’s completeness, unity, necessity, truth, *inherent *goodness etc.

Shrug Don’t know, don’t care. It’s of no consequence.

Mormons have no problem worshiping a God committing sins!? How pagan that sounds. Do Mormons not believe that there is some being in the universe that has been perfect from the very Beginning? If not, do Mormons believe the “Priesthood” was perfect from the beginning? If Mormons believe that the Beginning is characterized by imperfection, what force provided the *potential *for perfection??

 

[zaffiroborant]

For their most highly held practices and beliefs, found in their temples, there is absolutely no publication, let alone systematic theology. It’s very much what each person believes and builds on their own, within an authoritative framework.

It strikes me as bleak, how very much alone LDS members are in what is the pinnacle of their religious life, forbidden to discuss it with members who have experienced the same thing, ever. Through out their lives they can not discuss this with other members even their own husbands, wives and children, they are all alone in this. Very sad.

 

[Janderich]

No official systematic theology? That’s very difficult, in my view. I just don’t understand how theology – or even apologetics – can be done by mere ostension.

But you can be an official Mormon, right – it’s not just an ad hoc community? Presumably that involves adhering to official doctrines and going through official rituals. But, as it seems, there is no official, systematic explanation of those doctrines and rituals.

So, how would you officially defend such a position other than saying: “Here is a list of our official doctrines; they have no official explanation. You are free to officially take them or leave them”? We may as well flip official coins to determine membership.

While I may not agree with what I know about your doctrines, I would like to think that Mormonism is a bit more intelligible than that. Perhaps you are meaning the term “official” in a different way than I am. The Catechism, for example, has official explanations of various doctrines, but simply being an official explanation does not thereby make that explanation a doctrine. On the other hand, the variation on the first cause argument given by the lay apologist Joe Q. Public is probably not official in that same sense, because it is not part of the larger intellectual tradition of the Church.

(But pressing that further launches into another conversation concerning the development of doctrine:

The Development of Doctrine, Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman)

In a way I feel sorry for Catholics. You have been told that man had no beginning before conception and so have been cut off from the past. You have been told that God is inescapably different from man, fundamentally cutting off God from man. But further, you have been told what you cannot believe in the form of creeds, doctrines, and catechisms, and so you are mentally boxed in. It is as if you have been told, “Hither thou shalt come and no further.”

 

[LivingWaters7]

In a way I feel sorry for Catholics. You have been told that man had no beginning before conception and so have been cut off from the past. You have been told that God is inescapably different from man, fundamentally cutting off God from man. But further, you have been told what you cannot believe in the form of creeds, doctrines, and catechisms, and so you are mentally boxed in. It is as if you have been told, “Hither thou shalt come and no further.”

This of course is a caricature of actual Catholic belief and certainly is not the implication of what we believe.

 

[Hatikvah]

Mormons have no problem worshiping a God committing sins!? How pagan that sounds. Do Mormons not believe that there is some being in the universe that has been perfect from the very Beginning? If not, do Mormons believe the “Priesthood” was perfect from the beginning? If Mormons believe that the Beginning is characterized by imperfection, what force provided the *potential *for perfection??

But there is no “beginning” in Mormonism that is how we think of it. They believe that matter and the universe is eternal. So they cannot have a beginning – sure, the world was created, but, following that line of logic, existence has always been sure (whether in this universe, or in a multiverse: that is a speculative topic).

So that would make God Himself finite because He had a beginning, and He would be subject to time and matter. There wouldn’t be an ulta-God as we see Him. Mormons see Him with omniscience and omnipotence, but we give Him more attributes.

 

[Horton]

In a way I feel sorry for Catholics. You have been told that man had no beginning before conception and so have been cut off from the past. You have been told that God is inescapably different from man, fundamentally cutting off God from man. But further, you have been told what you cannot believe in the form of creeds, doctrines, and catechisms, and so you are mentally boxed in. It is as if you have been told, “Hither thou shalt come and no further.”

Boxed in? This post here shows you either know very little of what Catholics or any Christians believe. We have not been told what to believe, we are told what the Catholic Church teaches and holds to be true and we are given the free will to either accept it or not. We are fortunate to have the creed, doctrines, and the catechism. We are fortunate to have many prolific writers of books, both past (more that 200 years ago) & present to learn more about our faith. We are fortunate to have excellent web sites where we can learn. But most of all we are encouraged to seek more information about our faith.

The LDS are boxed in because they are told what they can believe and what they must do & say. Seriously what Christian faith tradition demands young men to interrupt there collage education to go where ever their parents can afford to send them for two years. Yes I know you’ll say no one demands them to go, but it certainly is an expectation of all young men and if they don’t go there must be something wrong with them or their parents.

Yes all more all Christian traditions have missionaries but it is completely volunteer and not demanded. And most of them don’t go to proselytize but to do good works for a community from helping to build schools, bring food & water, help to build shelters, attend the sick and help communities that are disadvantaged or third world countries. They’re not told what to wear or have a quota to fill.

I feel sorry for the LDS for being conditioned into believing that JS was a prophet and the only way to heaven is through his heresy.

 

[jane_doe]

Mormons have no problem worshiping a God committing sins!?

God is not sinning, God is perfect.

 

[jane_doe]

So that would make God Himself finite because He had a beginning,

No, God has always existed.

 

[Marie5890]

No, God has always existed.

Goodness, but that is not what I was taught in Sunday School, or RS, when I was LDS. It’s not even what I taught when I was a teacher in those organizations.

That somewhere, at sometime in eternity, God had been the spirit child of his “Heavenly Father”…

It’s too bad that LDS theology is not easy to document as it changed.

 

[jane_doe]

Goodness, but that is not what I was taught in Sunday School, or RS, when I was LDS. It’s not even what I taught when I was a teacher in those organizations.

That somewhere, at sometime in eternity, God had been the spirit child of his “Heavenly Father”…

It’s too bad that LDS theology is not easy to document as it changed.

Marie, it’s scripture that God has always existed. Obviously I cannot attest to what you heard/thought in the where/when you were LDS, but it **IS **official LDS scripture that God has always existed.

 

[Marie5890]

Marie, it’s scripture that God has always existed. Obviously I cannot attest to what you heard/thought in the where/when you were LDS, but it **IS **official LDS scripture that God has always existed.

We used the teachings of one of the latter day prophets, which we were told superseded scripture. Snow? Young? I don’t remember. But it was in the manuals.

But I am aware that there is a generational gap now as to what was taught then, vs now.

(The following is from Scriptures: Words of Living Prophets
Author: ANDERSON, A. GARY)

The inspired utterances of the President of the Church become binding upon members of the Church whether formally accepted as part of the written canon or not. The living prophet’s inspired words supersede and become more important to Latter-day Saints than the written canon or previous prophetic statements (D&C 5:10). The salvation and exaltation of members of the Church depend upon their adherence to this divine inspiration through the living prophet, which comes as a voice of warning to the world (D&C 1:4-5).

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Scriptures

contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/EoM/id/4391/show/3825

Jane, things really have changed over the years when it comes to Mormonism, and to be honest, I don’t think you represent the typical TBM with typical beliefs.

 

[jane_doe]

We used the teachings of one of the latter day prophets, which we were told superseded scripture. Snow? Young? I don’t remember. But it was in the manuals.

Such actions are incorrect.

But I am aware that there is a generational gap now as to what was taught then, vs now.
.

I’m actually suspicious that you were a victim of old-school-Provo-centeric culture, a culture which had/has many faults: ego, thinking you know more than you actually know, and an abidance folk-ideas being among them. (Note: I’m using the generic “you” here, not referring to Marie specifically). I wonder what would have happened if you been raised LDS elsewhere-- not a wish to change the past at all, but just as a hypothetical what-if-situation.

 

[Marie5890]

Such actions are incorrect.

I’m actually suspicious that you were a victim of old-school-Provo-centeric culture, a culture which had/has many faults: ego, thinking you know more than you actually know, and an abidance folk-ideas being among them. (Note: I’m using the generic “you” here, not referring to Marie specifically). I wonder what would have happened if you been raised LDS elsewhere-- not a wish to change the past at all, but just as a hypothetical what-if-situation.

The links I provided show that, yes, it was a long held that the living prophets words supersede scripture. So to say that such actions are incorrect is not to have knowledge of what has been taught. Again, the generation gap is clear.

AFA the “old school Provo centric culture”, mmmm, considering that most of the Q12 were BYU grads, two present day being the actual presidents of the university (Oaks and Holland), it can’t so easily tossed under the bus to be honest. It was, at least at the time, the formation ground of LDS leadership back them, and that was seen as one of it’s goals.

As much as present day Latter Day Saints would like to change or spin the past, both it’s history and it’s teachings, they can’t.

It was what it was.

 

[jane_doe]

The links I provided show that, yes, it was a long held that the living prophets words supersede scripture. So to say that such actions are incorrect is not to have knowledge of what has been taught. Again, the generation gap is clear.

AFA the “old school Provo centric culture”, mmmm, considering that most of the Q12 were BYU grads, two present day being the actual presidents of the university (Oaks and Holland), it can’t so easily tossed under the bus to be honest. It was, at least at the time, the formation ground of LDS leadership back them, and that was seen as one of it’s goals.

No one said anything about tossing anyone under the bus.

Rather, it is simply wise to be aware of one’s imperfections, on a personal and cultural level.

 

[Marie5890]

No one said anything about tossing anyone under the bus.

Rather, it is simply wise to be aware of one’s imperfections, on a personal and cultural level.

And to be aware, and be intellectually honest, as to what was indeed taught, and accepted.

Jane as much as you may like to have it different, the reality was, that was what was taught. It was never discouraged, infact it was encouraged.

The teachings were, that the living prophets teachings superseded scripture. That was taught in the firesides I attended and the bi-weekly devotionals in the Marriot Center. These firesides and devotionals at BYU were done by the 12, the 1st Presidency, and the 70. These were teachings from those pulpits.

Im not sure if they still hold those firesides and devotional, but they were held is very high esteem and we were always reminded of how blessed we, those of us in the BYU community, to have such constant access to the living prophets, seers, and revelators so often.

Again, to say that it was incorrect is wrong.