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

[Janderich]

Mormon Doctrine says “It is the Spirit by means of which God is omnipresent” but then says the Holy Ghost “can be in only one place at one time” which is not omnipresent either.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. The Holy Ghost is a person like us but of a more refined substance, he can only be in one place at one time. The Father and the Son can likewise only be in one place at one time.

The Spirit Elder McConkie speaks of is not a person but a power that pervades the universe. When a being taps into this power he can communicate across the universe and can be present at all times and in all places. Thus the Godhead accesses this power and through it is omnipresent.

 

[Janderich]

*“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man… I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea… He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth.” - Joseph Smith [1835]

“He is our Father-the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being. How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through.” - Brigham Young [1870]

“But if God the Father was not always God, but came to his present exalted position by degrees of progress as indicated in the teachings of the prophet, how has there been a God from all eternity? The answer is that there has been and there now exists an endless line of Gods, stretching back into the eternities.” - B.H. Roberts [1920]

“God is an exalted Man… The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on.” - Joseph Fielding Smith [1970]*

There is no contradiction here. God has always existed just as you have always existed and will always exist.

Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. . . . Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.353-354)

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. D&C 93:29-30

We did not begin at conception, we will not end at death. Man had no beginning, just as God has none. Intelligence was not created and indeed cannot be. The core of who we are is eternal both forwards and backwards.

 

[Tarquin]

I do not understand how a being which has the ability to be imperfect, can be perfect. It seems to me a “perfect” being would lack the ability to choose imperfection.

Choosing imperfection is an imperfect act. Such an act could not be performed, nor even “chosen”, by a perfect being.

How can perfection will itself to become imperfect? Why would it want to? If it neither can, nor would even want to, that’s the same as saying it does not have the potential for imperfection.

 

[Tarquin]

No. God cannot sin. But I believe that eons and eons ago he had the potential to sin.

Again, we see that the Mormon concept of “perfection” and the Catholic concept are incongruous. For a Catholic, perfection includes even the possibility of imperfection. No matter what stage. If God once had the potential to be imperfect, by Catholic standards he is an imperfect God. He was not always perfect, not always God. A perfect God would be a God who always is. Always is God, always has been God, always will be God - less than that is imperfection even if at some impossible point in time that God were imperfect or sinned, or had the “potential to sin”. But then Mormons believe God is just (“just”) an extra special man who knows more than mortals on earth, a man-god, not the God.

 

[jane_doe]

Again, we see that the Mormon concept of “perfection” and the Catholic concept are incongruous. For a Catholic, perfection includes even the possibility of imperfection. No matter what stage. If God once had the potential to be imperfect, by Catholic standards he is an imperfect God. He was not always perfect, not always God. A perfect God would be a God who always is. Always is God, always has been God, always will be God - less than that is imperfection even if at some impossible point in time that God were imperfect or sinned, or had the “potential to sin”. But then Mormons believe God is just (“just”) an extra special man who knows more than mortals on earth, a man-god, not the God.

Would you like to understand the LDS view of God?

 

[Stephen168]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. The Holy Ghost is a person like us but of a more refined substance, he can only be in one place at one time. The Father and the Son can likewise only be in one place at one time.

Omnipresent means to be everywhere at the same time, so the Mormon god is not omnipresent.

 

[Stephen168]

No. God cannot sin. But I believe that eons and eons ago he had the potential to sin.

So God could sin when he wasn’t god but now that he has been promoted to god, he can’t sin.

 

[Janderich]

Again, we see that the Mormon concept of “perfection” and the Catholic concept are incongruous. For a Catholic, perfection includes even the possibility of imperfection. No matter what stage. If God once had the potential to be imperfect, by Catholic standards he is an imperfect God. He was not always perfect, not always God. A perfect God would be a God who always is. Always is God, always has been God, always will be God - less than that is imperfection even if at some impossible point in time that God were imperfect or sinned, or had the “potential to sin”. But then Mormons believe God is just (“just”) an extra special man who knows more than mortals on earth, a man-god, not the God.

Interesting. How do you interpret this scripture:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matt 5:48)

If Jesus asks us to be perfect isn’t there a contradiction between the Catholic concept of perfection since we as imperfect beings cannot be perfect?

 

[Janderich]

So God could sin when he wasn’t god but now that he has been promoted to god, he can’t sin.

He wasn’t promoted. He became God through growth. Just as Christ was perfected as Paul tells us, “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb 5:9).

 

[RebeccaJ]

Interesting. How do you interpret this scripture:If Jesus asks us to be perfect isn’t there a contradiction between the Catholic concept of perfection since we as imperfect beings cannot be perfect?

Jesus is God. Perfection/holiness/righteousness are divine attributes of God’s being. Thee are attributes. of who God is, not attributes that became. We act and seek holiness (perfection), in and through Christ, but this is not an attribute of our being.

As such, we require divine mediation. Jesus does not, as He is the divine mediator. The Father does not as He is who we are reconciled to. God is the source of all Holiness, Perfection and Righteousness.

Therefore, we are justified in and through Jesus Christ. Jesus calls us to act as God is, not in a mode of pretending to be gods, but in the knowledge that we are reconciled to the Father, and made adopted children of God, in and through Jesus Christ.

Act righteous because we have been made righteous. Be holy because Jesus is Holy. Walk in the light because this is where Jesus has raised us to. This is Christian discipleship.

Further, the Gospel of John teaches that “God is love”. If we are to be perfect as God is perfect, then we should love as God loves. Jesus is the Word of God, the logos, God’s REASON. We look to Christ, to understand how God loves, and how we should respond to God’s love, and therefore what it means to be perfect.

 

[Janderich]

Jesus is God. Perfection/holiness/righteousness are divine attributes of God’s being. Thee are attributes. of who God is, not attributes that became. We act and seek holiness (perfection), in and through Christ, but this is not an attribute of our being.

And yet Paul speaking of Christ says, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb 5:8). How is it that Jesus learned obedience if this was already an attribute of his being?

As such, we require divine mediation. Jesus does not, as He is the divine mediator. The Father does not as He is who we are reconciled to. God is the source of all Holiness, Perfection and Righteousness.

Therefore, we are justified in and through Jesus Christ. Jesus calls us to act as God is, not in a mode of pretending to be gods, but in the knowledge that we are reconciled to the Father, and made adopted children of God, in and through Jesus Christ.

Thanks Rebecca for the explanation. But if I were Catholic this would create confusion in my mind since I as a different being from God, cannot really be like them. I as an adopted creature am truly pretending (despite your apparent dislike of the word).

 

[LivingWaters7]

And yet Paul speaking of Christ says, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb 5:8). How is it that Jesus learned obedience if this was already an attribute of his being?

Catholics believe that Jesus was/is both fully God and fully man. He most certainly could learn obedience as a man, however as God, He did not, and does not, have anything to learn (unless you believe it is possible for God to be deficient in a quality?).

Thanks Rebecca for the explanation. But if I were Catholic this would create confusion in my mind since I as a different being from God, cannot really be like them. I as an adopted creature am truly pretending (despite your apparent dislike of the word).

Where in Rebecca’s explanation does it say or imply that we cannot really be like God? That’s certainly not what she said, and that’s certainly not the Catholic belief. Catholics do in fact believe that we can become like God, through God’s grace.

 

[Janderich]

Catholics believe that Jesus was/is both fully God and fully man. He most certainly could learn obedience as a man, however as God, He did not, and does not, have anything to learn (unless you believe it is possible for God to be deficient in a quality?).

Where in Rebecca’s explanation does it say or imply that we cannot really be like God? That’s certainly not what she said, and that’s certainly not the Catholic belief. Catholics do in fact believe that we can become like God, through God’s grace.

Hi LivingWaters, Do I need to point out the significant doublespeak here?

• God as God has nothing to learn, but God as man must become perfect, yet they are the same being.
• Man can become like God, but man is fundamentally different from God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And yet Paul speaking of Christ says, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb 5:8). How is it that Jesus learned obedience if this was already an attribute of his being?

Thanks Rebecca for the explanation. But if I were Catholic this would create confusion in my mind since I as a different being from God, cannot really be like them. I as an adopted creature am truly pretending (despite your apparent dislike of the word).

Jesus is fully human and fully divine.

We don’t make up our adoption, it is explained several times in the NT.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Hi LivingWaters, Do I need to point out the significant doublespeak here?

• God as God has nothing to learn, but God as man must become perfect, yet they are the same being.

Do you believe that God can be lacking or deficient in a quality? Does God have learning to do? Does God have to study?

When God became man, in his humanity, He of course had propensities requisite to being a man. Can God grow old? No. Can man? Yes. Apply that concept to what you are trying to understand.

• Man can become like God, but man is fundamentally different from God.

Man by nature is different from God. Man can become like God through God’s grace. That bridging between man and God was and is only made possible through Jesus Christ, God who became Man.

Sorry, no doublespeak here.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi LivingWaters, Do I need to point out the significant doublespeak here?

• God as God has nothing to learn, but God as man must become perfect, yet they are the same being.
• Man can become like God, but man is fundamentally different from God.

God lowered himself and became a slave. Jesus did not cease to be God at the Incarnation. All who lived and walked with Him knew Him as a man. A few saw His divine Glory revealed at the Transfiguration.

What did Jeua become a slave to? The NT explains several times that we are slaves to sin and have been set free. “For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.”

We believe what is found in scripture. Jesus is God, who became man. Fully human in every way including subject to temptation. He did this for us not for Himself. He did not become un
-divine. He is fully both.

We become like God. Being like something does not mean you are that something.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Jeua

That’s a typo.

 

[Tarquin]

Would you like to understand the LDS view of God?

Thanks, Love, but I suspect I’ve been following the LDS view of God for longer than you’ve been around. But if you have any questions and aren’t comfortable asking them on a public thread, feel free to private message me and I’ll do my best to answer them.

 

[Tarquin]

**Our perfection is attainable: fulfill our God-given purpose. God’s perfection is inherent. **

Interesting. How do you interpret this scripture:
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matt 5:48)
If Jesus asks us to be perfect isn’t there a contradiction between the Catholic concept of perfection since we as imperfect beings cannot be perfect?

Your 8th article of faith says you believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. Why translate!? The Greek here is τέλειοι. In God’s case, his perfection is the completeness and wholeness of his nature. He has always been perfect. In our case, perfection is the state of having become mature or having fulfilled our purpose. A perfect dog would be one that has been well-bred and well-trained. That would not be the same “perfect” that a human strives towards, and the perfection towards which a human strives is not the same perfection that is inherent in and inseparable from God.

**Our perfection is attainable: fulfill our God-given purpose. God’s perfection is inherent. **

The perfection of a milk bottle requires it to hold milk; the perfection of a rice bag requires it to hold rice. The perfection of the man who bottles the milk and fills the bag with rice lies in his ability to do both. “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?” ** ‘Diversity’ of perfections!**

God is the perfect Potter. He has actual perfection; we have potential perfection. “He is that He is.” But we are what we become. Because of free will, we choose how diligently to strive to fulfill our God-designed purpose. We may even chose what sort of vessel we will be! We have the opportunity to cooperate with God as co-creators of our own perfection. Thus as someone has said, in “creating man” (ourselves) we are seen to be in the image of God

**Our perfection is attainable: fulfill our God-given purpose. God’s perfection is inherent. **

 

[Janderich]

God lowered himself and became a slave. Jesus did not cease to be God at the Incarnation. All who lived and walked with Him knew Him as a man. A few saw His divine Glory revealed at the Transfiguration.

What did Jeua become a slave to? The NT explains several times that we are slaves to sin and have been set free. “For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.”

We believe what is found in scripture. Jesus is God, who became man. Fully human in every way including subject to temptation. He did this for us not for Himself. He did not become un
-divine. He is fully both.

We become like God. Being like something does not mean you are that something.

More doublespeak to explain doublespeak. God is fully divine yet became fully human…

Do you see that according to your logic if he is fully human he is not divine and that if he is divine he does not need to learn anything? It is amazing such teaching ever caught hold.