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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hatikvah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does this mean that God was a Messiah to His own people (as is implied)? Also, does that mean that our God’s god was also a Messiah, and so on?
As to the first question Joseph said:
The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. (King Follett Sermon)
Your second question is less well founded and it is not generally discussed. In fact many of these issues are left to the individual to ponder, but I for one accept it.
 
Okay, that sounds like a reasonable thing. But, Jane, if I may ask, does the whole doctrine of eternal progression and its implications get confusing or complex at times for you? I’m not challenging that in writing this, nor am I trying to be rude, but it’s my question to you. 😉
For life in general, I consider it wise to understand which things are 100% known and understood, which are somewhat understood, which are 100% speculation, and of course the full spectrum in between. It is best to have a sure foundation in the 100% known, and venture from there. There is then a point that a person can venture into building entire castles of “what if this and what if that does it mean this?” and waste their life obsessed on “what if’s”.

My approach is more pragmatic, accepting that I don’t understand everything, and why I do ponder, I don’t obsess over what is not known. Rather I trust that the information will come when I have the tools and ability to assimilate it.

The above applies for life in general, but certainly matters of faith as well, including this particular subject.
 
I am not God. Unfortunately. The issue isn’t about my children starting their own families and maintaining their relationship with me, but whether I abdicate my position as head of household in my own home, handing my role of paterfamilias over to another.

I have no problem with my children starting families, having lots of children, becoming wealthy or noble or holy or wise, in *their *position relative to *their *families (the families in which they are a parent). I do hope, however, they won’t take over my home and force me to look elsewhere.

The point I was making was not that there was something untoward in Jesus having or ruling a kingdom. In Catholic terms, this would be “have or rule a kingdom as a Person in the Trinity”. But in Mormon terms, this would be “displacing God”. I was responding to part of the Follette sermon that followed your quote of the same:What bothers me specifically is the phrase, “I will take his place”. This sounds wrong to me. If Jesus takes God’s place, Mormons believing them to be not just two Persons but two separate and independent Gods who are currently cooperating, and being embodied in some sort of spatially limited physical form, when Jesus “takes his (God’s) place”, God must must take *another *place. Or no place. Or create a new place. (But in Mormonism, Gods cannot create at all!) So it seemed to me, based on all that, that God loses something. He loses His position. He has less, not more, and not the same. Since nothing can be created, every time God withdraws from an area, or abdicates, giving his throne to another, there is a lessening of his realm, his authority, and his dignity.
There were various people taking notes during the King Follett sermon. They do not all have the same wording. Three different versions of the notes taken refer to Jesus treading in the tracks of his Father, not replacing him (see boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1844/7Apr44.html). For instance minutes in the Times and Seasons contain these words:
I [Jesus] saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father, so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory, so that Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before.
In these versions it does not say God is replaced, but rather that Jesus followed the course the Father took. Please also note that the Christ’s kingdom is presented to the Father. In this way the Father increases in glory.
 
But you refute yourself! So then you do agree with me that Jesus did not have power or life in himself, but was given life and power by God? Quoting Joseph Smith favorably, you had posted:But now you write, in harmony with what I had early written about Jesus not having life (Joseph Smith mistranslated the word as “power”) within himself but having been given life by God, “First, the person acts in accordance with the law God has set forth. Once after] he keeps that law then, afterwards] God gives that person the promised blessing.”
There is no contradiction, through his obedience prior to entering mortality Christ was given power by God. Thus Jesus said, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” (John 10:17-18).
 
Why not?
You had written: “God has learned the consequences of sin and will not sin.” Billions of people know “the consequences of sin” but sin anyway.

Knowledge is not a barrier to sin!

You believe God must be a different type of being from us in order to not sin, I do not. Man can transform himself and he must, the power is within him. So when I speak of knowledge it is not a surface understanding. It is a knowledge that penetrates to the very core and changes who we are. It is a knowledge not just contained in our mortal mind, but that reaches our very souls. Change is possible and it can be complete. John himself testifies, "But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. …No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:4-6,9 NIV). Do you believe these words or are we fatally flawed?
 
I am not God. Unfortunately. The issue isn’t about my children starting their own families and maintaining their relationship with me, but whether I abdicate my position as head of household in my own home, handing my role of paterfamilias over to another.

I have no problem with my children starting families, having lots of children, becoming wealthy or noble or holy or wise, in *their *position relative to *their *families (the families in which they are a parent). I do hope, however, they won’t take over my home and force me to look elsewhere.

The point I was making was not that there was something untoward in Jesus having or ruling a kingdom. In Catholic terms, this would be “have or rule a kingdom as a Person in the Trinity”. But in Mormon terms, this would be “displacing God”. I was responding to part of the Follette sermon that followed your quote of the same:What bothers me specifically is the phrase, “I will take his place”. This sounds wrong to me. If Jesus takes God’s place, Mormons believing them to be not just two Persons but two separate and independent Gods who are currently cooperating, and being embodied in some sort of spatially limited physical form, when Jesus “takes his (God’s) place”, God must must take *another *place. Or no place. Or create a new place. (But in Mormonism, Gods cannot create at all!) So it seemed to me, based on all that, that God loses something. He loses His position. He has less, not more, and not the same. Since nothing can be created, every time God withdraws from an area, or abdicates, giving his throne to another, there is a lessening of his realm, his authority, and his dignity.
Think of it more like a pyramid scheme.
 
At first I noticed many Mormons were unable to say directly whether or not Heavenly Father had sinned and then the answers became God had the potential to sin but didn’t. Would it be fair to say that if God did sin during his Mortal life that seriously comprises his authority?

What are then the implications for Mormons who have sinned in the next life? Frequently Mormons appeal to Jesus saying we should be perfect like our heavenly Father, except that we cannot be perfect because every single human except Jesus has sinned. Will Mormons only be servants then of God in the next life and unable to carry on the chain of perpetually generating worlds with their spouses?

Since Jesus was the only sinless one will he leave his Father’s domain and establish his own and create a new humanity?
 
There were various people taking notes during the King Follett sermon. They do not all have the same wording. Three different versions of the notes taken refer to Jesus treading in the tracks of his Father, not replacing him … For instance minutes in the Times and Seasons contain these words: In these versions it does not say God is replaced, but rather that Jesus followed the course the Father took. Please also note that the Christ’s kingdom is presented to the Father. In this way the Father increases in glory.
Yes, the history of Mormonism is confusing and the resulting doctrines are mutually contradictory.
 
There is no contradiction, through his obedience prior to entering mortality Christ was given power by God. Thus Jesus said, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” (John 10:17-18).
Then you should not have quoted Joseph Smith’s [reported] words that said Jesus had “power in himself,” even so “as the Father hath power in himself.” (Post #106)

I’m sorry, but it has been my sad experience, that Mormons always fall back onto “double-speak” arguments. They say one thing. If that does not hold up, they say “it’s just his opinion” or, as in this case, it was “reported differently” by different people. The reports are contradictory, but you accept them variously, depending on your audience. You don’t just settle on one report and stick with it. You go back and forth. This is so frustrating for people who have linear, coherent set of beliefs, when trying to settle where their beliefs match up with Mormons’ and where the beliefs are different. They are *both *matched up *and *different at the same time! This is so frustrating. Mormons need to write a catechism clearly describing their beliefs. I’ll bet that would eliminate a lot of the “cognitive dissonance,” too. The “Basic Doctrines” page on lds.org is not sufficient for this.
 
You believe God must be a different type of being from us
God is Unique, Transcendent (of Time, Space, Matter, and Energy), Singular, “Simple”, “Perfect”, and Absolute. We are partly unique but a largely similar plurality, bound by time and space, composed of and dependent on matter and energy, made of parts, incomplete (and always will be) and probably always approaching both personal perfection and unity with God (an eternal adventure) but never co-equal with God, and we are supremely conditioned, conditional, and relative.
in order to not sin, I do not. Man can transform himself and he must, the power is within him. So when I speak of knowledge it is not a surface understanding. It is a knowledge that penetrates to the very core and changes who we are. It is a knowledge not just contained in our mortal mind, but that reaches our very souls. Change is possible and it can be complete. John himself testifies, "But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. …No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:4-6,9 NIV). Do you believe these words or are we fatally flawed?
!!! Please introduce me - What man has transformed himself and become a “being” - presumably a man-being, a mortal-being, a human-being, not a dead guy - who is without sin.

I admire John’s ideal. It is worth striving for. That is the ideal man. Does the ideal man exist? It’s a worthy goal. Like being the world champion weight lifter. Theoretically, you certainly could become the world champion. You should earnestly strive to become the world champion. But you might not make it. *“There can be only one.” * Likewise, there is one world champion Sinless Man. (I realize the analogy is not “perfect”, but it is sufficient for my purpose.)

Sin is removed via Jesus Christ, not through impossibly idealistic self-perfection based on relativistic church dogma. We can get so far on our own. After that, we need someone to lift us to the next level. If we don’t need anyone to lift us up to the next level, then we don’t need Jesus. That’s his purpose. To “forgive” us our sins in such a way that God (allegedly) no longer considers them as having been committed. In God’s eyes we are “perfect” in the sense of being “sinless.” Whether we are perfect in having fulfilled our purpose, which may be more than or different from “perfection,” I would not say.
 
Oh, *you *girl! 👍 🙂
Sort of joking, sort of not. 😃

Since Mormon teaching is that the ministry of Jesus, including his death and resurrection, increases the glory of the Father, while also increasing the glory of Jesus. Which in turns, enables Mormons to gain glory, which increases the glory of the Father…well, glory increases for everyone on up the infinite regressed pyramid.

Since the Father has been increasing in glory longer, he has more of it. And in theory, the God of God the Father is increasing in glory exponentially, and for a longer period (eons), and therefore has more than God the Father.

Side note: it took me forever, to understand that to glorify God, means to worship him. Or, an example of Jesus’ after the resurrection had a glorified body. Mormon definition of glory, is kind of vague to me, but it has something to do with increasing in godly attributes. Their teaching is that their God increases in Godliness, Jesus too, and they themselves are working on increasing in glory. But those in the lower levels of the pyramid (themselves), can never equal or surpass the gods who are higher in the pyramid, to themselves.

(BTW, MLM in Utah is huge.)
 
At first I noticed many Mormons were unable to say directly whether or not Heavenly Father had sinned and then the answers became God had the potential to sin but didn’t. Would it be fair to say that if God did sin during his Mortal life that seriously comprises his authority?

What are then the implications for Mormons who have sinned in the next life? Frequently Mormons appeal to Jesus saying we should be perfect like our heavenly Father, except that we cannot be perfect because every single human except Jesus has sinned. Will Mormons only be servants then of God in the next life and unable to carry on the chain of perpetually generating worlds with their spouses?

Since Jesus was the only sinless one will he leave his Father’s domain and establish his own and create a new humanity?
Not too long ago, I visited a Mormon church. I attended an adult Sunday School class. This question came up. The teacher said that only Jesus was sinless, only Jesus had reached perfection, and therefore, “probably only Jesus will become a God.” Years ago, a teacher in the Church Education System told me essentially the same thing. He said that God had been the savior of his world, and became God. So it might be that the only mortals who became Gods at the level of having their own “spirit families” and worlds to place children on, are the saviors of these worlds. Billions and trillions of children per God, but only one makes it to the finish line.
 
Not too long ago, I visited a Mormon church. I attended an adult Sunday School class. This question came up. The teacher said that only Jesus was sinless, only Jesus had reached perfection, and therefore, “probably only Jesus will become a God.” Years ago, a teacher in the Church Education System told me essentially the same thing. He said that God had been the savior of his world, and became God. So it might be that the only mortals who became Gods at the level of having their own “spirit families” and worlds to place children on, are the saviors of these worlds. Billions and trillions of children per God, but only one makes it to the finish line.
Wow! Then they have never paid attention to what Joseph Smith taught, particularly in the last few years of his life.
 
I believe that D&C 130 talks about God’s humanity, in that He has a body of flesh and bones, and it probably hints at eternal progression.
 
I believe that D&C 130 talks about God’s humanity, in that He has a body of flesh and bones, and it probably hints at eternal progression.
Oh yeah! That answers the omnipresent questions that have been coming up. The Mormon God lives on a planet that is a giant crystal ball. A type of Palantir. A planet sized seeing stone.
 
I believe that D&C 130 talks about God’s humanity, in that He has a body of flesh and bones, and it probably hints at eternal progression.
Body of flesh and bones? Yes.
Humanity? Depends on what specifically you’re talking about (humanity’s a broad topic).
Probably hints at eternal progression? Not really.
 
What are then the implications for Mormons who have sinned in the next life?
A sin which is repented of and forgiven is wiped clean, as if it was never there at all.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Ps 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

D&C 58:42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.
 
Side note: it took me forever, to understand that to glorify God, means to worship him. Or, an example of Jesus’ after the resurrection had a glorified body. Mormon definition of glory, is kind of vague to me, but it has something to do with increasing in godly attributes. Their teaching is that their God increases in Godliness, Jesus too, and they themselves are working on increasing in glory. But those in the lower levels of the pyramid (themselves), can never equal or surpass the gods who are higher in the pyramid, to themselves.

(BTW, MLM in Utah is huge.)
Another bit of evidence that Mormons do not believe in God. God must be by definition “perfect” - that is to say, complete in his nature and being. And he must be supreme. What is not supreme is either human or angel, but not God. If there is no supreme God, then the universe has multiple “centers”. If the universe has multiple centers, there will eternally be conflict and chaos.

If God must become “more Godly”, that is the same as saying he is *not *God! God is only God when He is God. When he is less than what He can be, when He is struggling to become “more” God, then he is less than a finished, complete God, he is incomplete, undone, still trying to get there. 😦

What is “MLM”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top