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

[Janderich]

Are we always to forgive? Does God always forgive? (Matthew 12:31-32; Luke 12:10, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit “will not be forgiven”)
He said to the judges, "Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord who is with you when you render judgment. Now then let the fear of the Lord be upon you, be very careful what you do, for the Lord our God will have no part in unrighteousness, or partiality or the taking of a bribe.” 2 Chronicles 19:6-7
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” John 7:24We must judge. We are called to judge. And we can neither protect our families nor our societies if we do not judge. Some people really are guilty. Surely God was talking about harsh, or selfishly motivated, or unrighteous judging only, not all instances of - estimating the value of a person’s actions and attempting to determine their motives.

Yes, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost will not be forgiven but this is because those who are in such a state will not repent. Sons of Perdition have sunk so low that they will not accept the atonement or the gospel plan, despite the fact that they know it in full. They will hang on to their hatred, hurt, and fear, “For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.” (D&C 88:33). Rejecting the offer the Son has provided will leave them in this unforgiven state.

I have no problem with what you have said about earthly judgement and protecting ourselves and our families. My point is about the future when we stand before the Lord. If Christ’s atonement can free both the offender and the offended as I have stated, then in that day when we stand before him, it will be the resentment and anger in our own hearts that will cause us to remain in a state of misery. It does not matter to us if they are guilty or not, all such judgement has been given to the Son and I’m grateful it has.

So, then, you answer in the affirmative? It is possible that God sinned?

Yes, speaking for myself I not only think it is possible, but likely that he did so in ages long past. I have seen nothing in this thread to convince me otherwise.

 

[jane_doe]

Due to a couple of typographical errors, only one serious, I am reposting this with correction.In response to the question,* “Mormons: Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?”*, you offered several passages from things that were written on this world, after God had left “His world”. If you want to apply them only to this world, okay. In that case you may be wasting your time. I don’t think anyone hear doubts the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice or the grace of forgiveness by the Father. I suppose that would belong in a thread discussing repentance and forgiveness – of our sins. In contrast, this thread is about repentance and forgiveness of God for His sins. The title of the thread is not "Mormons: Do you believe that you sinned, or had the potential to?", but "Mormons: Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?" What is your answer? You answer by saying sinners can be forgiven. That is tantamount to answering in the affirmative.As many times as you wish.
Please remember the topic: * “Mormons: Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?”*I see no sign that your confusing “our sins” with “God’s sins” has been resolved.I do understand. You are saying that a person such as God the Father, if He (God the Father) has repented of His sins (sins committed by God the Father), stands at the final day before God (God the Father stands before Himself, God the Father), and is a co-heir with Christ - although I think Christians normally believe Christ is the heir, by virtue of his relation with the Father, rather than that God the Father is a co-heir through Christ. That’s an interestingly novel take on soteriology that I have not thought about before.As this thread is not about our sins on this earth 2016 years after the life of Jesus Christ, but about “Mormons: Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?”, millions of years before Jesus was even born; then your answer means that God, repenting, “stands at the final day before God … a co-heir with (or through) Christ”.

I’ve never read a clear distinction made by a Mormon between “basic” and “advance”. If you feel this topic - “Mormons: Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?” - is too advanced, I am sorry. I do read quite a bit on theology and comparative religion on many levels, so I don’t have a problem with it. Besides, I believe the distinction you seem to be trying to make between basic issues of sin and advanced issues of sin is not valid.

Talking about sins, repentance, and perfection are essential prerequisites topics before talking about “Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?”.

Now, would you agree that God is 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect?

 

[Horton]

Talking about sins, repentance, and perfection are essential prerequisites topics before talking about “Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?”.

Now, would you agree that God is 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect?

Why is it so difficult to answer the OP question? It’s a simple question and does not require advanced knowledge.

We Christians believe all of the above about God. He always has been and always will be our God. Without beginning and without end. But that is not what LDS believe about God. So once again, do YOU believe heavenly father was sinless before becoming you god? If you are unwilling or unable to answer the question then just say so.

As I’ve said up thread, Catholics are very well versed on the concept of sin and repentance. We do not need any prerequisites before discussing this topic.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Talking about sins, repentance, and perfection are essential prerequisites topics before talking about “Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?”.

Now, would you agree that God is 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect?

The Christian would say those things of God and you might also but there is an important distinction in that Mormons need to add the qualifier that God has been forgiven. Tarquin pointed out that by suggesting this line of argument you are actually admitting that heavenly Father has sinned at one point of his life yet is not recognised by his God or the cosmos for reasons known only to heavenly Father.

Does forgiveness mean licence to dismiss the reality of the past and who we once were? Do we, once forgiven move on from our dependence from heavenly Father(s) in Mormonism? Don’t Mormons believe they will be with God forever? If when you receive forgiveness for your sins and the past is abolished as you claim. Then apply this to yourself, will you not need to recognise your salvation from your heavenly father who through the rules of existence has saved you?

To recognise one’s salvation is to recognise what one was saved from. Are Mormons saying that we will cease to recognise our salvation once we are perfect because it will be wiped out of the record as it were?

 

[zaffiroborant]

In our limited state here on earth, such a response is only normal. I do not label such people as stupid or mistrusting. But after the resurrection all sorrow, fear, anger, hatred, can be wiped away. Do you believe the atonement can completely heal a victim of abuse? Do you believe it can take what was broken and make it whole again? If you do not then I say that you believe in a partial God. A God who allows our unequal experiences here to harm us for all eternity.

I don’t believe a being that causes damage by personal action never was and never could ever become God.

 

[Tarquin]

Talking about sins, repentance, and perfection are essential prerequisites topics before talking about “Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?”.

Talking about sins per se, repentance per se, and perfection per se, perhaps. (What is sin? What is repentance? What is perfection? These have, however, been discussed a bit, but if you want to discuss more, I do not object.) But it was not the *the qualities of the concepts per se *- sin, repentance, and perfection - but the their general presence that was being thrown out. In fact, I did suggest how sins on God’s world might have been of a *different *quality or nature than sins on our world, but did not get much of a reply.

It makes sense to talk about what happened first, which is the sins God committed, and which subject is being evaded by some people. If you wish to talk about “sins, repentance, and perfection” independently of people committing them, of course would be alright, in the context of this thread. I am very interested in seeing how a Mormon attempts to determine what God’s God decided were sins on that earlier world for which we have no archaeological or historical evidence.

Now, would you agree that God is 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect?

Isn’t that close to begging the question? The thread is about that: “Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?” Could He sin? Did He sin? If He sinned, is He “without blemish”? Jane_does says yes. If He sinned, is he “blameless”? And a big question IgnatianPhilo asked - Is He pure? - insightfully distinguishing between someone who has always been pure and someone who had to first be made purified before he was pure.

**There is a qualitative difference between a *pure *thing and a purified thing.

 

[jane_doe]

Jane asked: Now, would you agree that God is 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect?

Tarquin replied:

Isn’t that close to begging the question? The thread is about that: “Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?” Could He sin? Did He sin? If He sinned, is He “without blemish”? Jane_does says yes. If He sinned, is he “blameless”? And a big question IgnatianPhilo asked - Is He pure? - insightfully distinguishing between someone who has always been pure and someone who had to first be made purified before he was pure.

**There is a qualitative difference between a *pure ***thing and a *purified *thing.

You reply did not address the question. I shall ask the question again:
Tarquin, do you believe God is 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect?

 

[Janderich]

**There is a qualitative difference between a *pure ***thing and a *purified *thing.

I would love to hear about this distinction as given in the scriptures. Where does it tell us of this important difference?

Please consider this very relevant scripture: “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.” (1 John 3:2-3) How can we purify ourselves “as he is pure” if there are differences in his purity and our purity? Has John given us an impossible task?

 

[Tarquin]

You reply did not address the question. I shall ask the question again:
Tarquin, do you believe God is 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect?

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

I do care about that, and it is of infinite consequence to me. But you are correct, I did not answer the question. That’s very astute of you to notice. And I am flattered that you should be so obsessed over my personal religious beliefs, that you would repeat the same question over and over.

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. Otherwise, this question seems very much like a straw man, a distraction. Is it a distraction? Or can you tell me how my personal belief relates to you answering the question, “Mormons: Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?”

“blameless”, “without blemish”, “pure”, “perfect”. Jane_doe, we do not even agree on what it means for God to be perfect! **Catholics in this thread have tried mightily to explain what the Catholic understanding of “perfection” is. The definitions of “perfection” given by Mormons on this thread deny an inherent perfection, preferring a conditional perfection - i.e., God is perfect only if he has followed certain rules on another planet.

Something to consider when you ask me if I believe God is “100% perfect” is whether you are using the Catholic understanding of “perfect” or the Mormon understanding. The other words pose a similar problem. **Something I have a big problem with is the Mormon claim that God is only *accidentally ***perfect rather than *absolutely *perfect. 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.

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

If you want to start a thread specifically about Catholic beliefs regarding God’s perfection and how long He has been “God,” you would undoubtedly enjoy the benefit of additional participants and thus possibly information that will better satisfy your curiosity about Catholic beliefs.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Something to consider when you ask me if I believe God is “100% perfect” is whether you are using the Catholic understanding of “perfect” or the Mormon understanding. The other words pose a similar problem. **Something I have a big problem with is the Mormon claim that God is only *accidentally ***perfect rather than *absolutely *perfect. 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 important distinction. You actually see this very idea taught in various LDS church documents (manuals, magazines, etc). The idea is that God progressed to/achieved Godhood, and that we follow that path (I believe one of the manuals made an analogy to climbing a ladder).

For Catholics and other orthodox Christians, we do not believe that God achieved Godhood, but that He has always been fully Divine, i.e. He has always been God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t believe a being that causes damage by personal action never was and never could ever become God.

This.

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.

 

[RebeccaJ]

(I will continue addressing the topic of the thread: “Mormons: Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?”)

I urge you to talk to your Bishop, Stake President, or whoever else you can get to explain these issues to you. We have been talking about God’s life before he became a God who bore “spirit children”. I surely cannot imagine any knowledgeable authority in the Church telling you that the Scriptures we have on this world about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, are retroactively applied to previous worlds that existed before God became God. Please try to understand that the topic of this thread is not “Us” as in “Did we sin or have the potential to sin”, but “Mormons: Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?” You cannot seriously believe the words of Isaiah, given thousands of years after God “organized” this world, were available to people millions of years before Isaiah was born on this earth, and millions of years before Isaiah was even born as a “spirit”!

Depends on which ecclesiastical leader you ask. Some Mormons believe the fall was universal and affected the entire universe, and that the whole universe is redeemed in Jesus Christ. This goes along with the view that their God is the God of this universe. Which implies that whatever imaginary world their God the Father lived, was in a corresponding imaginary universe to which the God the Father of that universe is not the same God the Father of this universe. Additionally there are those who guess that the God the Father of this universe was the savior of the universe in which he was a man, therefore sinless and those who believe he was just some guy who did sin.

Are you with this train of thought. Ok, then, Mormons believe scripture describes eternal principles that are therefore applied to all creations (or formations). So our scriptures are applied to all universes, worlds, stars, humans, non-humans, going forward and back.

I believe this is what Jane is getting at. Our scriptural concepts apply to all ages and all worlds and all universes, and all men who have sinned and become a God, including their God.

Whether or not their God sinned is, don’t know don’t care, because (obviously)
through universal principles of sin and forgiveness their God was made perfect by a savior of eons ago in a distant universe, in a far distant past.

 

[Horton]

This.

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.

I was never an LDS female so I don’t know this from the inside but I did live in a predominate LDS community for many years. I totally agree with your statement. I worked with many LDS men and many of them did think they were more important, more necessary, more able than all of the women who worked there. In my position I was third down from the top, only two positions at that work site in a higher pay grade than me but yet I was treated as “that woman” by many of my LDS subordinates.

 

[Horton]

Jane asked: Now, would you agree that God is 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect?

Tarquin replied:

You reply did not address the question. I shall ask the question again:
Tarquin, do you believe God is 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect?

Since you still refuse to answer the OP question we’ll have to go with your original answer

Originally Posted by jane_doe

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

Bolding mine. Since it seems you do care and consider it of great consequence we’ll have to go with Don’t know

 

[Tarquin]

… Are you with this train of thought. Ok, then, Mormons believe scripture describes eternal principles that are therefore applied to all creations (or formations). So our scriptures are applied to all universes, worlds, stars, humans, non-humans, going forward and back.

I believe this is what Jane is getting at. Our scriptural concepts apply to all ages and all worlds and all universes, and all men who have sinned and become a God, including their God. …

Thanks, RebeccaJ, for that entire post. Often, when a Mormon is challenged about one or another belief, the immediate retort is, “That is not in the scriptures.” Of course there is more to life and knowledge than is in Scripture. But I wonder what there is “in scripture” that justifies those beliefs. The beliefs seem to be founded on explanations by men whose teachings were later repudiated (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, etc.) I wonder if the teachings they receive today through their leaders are any better grounded? Even Jame Talmage and sterling M. McMurrin were well-educated and ecclesiastically-respected Mormons, and yet now I see that their beliefs and teachings have been challenged since their heydey.

I understand, as you stated, that Mormons, at least some of them, consider *our *scriptures to apply to all generations of Gods, men, angels, intelligences, and whatever else, for countless trillions of generations of Gods in the past. Obviously, I can’t accept that, as I am too much of an historian, but also because I believe that changing conditions entail changed priorities, and that true love provides special care, not one-size-fits-all, so that not all nations, civilizations, and cultures, in differing eras, receive the same guidance, nor that they receive the same instructions about sin, repentance, grace, forgiveness, etc. The Catholic Church, for example, does change the appearance of the Church and the details of worship in a way to accommodate the culture whose people it is serving. (Yet, the Mormon Church does not.)

I did read McMurrin’s book on “The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion,” and both found it enjoyable reading (!) and was very favorably impressed by his insights and explanations. Nevetheless, when it comes to Mormon cosmology, its weirdly flat topology and eternally fumbling and contradictory efforts towards a vague, dull ideal, brings to mind Janderich’s entreaty, “I would love to hear about this . . . as given in the scriptures.”

 

[Tarquin]

I would love to hear about this distinction as given in the scriptures. Where does it tell us of this important difference?

I’m sure you would. Do you have such confidence in your premise: “(All) important differences are given in the scriptures.” Or, “if no distinction is made in scripture, than - - there is no distinction.” This is called an argument from silence. Your leaders have warned you about this. A simple form of the argument is: “If a particular piece of evidence existed, it would prove a certain point. That piece of evidence doesn’t exist, so that point must be false.”

“The argument from silence is a pattern of reasoning in which the failure of a known source to mention a particular fact or event is used as the ground of an inference, usually to the conclusion that the supposed fact is untrue or the supposed event did not actually happen.” (Timothy McGrew)

“You can’t say everything.” This is one of the refrains I often cite to my students as we discuss historical documents. When ancient authors put quill to papyrus (or parchment), we need to remember that they had a limited amount of space, a limited amount of time, a limited number of goals, and often a very specific purpose for which they wrote." (Michael J. Kruger, President, Reformed Theological Seminary)

And here is what your Apostle warned:

“Don’t suppose, however, that a lack of evidence about something today means that evidence doesn’t exist or that it will not be forthcoming in the future. The absence of evidence is not proof. . . . Where answers are incomplete or lacking altogether, patient study and patient waiting for new information and discoveries to unfold will often be rewarded with understanding.” - Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-gives-compelling-counsel-to-study-the-life-of-joseph-smith?lang=eng)

I agree with your “emeritus” Presiding Bishopric, Victor L. Brown, “We should teach our children the importance of schooling as a help in discovering how to think and to learn.”

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” (John 21:25). Kruger and Christofferson agree: Not everything is In the Scriptures. If it were, Joseph Smith would have had no reason, after reading James 1:5 to ask for knowledge – he could have just kept reading and learned all the “important” things about life. Janderich, there are millions of “important differences” on which the Scriptures are all silent, even fabricated scriptures. Most of what mankind now knows has come through our own efforts, including our understanding of reasoning and logic.

 

[Tarquin]

Please consider this very relevant scripture: “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.” (1 John 3:2-3) How can we purify ourselves “as he is pure” if there are differences in his purity and our purity? Has John given us an impossible task?

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?

But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. Moses 1:35

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

 

[jane_doe]

I did not answer the question. That’s very astute of you to notice. And I am flattered that you should be so obsessed over my personal religious beliefs, that you would repeat the same question over and over.

And you still didn’t answer it.

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.

“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.

 

[jane_doe]

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.

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.

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.

• 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.

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.

 

[Janderich]

I’m sure you would. Do you have such confidence in your premise: “(All) important differences are given in the scriptures.” Or, “if no distinction is made in scripture, than - - there is no distinction.” This is called an argument from silence. Your leaders have warned you about this. A simple form of the argument is: “If a particular piece of evidence existed, it would prove a certain point. That piece of evidence doesn’t exist, so that point must be false.” And here is what your Apostle warned: I agree with your “emeritus” Presiding Bishopric, Victor L. Brown, “We should teach our children the importance of schooling as a help in discovering how to think and to learn.”

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” (John 21:25). Kruger and Christofferson agree: Not everything is In the Scriptures. If it were, Joseph Smith would have had no reason, after reading James 1:5 to ask for knowledge – he could have just kept reading and learned all the “important” things about life. Janderich, there are millions of “important differences” on which the Scriptures are all silent, even fabricated scriptures. Most of what mankind now knows has come through our own efforts, including our understanding of reasoning and logic.

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.”