[poll id=”2″]
Read the question carefully. Hopefully we can deal with the spirit of the question instead of appealing to rhetorical loopholes?
Update (8:43am): This is not an anonymous poll (I can see the logs). Be prepared to explain your position!
2nd Update (10:50am): To clear up some apparent confusion, let me clarify. The question assumes that you believe that some kind of formal church membership should be practiced which at least requires agreeing to a basic set of beliefs. Also, not being formal “member” doesn’t mean you can’t attend a church and benefit from its preaching, teaching, etc.
See also: GodNeverSinned.com
Reggie,
Since I used to be a Mormon, I know the discussion regarding this issue. All I wanted to point out is that such a discussion exists because of the Mormon belief that God was as man is. So, I don’t see how I am misrepresenting that belief. I merely explained the condition of man to point out what condition you believe God to have been in. I understand this is not considered “official Church doctrine.” You state that you don’t believe that God sinned, and I’m glad to hear that. However, because the discussion in Mormonism allows for that to be a possibility, there might be TR carrying members who believe that, and there is no one to say that such a belief is impossible because the discussion allows for it. So, within Mormonism is the freedom to believe whatever one wants to believe regarding this issue because it’s “not official Church doctrine.” Here’s a question I hope you answer: Do you think it is remotely possible that God could have sinned?
You said, “I believe, as you do, that God is/was/always will be Sinless. You do believe that right? Yes, I feel strongly about it.”
Here’s another question: will this be said about you from your spiritual offspring when they tarry on the earth you provide for them? Because if it is, it will be a lie because, as the Bible points out, you are a sinner, just like I, and neither of us could ever have this said about us. So, do you think it was possible for God to have sinned when He lived on His earth?
Such questions I don’t have to entertain because I believe in the Bible, and there is nothing in there to remotely suggest that God was once as we are. Since the first part of Snow’s couplet can’t be biblically supported, the second part can’t stand, either.
This question is important because there is no God before or after Him and, therefore, no God for Him to answer to. He’s it!
jackg,
I must respond to your claim that this belief is any way supported or possible in the LDS church. The idea that God could have once been a sinner goes against our doctrine. The Pearl of Great Price alludes to the Father having once been a Savior- at least my reading of it in 2 places. In one verse, Christ is referred to being “like unto the Son of Man.” Think about that.
Also, if you look at Abraham’s experience in the POGP, having been a sacrifice at his father’s hand and later being commanded to sacrifice his own son- this symbolism is extremely rich and deep-it alludes to the Father once having been sacrificed as a Savior. I doubt most LDS have caught these verses. This is very sacred symbolism and I hope it will be treated with respect and reverence. We don’t know much at all about these things, but they are obviously very sensitive things not spoken of often if at all.
There is nothing in our doctrine to suggest God was ever a sinner. Period. Christ said He did “nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.” Nothing conclusive in this verse, but interesting to think about.
Just a couple thoughts.
Jackkky G- You limit yourself to the Bible, so that’s why you don’t understand. Also, you limit the realm of possiblity to what we can comprehend with our mortal and simple minds. So we can’t claim to know everything about God.
We believe God is perfect. Could he have sinned… that’s not for me to determine. I’ll make two comments on this. First, let’s say God was like I am today… a sinner. He was Mormon (had to throw that in there), so he was following “Christ”, and he died as a good person. By the grace of his saviour, he is made clean and perfect… and his sins are remembered no more. You see where I’m going with this… but I’m not suggesting this, just indulging for a minute. Second, let’s assume that God was a saviour, and never sinned on his earth. You’ve heard this, and you’ve seen this, so I won’t expand… you know where I’m going with it.
So in either of these situations, given our beliefs of eternal progression, are in the realm of possibility, and we could still legitimately say that God has never sinned, but still maintain our original thoughts on eternal progression.
If you believe in the Bible, you believe that we will become heirs of the kingdom WITH Christ. So, to answer your second question, will people on MY earth (I’m being extreme to make a point) say that I was sinless… yes (since Christ can has erased my sins with his sacrifice). Will they say that Christ (their Father) was sinless… yes.
Jackky, you need to stop limiting yourself to what is written in the Bible, and open up to all that God has and can reveal. Do you think everything that God revealed to his Prophets of old is in the Bible? Open up…
Reggie said “Martin – You have no knowledge of what God did before he created our earth”
Reggie, I’ve been waiting for this cosmological/metaphysical question to come up. I wasn’t around at the time but I trust the Bible when it says that God created ALL things and without him nothing has been made that has been made (John 1:3). God made the created order, the created order did not make God.
Now, I’m of the view that time is part of the created order, so the question “what did God do before the beginning of time” is unanswerable. What I mean is we can’t picture God saying “shall I create the universe today, or put it off to tomorrow”, because the concept of today and tomorrow simply don’t exist; there is no ‘before’ in the statement ‘before the creation of time’.
JackG appears to have ‘got it’, there is no-one before or higher than God for him to answer to – read Hebrews 6:13-19.
Its actually quite an important question. If God is God, then he has absolute freedom of choice, unconstrained by circumstance as we are. The question this leads to, then, is why God should do the things he does. Why, for example, when Adam and Eve sinned, did he simply not obliterate his marred creation and start over? Why did he choose to visit us when he had deliberately set the the game plan up so that he would have to die on a cross? The inescapable conclusion from these public and unequivocable acts is that he loves us. He will continue to love us because that is his eternal, unchanging and perfect nature, and we can have confidence that he will not morph into something else. His love for us will not ‘progress’ into something other than total, selfless, unconditional love, perfectly demonstrated at Calvary. The basis of our Christian hope is not our (questionable) performance, but the very character of God himself. That’s why we say “The LORD is our salvation” (Jer 3:23).
No need to look beyond scripture on these last conclusions.
Reggie said “will people on MY earth…say that I was sinless… yes”
Reggie, will people on my earth say that I was sinFUL? I hope that they would say “yes…” (because its true), “…but consider how great the love of God that redeemed him” (Rev 5:9).
Aaron, you’re categorically wrong. I’m a Mormon Bishop. There’s not much more to say – you’re just wrong.
A church member who privately admits just about any disagreement with Church doctrine to his Bishop does not put his membership in question.
You’re simply wrong about that.
“Steve, the very fact that Mormonism treats the issue of whether God was sinless in the eternal past as a “vain speculation” bothers Christians.”
Aaron, your average EV doesn’t give this question a moment of thought. Neither does your average LDS. (By the way, Mormons ARE Christians).
Since any being in heaven has been cleansed of all sin, the issue of whether they were sinless or not during a previous mortal existence is a moot point. SteveH is right – it’s vain speculation.
Winter wrote: Aaron, your average EV doesn’t give this question a moment of thought.
That’s because such a question does not make sense to your average Christian. Only a Christian who knows the background of Mormonism could even see the relevance of this question. Only in a context where God was once a man does this question even come up.
Winter wrote: Since any being in heaven has been cleansed of all sin, the issue of whether they were sinless or not during a previous mortal existence is a moot point.
This question assumes that the ontology of all “beings” in heaven is the same. Such an assumption is not healed in scripture and is at best a vain speculation.
Lautensack
Reggie,
I praise God for His mercy and grace in my life, and that He showed me the truth through personal revelation that was supported by the Bible that I only need to believe in the Bible. You make your comment mockingly. That’s okay. That’s your right and your prerogative. I pray for you and all other Mormons. My role is merely to speak truth and to preach the good news of grace (see Acts 20:24); it’s the role of the Holy Spirit to convict each person of their inherent sinfulness and personal sins, and their need for Jesus Christ. I’ll let Him do His work.
FOF,
I appreciate your thoughts, and I understand that you don’t believe this. Believe me, that makes me happier than you can imagine. But, I am still making the point that Lorenzo Snow’s couplet implies this logic–even if you don’t agree with that. It’s simple syllogistic reasoning: God was once as man is; man is a sinner in need of a Savior; therefore, God was once a sinner in need of a Savior. I don’t see this as a faulty syllogism. We have to examine the implications of what we say; I don’t think we can ignore them.
Bishop Winter,
You said: “A church member who privately admits just about any disagreement with Church doctrine to his Bishop does not put his membership in question.”
You made a true statement. Excommunication is not the result of disagreeing with Church doctrine. I have a question for you: will such a member not receive a temple recommend? Or, does it depend on with what point of Church doctrine the member disagrees?
Grace and Peace!
A question for the Mormons:
What is a “sin”?
If it is possible that God sinned, what does that mean and who did he sin against?
jackg,
Jesus was “as man is,” and He never sinned. We claim Christ is literally the Son of God and followed His Father perfectly. You can think and say what you want, but the church has never suggested to any degree that God ever sinned. It is not a grey area.
It is just this type of “interpretation” of LDS statements that gets the LDS critic so far from what we really believe. And it is simply not a fair assessment. I know people can tell themselves they “just want to know the truth about mormons,” and that somehow justifies saying anything they want. But it is not honest.
The membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints is made up of people who seek the most ancient tradition of direct revelation from God. We are a profoundly Christian people, who believe in revelation both to the leadership of our Church and – in the same way – to each of us as individuals.
We believe that the leadership of the Church receive direct and contemporary revelation from God, that has the same authority as revelation in the Bible, because we receive such revelation ourselves.
I hear, over and over again on this site, that such revelation doesn’t happen. I get the distinct impression that it’s not valued nor wanted.
Well, I value and want revelation from God. If a person is like me, then they will seek it too, and not seek to muzzle God Himself by limiting His word to a particular collection of scripture.
Martin- I don’t think you followed my logic. I can repeat if you’d like me to, and since we now have 5 posts, i’d be happy to do so, if you’d like.
Jaccky- I wasn’t mocking. I was pointing out the obvious issues with your last post.
Michael Phelps- you need to stop asking about God sinning, because we’ve already said multiple times, that we don’t believe that God sinned. That’s not part of our doctrine. You may think it is, but you’re wrong in doing so.
You won’t find it explicitly taught in modern LDS institutional literature that God sinned. But neither will you find in modern LDS institutional literature that God did NOT sin in a past mortality. reggie, if you can find something from modern LDS curriculum that explicitly says God was always fully God in the eternal past, or that God never sinned in the past, show us, otherwise you’re just giving your own personal opinion on the matter—an opinion that butts heads with plenty of other positions my other LDS friends and acquaintances take.
Aaron- you just confirmed my statement, that it’s not part of our doctrine.
How specific do you want us to be? Do you want me to show you in the BofM or in a general conference talk where they said those exact words? (God was always fully God in the eternal past, or that God never sinned in the past).
You tell me how specific you want the statement to be, and I’ll see what I can do.
That’s one problem with Mormon critics… you don’t care what we say we believe, or how we defend it… you always want more… never willing to accept… never willing to believe. So you tell me exactly what you want me to find you, and if it exists, I’ll find it. If it doesn’t exist, then the church must not teach truth. Darn!
reggie, find any modern institutionally significant literature in Mormonism (that actually reaches millions of Mormons on a practical level on Sunday, for example) that explicitly promotes either that 1) God the Father was always fully God (i.e. that he wasn’t once a mere man like us) and/or 2) God the Father never sinned in a past mortality of his.
Perhaps you can surprise me, but my guess is that you can’t find the above. So you’re left with an argument from silence, and the 800lb gorilla of the traditional Mormon worldview that has fostered various streams of thought through the past 175 years.
Aaron,
Show me in the Bible where it says that God doesn’t drive a red Dodge in the NASCAR Cup series. If it’s not there, you never know!
This may be facetious, but you get my point. This illustrates very well the logic (or lack thereof) employed by LDS critics.
Sorry to be irreverent, but you were begging for it.
fof
FoF, perhaps you only read the first half of my comment.
> “So you’re left with an argument from silence, and the 800lb gorilla of the traditional Mormon worldview that has fostered various streams of thought through the past 175 years.”
Talk to Alonzo Gaskill of BYU over his views on God the Father having been “probably” a sinner. Demonstrate some integrity by taking it up with the professors of the Lord’s University before you take it up with critics of Mormonism.
FOF said “Show me in the Bible where it says that God doesn’t drive a red Dodge in the NASCAR Cup series.”
I don’t know about NASCAR, but I did hear about Moses riding out in his Triumph.
(Sorry, just having a chuckle)
Reggie said “Martin- I don’t think you followed my logic.”
Perhaps I did not. Can I ask you this; when you look at the scene in Rev 5:9, who do you see on the throne? I see Christ enthroned and me in the crowd, singing his praises. I don’t see any reason why that scene should ever change. Do you see yourself, perhaps after a zillion years of progression, on that throne?
I’m concerned that, if you get to this exalted position, you appear intend to develop a kind of amnesia with respect to your past, or at least a diplomatic silence toward your subjects. If you do, you’ll align well with the posture and culture of the current LDS leadership.
In contrast, the God I read about in the Bible goes to extraordinary lengths to reveal himself to the world.
FOF,
You’re free to believe as you please with regard to your leaders and what they say and preach and teach. And, I am free to point out the fallacies in their teachings, etc. as juxtaposed against the Bible. Just one thing, though, please don’t forget that Jesus was both “fully” man and “fully” God, which neither of us is. I think it makes a difference in your argument.
Bishop Winter,
I appreciate your sincerity, and I know you believe everything you’re saying. It’s not that we don’t value revelation, but revelation has to be measured against the Bible. The revelation uttered by Lorenzo Snow, which is merely a perpetuation of JS teachings, teaches a God that is different from the Bible. This discussion asks a question that stems from that utterance. I guess the question is what do you believe to be the condition of man? You see, if you want to preach that man will become a god and create worlds as God is and does, you have to accept the other implication of the couplet that puts God in the exact condition that we are in, which is the condition of sinfulness and in need of a Savior. When a revelation espouses this kind of logic, one must determine whether or not such a revelation actually came from God. To do this, one needs to measure that against the Bible. The problem with this approach for Mormons is your 8th AOF. Personally, I think JS revealed his craftiness by creating such an AOF that would ward off any challenges to his so-called prophecies. But, yes, I understand that is my opinion, but I base my opinion on both faith and knowledge. The Bible is the source of knowledge, and faith is trusting the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, and that He is able to preserve His Word despite working through a broken humanity and what JS taught.
Grace and Peace!
Reggie, I asked what does it mean to sin.
And you leave it open that he might have sinned, right? Hence my second question. Because if ever there is a possibility he might of sinned, what does that mean based on what a sin is.
Or are you 100% conclusively saying that he ever sinned?
If you say 100% conclusively that he never sinned, then there are several things that must follow.
First of all, he was then never like us. We’re all sinners, everyone, and if he never sinned, then he’s already beyond what we can meet.
Second, if he never sinned, then he is indeed perfect and was never man to begin with, because man sins.
If he never sinned, he was already like God, and didn’t need to do a thing.
If he never sinned, he didn’t need to progress.
So, which direction do you want to take?
And if you are going to get on us for beating on certain things: why don’t you Mormons do some things for us to, OK?
See that we do believe God still speaks to us through revelation.
Know that ours is not a faith where you can simply say “I believe” (though that is the act that saves– nothing else will do).
Understand that we value Jesus more than you think we do, and that we seek to protect His name.
Believe that there is much more to our faith than you see, and why don’t you follow your own advise and find out what it is we really believe by asking us.
Is this a fair deal?
Hrmmm, I think I’m going to have to disagree on a few things with Michael here.
Just because a particular Mormon believes their Ahman (God the Father) never sinned doesn’t necessarily mean that Ahman wasn’t of the human species. I for one don’t think any good biblical or philosophical argument can be made for saying God the Father was ever even possibly a sinner. But just because a being or person is human doesn’t make them a sinner, because humanity isn’t necessarily sinful by original nature, whether you’re talking traditional Christianity or Mormonism.
Consider Wayne Grudem on a relevant issue:
Also, I think we Christians are dealing with the context of our own fallen world. Who knows, maybe there are other worlds in other created universes where there are permanently sinless humans who have never sinned.
All that said, I think a Mormon who says that the Father never sinned sheds a part of Mormon tradition that bases an optimism of the future of our own exaltation on the idea that our Heavenly Father who went through the same kind of experience we did achieved exaltation and deification. See the beginning of Alonzo Gaskill’s new book where he essentially uses this kind of thinking.
And if one goes the fringe Mormon route of saying that the Father and Son not only never sinned, but also were always fully divine and fully the Father and the Son, then the whole “we’re of the human species just like they always have been” loses its force. It (only in analogy) reminds me of Arianism speaking of Jesus as a creature who once was not in existence, but then describing him as the one who upholds the universe by the word of his power. Likewise, speaking of the Father as of the human species, but describing him as having been eternally sinless and having been eternally God in a full sense is incongruous. It then must be asked, how has language not been abused.
Michael P wrote: Second, if he never sinned, then he is indeed perfect and was never man to begin with, because man sins.
I need to correct you, one cannot define humanity simply as being sinful. While I will agree that all mankind, save Christ, is sinful and utterly lost, if we define being fully human as being based upon sin we negate the humanity of Christ and in a way His propitiation as well as Adam pre-fall. Thus your argument should take the following corrections.
I’d submit that all possible answers, that I can conceive, have problems with them but that is how I would phrase your argument. Granted that some Mormons believe Jesus was already God and thus never “human” in the sense we are, and there your argument would be valid, but somehow I don’t think such shrewd LDS as we attract at MRM would allow that to slide.
Lautensack
Mickel P- I think Lautsnack and Aaron mentioned some valid points. But I’ll speak for myself…
I’ll repeat myself for the 3rd time in this thread… I don’t believe that God ever sinned. I don’t believe in a sinful God. I don’t believe God is a God of sin. I don’t believe God lacks perfection. I don’t know how many different ways you want me to say it. Is that clear? If not, I’d be happy to come up with other ways of saying it.
My fundamental beliefs would substantially disagree with most of your comments. This will open up other lines of discussion though, so beware mediators! I disagree with your logic that “if God never sinned then he was never like man”. Aaron pointed out a good reason why. Also, I disagree that “If he never sinned, he was already like God, and didn’t need to do a thing.
If he never sinned, he didn’t need to progress.”
We beleive God has other characteristics besides being sinless. (Thoughts for another thread) let’s suppose i’m sinless… would I be god? I think God is sinless. I don’t believe that sinless is God. You get my drift? The reasons for my beliefs are due to my belief in eternal progression, repentance, atonement, etc. Positions for other threads….
I know you believe you recieve revelation, as I believe I do. Point taken.
“Know that ours is not a faith where you can simply say “I believe” (though that is the act that saves– nothing else will do).” … I understand that YOUR faith is more than professing belief, even though that’s the only thing that can save you. It’s also creating websites that try to discount Mormon beliefs. What else is your faith then, if it’s not simply saying that you believe, and then waiting for salvation? Teach me.
I know you value Jesus as much as I do, and maybe more. If more, I don’t think it has anything to do with Mormon or evangelical, because we place the utmost importance on Christ, as you do. to be cont…
Thank you both for correcting any errors you see.
And perhaps I am a bit unclear. Humanity cannot be defined by our sinful nature, but we also cannot escapte the truth that we are sinful. It is by this belief that I make the comments.
And to address the Trinity and Jesus’ dual nature. I am not educated enough in the subject to know all the intricacies of the theological arguments. Grudem’s quote makes sense.
To give my lay person view of the subject– Jesus is as much God as he is man. He always was. As a child, he was God. Before he came to earth, he was God. After he rose, he was God. He is as much a part of the Father as he is the Son.
I’ve heard the terms “co-equal” to describe the relationship. This to me is incomplete. Why? I’m not sure, but I think its because, to me, it under emphasizes their oneness. I don’t know if I could think of a better way to describe it, because as much as they are one, they are separate. Jesus was fully man, fully human, and fully subject to the same things we were, only he never sinned.
Anyway, my above train of questions was to get to the problems with taking a progression view along with a sinless man. Perhaps to put it another way, if Jesus and the father were both completely and eternaly sinless, none of us would have a chance.
If I could provide some shorthand codes for the different positions in Mormonism:
S4 – It is assumed that God the Father sinned
S3 – God the Father probably was a sinner
S2 – God the Father was possibly a sinner, but possibly not
S1 – God the Father probably didn’t sin
S0 – God the Father absolutely never sinned
You just opened up a can of worms by stringing together those claims as though they were essentially equivalent. Why? Because Mormons (like Stephen) who argue for a position other than S0 usually explain to me that God is perfect and sinless, and is not a God of sin, and they say that all is true regardless of whether Heavenly Father had to benefit from an atonement process to be cleansed of his own sins in the past. Likewise, I have frequently heard it argued across S0-S5 that we sinners can become perfected one day unto exaltation and Godhood and have the same kind of relationship with our future spirit children as we have with our own particular Heavenly Father.
If a person (be it Heavenly Father or one of us here on this blog) who sinned in the past can’t be cleansed and exalted unto a state of perfection, then that calls into question another (even larger) LDS traditional belief: the possibility of our own deification.
As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, our core responsibility is to testify of the divine role of Christ and His atonement in our personal salvation. Christ is one with our Heavenly Father. Both are perfected, sinless dieties who have the interest and capability to lift us to a perfected and sinless condition.
Christ and our Heavenly Father are one, and would have us be one as they are. As we work toward the end of becoming one, then we are doing to work of Christ.
I’m still having problems squaring the (various) LDS position(s) wiht the scenes described in Revelation.
Reggie, I trust you will forgive me for the placing you in following scenario…
Here’s the crowd singing along “Hallelureg! Hallelureg!”
Reg says “Thanks crowd, but I owe my exaltation to another saviour, whose name is Kevin”
Crowd murmurs in a kind of Pythonesque way, shuffles feet, looks a little embarrassed and then takes up the chant “Hallelukev! Hallelukev!”
Its just not what John is describing.
Or, to take an even less generous view…(lets use ‘Norman’ out of diplomacy)…
Crowd sings happily along “Hallelunorm! Hallelunorm!”
Norman smiles and waves and thinks to himself “Suckers, if only they knew!”
Crowd smiles and waves back and thinks to themselves “I’m going to get a piece of that throne!”.
Come on guys, how will you answer when an irritating nobody from an obscure country with more sand than sense gets up and asks “did you ever sin?”
To be honest, I really don’t know anything about Heavenly Father’s earth-type experience other than to say I believe he had one. Don’t think anybody else knows any more.
But, The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS teaches that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is infinite – a complete and perfect atonement. It’s not ‘second best’ to a sinless life. A person cleansed through the atonement of Christ has no sin, stain of sin or even history of sin.
Christ gave His life for me, in the sense that if you and I repent and follow Him, His life becomes your life and my life. You and I are then judged on His merits.
Greater love hath no man.
cont.
I think that there are better ways to protect his name than participating in this website. But that\’s my point of view. You could protect his good name by living a good life and following his example. You could protect his name by serving your neighbor and loving your enemy… even if your enemy is mormon. You can protect his name by repenting of your sins and believing that as you repent, there is a significant thing that happens in your life beyond a good feeling.
I spent 15 years participating in two evangelical (christian) churches, and so I know there\’s plenty to consider. I\’m the first person to admit that i don\’t know everything about your faith and religious beliefs. But I do understand the fundamentals. Just as you may have \”been there and done that\” with mormonism… so have I \”been there, done that\” with traditional evangelical sects.
Now, all that being said… Would it all make sense if I turned around and created an anti-evangelical website that tried to point out controversial and unclear points in it\’s doctrines and beliefs? You\’d probably think that I wasn\’t being very sincere.
God never sinned, Jesus Christ can erase our sins if we accept his sacrifice, which means that we can become sinless as well. We can become heirs, or we can inherit all that our Father has, and we\’ll become Joint heirs with Jesus Christ. Eternal is the life that God has, and we believe that if we are heirs to all that our Father has, then Eternal will be the life that we can have as well.
Martin- to answer your question. I see Jesus Christ in that scene. Your second question… I don’t see myself on that Throne, but if God wants me to be an co-heir with Jesus, then who am I to disagree. I didn’t understand the rest of your post. I too believe that God goes to great lengths to reveal himself to the world. I believe that he reveals himself through scripture, the spirit, through his creations, through us, etc.
I would have more far respect for a person who does that than of a person who complained about targeted religious criticism. Give me forthright criticism over petty complaining and passive-aggressiveness any day.
reggiewoodsyall, if you become a God someday, and your subjects worship you, will they be able to say of you, “The Most High, the All-Powerful Reggie, our Lord and God never sinned in the past!” If they won’t be able to say such thing, then why not refuse to receive the worship of such subjects, and instead direct them to the worship of the God above you who never sinned?
It would be hypocritical and awkward to imply that God’s eternally-past sinlessness is an important part of why you worship and value and love your own particular Heavenly Father, yet then assume you can be worshiped as an “Eternal Father” and “Almighty God” someday without having the ability to make the same claim for yourself.
Think about it. Imagine yourself someday telling six billion of your spirit children to be holy and perfect, yet knowing the whole time that once you were a sinner yourself. Imagine having a first-born spirit child yourself who becomes a savior for your organized planets. Let’s say this first-born son is named Bob, and let’s say Bob manages to accomplish permanent sinlessness from the beginning. See the problem? Now your spirit children have a savior who never sinned, but have a Heavenly Father who once was a sinner who deserve to go to hell.
Are you really going to expect your spirit children to worship a being who once deserved to go to hell?
Aaron- I believe you nailed it on the head:
“If a person (be it Heavenly Father or one of us here on this blog) who sinned in the past can’t be cleansed and exalted unto a state of perfection, then that calls into question another (even larger) LDS traditional belief: the possibility of our own deification.”
We believe that we can be made sinless, and that we can be cleansed, and that our sins will be remembered no more. And as that happens, we become like God is. If we didn’t believe that, then you’re right, we wouldn’t be able to claim what we do in regards to exaltation.
But I think Winter said it accurately… we don’t know what our Father’s earth life was like, but we believe he had one.
Martin-
I didn’t follow your scenario. Sorry. The scene in Revelations, I believe would be Jesus Christ on the throne, and I stated that. Yet you seem to throw me back into it as if I placed myself there in the first place. Soooo… I don’t follow where you’re going with it.
winter wrote: But, The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS teaches that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is infinite – a complete and perfect atonement. It’s not ’second best’ to a sinless life. A person cleansed through the atonement of Christ has no sin, stain of sin or even history of sin.
Winter, a simple question then is why are not all Exalted in the LDS church? If Christ truly died for all sins of all men making complete and perfect atonement, how is it that the sin of unbelief is not paid for? Would you hold to the position that all unbelievers will one day be granted exaltation? In order for you to rectify the “complete and perfect atonement” of Christ you must deal with this issue. Either Christ died for all the sins of all men, including the sin of unbelief, or He did not. If He did not then he either died for all the sins of some men or some of the sins of all men, either way the atonement cannot be “complete and perfect” and universal while holding to the multiplicity of heaven that your church does. Something to think about.
Lauitensack
Lustnanck- It doesn’t have to be one or the other. The Atonement is Complete and perfect, but since man is not perfect, we won’t all benefit the same way from his Atonement. That is going to get into the faith, works and grace conversation again. Not all will be exalted, because not all will come unto christ. He implicitly charges us to “come”…, which also implies action on our part. Once again, that’s a whole other topic. But that’s why not all will be exalted. Only those who “come”.
Aaron-
Do you really expect to have a mustard plant from a small seed? Do you expect an embryo to grow into a full blown adult? Do you expect one man to be able to save all mankind? I believe your response would be yes to all of these things, as would mine. Do I believe that I can become like God, my Father, and be a co-heir with Christ if I will accept his sacrifice and follow him? Yes. Do you believe those things Aaron?
reggiewoodsyall wrote:It doesn’t have to be one or the other. The Atonement is Complete and perfect, but since man is not perfect, we won’t all benefit the same way from his Atonement.
So rather than deal with the difficult question you simply try to dodge it. Essentially what you are saying is that the sin of unbelief is not covered in the atonement, thus Christ died for some or even most of the sins of all people, but he did not die for the sin of unbelief. If such is the case then we are brought back to the initial question, how [in Mormonism] can Christ’s atonement be complete, perfect, and universal?
Lautensack
Nice Try lightsnack. What question did I dodge? You’re saying it has to be one or the other, and I’m simply disagreeing. I think they both can exist. I think that Christ died for all sins. But I also believe that the gift of the atonement isn’t free. Even you believe that you have to raise your hands to the sky and shout “I believe!” to be saved. Your attempt to foil my response was sub-par at best. I never said that sin of unbelief is not covered, rather as you can plainly see, I said that the Atonement is Complete… It is universal and covers all sins, both sins of omission, and sins of commission. Both sins in ignorance, and sins in knowledge.
I’m confused at which question I dodged, so if you could be more clear, i’d be happy to be “dodgeless” in my response. Thanks lutshsnak!
reggiewoodsyall wrote: I never said that sin of unbelief is not covered, rather as you can plainly see, I said that the Atonement is Complete… It is universal and covers all sins, both sins of omission, and sins of commission. Both sins in ignorance, and sins in knowledge.
If all of those sins are covered for all people how does God still find fault with anyone? If all sin for all men is covered how does one man gain exaltation while another does not. You of course are going to say obedience, however if we affirm your statement disobedience would be covered under sins of omission and commission. Therefore the original question still stands since it has not been answered. How [in Mormonism] can Christ’s atonement be complete, perfect, and universal?
Lautensack
Wow… you won’t let this rest.
Let me break it down for you.
Christ, the Son of God, (you follow me so far?) came down to earth and lived a perfect life. Not only did he avoid sin, but he was obedient to all of God’s commandments. He performed what us crazy mormon’s call the atonement, which was an act in which he took upon himself ALL of the sins of God’s children. Notice the emphasis on ALL. That was nice of him… but we believe that he asks us to do our part in return. Our part includes faith, repentance (we’re going to come back to this one), baptism, recieve the holyghost, obedience, etc. Now, regardless of what we think we’re capable of doing or not, we will all fall short of being perfect… aka, we will all sin. (I know i’m writing a lot, but I hope you’re still with me.) Now without doing our part, we won’t participate fully in the atonement. Note, that this is not God’s choice, but our own. We choose to participate fully in the atonement by having faith, repenting, etc. Repenting is a key portion to your confusion above.
You asked, “If all of those sins are covered for all people how does God still find fault with anyone?” I respond – All sins are covered, but not all sins are forgiven. We have to ASK for forgiveness. (remember that whole knock/open, ask/receive thing?) So God will find fault in those who don’t repent
“If all sin for all men is covered how does one man gain exaltation while another does not?” I think I already answered that question. A man who accepts Christ’s sacrifice, follows his teachings, obeys his commandments, repents of his sins, and receives forgiveness, will be judged accordingly, and may be exalted. If a man doesn’t do these things, he can’t be exalted.
It’s not as confusing as you’re making it out to be. Do you believe all men will be saved, regardless of their willingness to repent of their sins? You’re reasoning implies such, but we believe that repentance is very basic to our salvation.
Hmmmm….
Reggie, isn’t there at least one sin that cannot be forgiven?
So is your statement still accurate?
reggiewoodsyall wrote: Not only did he avoid sin, but he was obedient to all of God’s commandments. He performed what us crazy mormon’s call the atonement, which was an act in which he took upon himself ALL of the sins of God’s children. Notice the emphasis on ALL.
Ok I’m following you, Jesus Died for All sins of all God’s Children. I will assume the Mormon position that we are all God’s children by spirit birth if that’s alright?
reggiewoodsyall wrote: All sins are covered, but not all sins are forgiven. We have to ASK for forgiveness. (remember that whole knock/open, ask/receive thing?) So God will find fault in those who don’t repent
Ok now I’m not getting you, if I am following your argument we are left with an unjust God, since God condemned Jesus for the unrepentant man’s sins, but now he is going to condemn that man also. In clearer terms Jesus bore my sin and now the unrepentant man must bare that same sin that Jesus bore. Furthermore the sin of not repenting is not forgiven even though Jesus bore that sin.
reggiewoodsyall wrote: If a man doesn’t do these things, he can’t be exalted.
Again a man is not exalted because, though his sins were bore in Christ body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24) he also must bare his sin of unrepentance. Again this at best shows that the Mormon God is unjust.
reggiewoodsyall wrote: Do you believe all men will be saved, regardless of their willingness to repent of their sins?You’re reasoning implies such
No, I do not believe all men will be saved. I also never said I supported universal atonement, as I cannot find it taught in scripture, I was working from your philosophical framework. I believe all who repent will be. I also believe it is the sins of those who are given the new heart (Ezk 36:25-27) that Christ bore.
Lautensack
Hi Reggie,
Hope you are doing well,
“Soooo… I don’t follow where you’re going with it”
Please believe me that I’m trying to understand you and how this fits into John’s revelation and the rest of the Bible. I take your point that if God offers us something, who are we to refuse?
Indulge me and answer the question “what will you tell to your spirit children when they ask you, did you ever sin?”
Its not a hypothetical, its a real scenario. If I understand LDS correctly, you will be there at some time in the future and its going to be really you, not some gnostic essence-of-life thingo.
I asked God this question on the bus last night and if I asked God, you can bet that one of your children will ask you.
I’ll tell you the answer I got on the bus if you like, and I’ll take no offence if you believe it was just me talking to my own imagination.
Lnutsack- SO you Don’t believe in a Universal Atonement? You don’t believe that he took ALL sins upon himself? Or was it predetermined who would be given a new heart? If he paid for only those sins, then your God is unjust, because he condemend those who would not receive a new heart without even giving them a chance.
This is new to me… I didn’t know Christians didn’t believe that the Atonement was universal. The two “christian” churches that I participated in before I became Mormon left the impression on me that the Atonement was all encompassing, and that I didn’t even need to repent to be saved… I just had to believe (that mystical believe).
NOw you tell me that CHristians don’t believe in a universal atonement, and that you DO have to repent to be saved. Is that truly what Christians believe?
I believe, as you do, that repentence is necessary. I believe the God prepared a way for ALL of his children to return to him, and the Atonement was just that… THE WAY.
Your other arguments are rhetorical and circular, and don’t accurately represent my response.
MICHEALLEP- INteresting that you would bring that up. You know what we believe… so your question is rhetorical. Sin against the Holy SPirit is what you must be referring to… How do you feel about that sin? Is it forgivable?
I’ll side with you and say that I left that portion out of my above comments… I apologize for missing that point.
Martin- I don’t know what I will tell them. I’ll let you know when I am perfected, and actually sitting there. (“Ahaaa, I caught the mormon who doesn’t know an answer to my question!”) I’m assuming I will tell them what our Father tells us, as I will be like him.
I’m glad you asked Father, and I’m glad he told you. That’s what you should do…
Does that help?
reggiewoodsyall wrote: SO you Don’t believe in a Universal Atonement? You don’t believe that he took ALL sins upon himself? Or was it predetermined who would be given a new heart? If he paid for only those sins, then your God is unjust, because he condemend those who would not receive a new heart without even giving them a chance.
Yes, I do not believe in a universal atonement in the sense that Christ bore all the sins of every person even those who would not believe. That is not to say that the offer of salvation is not open to everyone, rather it is saying that all who come have had their sins atoned for on the cross. I actually believe that God… Saved all men who believe, that’s the major difference between us. You believe God made all men savable I believe that God actually saves, big difference.
reggiewoodsyall wrote: NOw you tell me that CHristians don’t believe in a universal atonement, and that you DO have to repent to be saved. Is that truly what Christians believe?
Scripture teaches that faith brings repentance, that is not to say that repentance saves, rather that a saved person will repent. Don’t take my word for it though Ezekiel said the same thing:
Finally you finally answered my question, by admitting that the atonement wasn’t complete, that it merely created a way to salvation but didn’t actually save anyone. Thank you, as I stated before this is the difference between Mormonism and Christianity. In Christianity Christ actually saves sinners, He doesn’t simply make a way for them to be saved.
Lautensack
We can banter of semantics. So what you describe as complete, I call something else. What you call universal, I call something else. What you consider salvation, I consider something else. You’re questions are getting caught up in semantics, and missing the substance of the arguments.
I will say however, that i’ve never heard a christian say that Christ only paid for “some” of our sins, not all. That’s surprising to me… once again, showing the inconsistency of the definition of “christianity”. You all claim to be christian, yet have different beliefs in FUNDAMENTAL and INTEGRAL portions of your religion. And this all comes by using the BIBLE. Wouldn’t it be nice to have another Witness to help clarify these confusing issues? And don’t avoid this lauasnsakc! You made a statement that Christians DON’T believe that Christ paid for ALL sins… If more of your “Christian” friends were participating in this thread still, I guarantee that they would disagree with you, thus pointing out an extremely important inconsistency. I’ll request this be discussed on a future thread…
I’m shocked that you believe that some were foreordained to fail. Were you one of them… or were you one of the lucky ones that Christ decided to be sacrificed for 2000 years ago? It seems to me like all of the Asian cultures, as well as most in rural Africa and South America are included in the “unlucky” ones that… well, Christ just didn’t atone for. Sad story you preach!
reggiewoodsyall,
Please go back and reread what I have said. I said God actually saves, allow me to translate this into atonement terms for you, Christ dies for all the sins of all believers. As for my views being unchristian, please read Historical Christian Theology. I’ll suggest people like Jonathan Edwards, Martin Luther, St. Francis, St Augustine, etc. Or if you are looking for “modern” Christians who hold to a similar view I suggest John Piper, J.I. Packer, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, etc.
As for our forordaination to fall, I believe we all actually fell in Adam, and Adam chose to sin against God, he could have not sinned against Him, He chose not to. God knew Adam would sin and decided to create anyways. (Ephesians 1) The bad news is that God since Adam all men are born spiritually dead and unable to even do good, in fact only wanting to do evil. (Col 2:13 cf Rom 8:7-8, Gen 8:21) So what does God do, don’t miss this it’s kind of important, He saves sinners, completely.
Perhaps an example will help. A father has a young daughter. One day when going to the car his daughter runs down the drive toward the road where cars are racing by at 40mph. The father catches her and tells her not to run down the drive because the cars in the road can’t see her and will hit her. A few days later when going to the car the daughter bolts down the drive. Her father is yelling for her to stop and come back to him, he’s giving her the opportunity to repent to come back and ask forgiveness for disobeying. She doesn’t, a UPS truck is headed down the road at 40mph, now the father has a choice to make, he can either say, I provided a way for you to be saved (Mormonism), or he can go and actually save his daughter, against her will. She wants to play in the road even though this will cause her death. When the Father lovingly reaches out and grabs her from in front of the truck, that is what Christ did for all believers on the cross. (Christianity)
Lautensack
lustnakkac- We disagree on this position and the interpretation of the Biblical passages pertaining to this topic, and that’s that. Let’s join another thread.
One last thought… you named 8 different “christians” in your post. And per my knowledge and reading, many of them had significantly different theological views. Yet still all grouped together in the same category we call “christian”. I think it’s irrational to think that God wants different things taught about His nature, His plan, and His son, yet you say it’s okay. INteresting.
Good example with the UPS truck… However it was unnecessary. I understand the many different versions of Christian beliefs very well… acting as if your views surprised me was slightly facetious, so i apologize for wasting one of your posts.
Mere semantics…
I’ve often heard Mormons say its all semantics. Unfortunately, they are wrong. They are right that the same words are used with different meanings. What the argument they present does is undercut the importance of those ideas.
No need to delve deep on it right now, but this is in response to reggie’s last couple posts.
I also find it interesting how he questions the use of so many authorities with different views on some things. That’s a great example of the unity of the Christian faith, though. Our differences do exist. Heck, Lautensack and I seem to differ on the presentation of the Trinity. But so what? I’d say we agree on what the Trinity is, which is indicative of our unity in Christ.
The differences matter when they change the nature of who God is. This is where Mormonism falls away from Christianity– it has a radically different notion of who God and Christ are, the notion of salvation (what it means and how to attain it), and the nature of mankind.
But alas… the question is will our Mormon friends ever admit the severity of the breach and that the differences are more than just semantics.
One last thought, reggie, if you understand the view so well, care to explain it to us?
Last post…
Reggie said “Martin- I don’t know what I will tell them. I’ll let you know when I am perfected, and actually sitting there. (”Ahaaa, I caught the mormon who doesn’t know an answer to my question!”) I’m assuming I will tell them what our Father tells us, as I will be like him. ”
Thanks for the reply Reggie. I’m really not out to trap you (“Ahaa!”).
“Does that help?”
It helps me understand what you might use this ‘revelation’ for. Do you want to shove God off the throne so you can sit on it? Based on your replies, I think not. The original thread was tilting at how this information might be used – one outworking is to bind it into some requirement for church membership.
Still doesn’t resolve the dilemma, though. If the Father is truly like us and he did sin, why not tell us so? Is God a fraud? It sounds alarmingly close to the basis of Philip Pullman’s trilogy (the Golden Compass etc.).
Again, thanks for the exchange, Reggie. I hope you keep well until we meet again.