Ralph, a Mormon, writes,
To say that the LDS God was a sinner would be like an LDS saying that the Traditional Christian God cannot forgive sins and make men perfect.
We all know from the Bible that God has promised that those who believe in Him will have their sins forgiven and He will remember them no more. That through the blood of Jesus all our garments, although they be as scarlet will be washed white as pure as snow. I could possibly find a few more but these make the point. We are perfected and our sins are removed never to be remembered as if they never happened – in fact according to God they never did happen (that is the point of NOT REMEMBERING). In this respect any person who achieves heaven (ie the presence of God whether LDS or Traditional Christian) for eternity are perfect and sinless.
Now we don’t teach nor spend much time discussing our Heavenly Father’s life before He gained His potential, but if He was like us instead of a Saviour of His world, then any wrong He did has been forgiven and forgotten and He was perfected and made sinless. So no He never was a sinner nor did He commit sin. That is the role of the Saviour – to completely remove sin from the person being saved because He paid the price and we have been freed.
I just heard this explicated five days ago by another Mormon as well:
“More than could have been a sinner; I believe that God the Father was a sinner. But He completely repented of His sins, and therefore lives His life as if He had never sinned.”
I’ve heard this from a lot of Mormons: that if God the Father was a sinner he has had his sins cleansed by another atonement, so now it is “as though he never sinned.” I wish that the Mormons who believe God the Father was a part of a royal line of sinless saviors would acknowledge the existence of such fellow Mormons, instead of pretending they don’t exist. Often such an obstinate denial will persist in a discussion thread where both Mormon positions are clearly articulated.
Anyways, I deal with this in the Q&A of GodNeverSinned.com. I answer the question, “Shouldn’t we respect the power of the atonement by overlooking God’s putative sins?”, with, “The whole beauty and power and value of the atonement is based on the fact that it was accomplished by a God who never, ever sinned.”
I have even talked to one Mormon who said that God (and his own God above him) literally and actually and non-figuratively forgot that sin was ever committed. As a theist who doesn’t believe God literally “forgets” anything, I believe the language of not remembering my sins means that he will never hold my sins against me, even though he can, in a manner of speaking, recall in his memory that I did sin. I find that very important, because I believe I will be, in a manner of speaking, singing Amazing Grace for all eternity. It’s hard to eternally thank God for his grace if both he and I literally forget that I ever sinned.
God, however, doesn’t sing Amazing Grace to his own God. He never was a wretch like me.
Ralph, if I could put all my cards on the table face-up: You need to repent of believing that God the Father could have been a wretch like you, and stop justifying it by saying that an atonement would have rendered it as though he never sinned. God the Father never needed an atonement, ever. Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.
Grace and peace in Christ for those who freely receive eternal life,
Aaron
A couple of points that I never get tired of making is that Mormonism is a separate and distinct religion. As such, Mormonism has a totally different point-of-view on what we would see as the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. But, here’s the deal, Mormonism is not Christianity. So we really argue at cross purposes.
The other thing, of course, is that Mormons have no systematic theology. It’s pretty much blue sky and speculation that can change on a whim. As Christians, we demand order and discipline and a systematic approach to understanding and applying scripture. Mormons don’t demand this. It’s no fun for them.
So as Christians I can see us getting all hot and bothered over the Mormon view of god. Why bother? It’s their belief system, they’re stuck with it. When these guys that were making statements like Snow’s couplet, they never stopped to think about what the implications were of what they were saying. It sounded cute and had a nice ring to it and summarized nicely what they believed about becoming gods, so the “god once was like us” sentiment wasn’t fully thought through I would guess (like most things in Mormonism).
But our conclusion that the Mormon god must have been a sinner when a man, makes logical sense. Now here’s the deal with Mormonism; it doesn’t have to make sense; they just move on. To hold them accountable for their words, in their minds I’m sure, is terrible unfair.
“There’s just so much we don’t understand” and “god is constantly revealing more and more to us” are good catch phrases used to do a “hohum let’s move on”.
“Now we don’t teach nor spend much time discussing our Heavenly Father’s life before He gained His potential”
Well, no. Because if they did, they would have to actually address this problem.
“We are perfected and our sins are removed never to be remembered as if they never happened – in fact according to God they never did happen (that is the point of NOT REMEMBERING).” (caps in original)
But this does not change the fact that those sins HAPPENED. The fact that they HAD TO BE “forgotten” is proof that they occurred. After all, how can you be forgiven of robbing a bank if you didn’t rob that bank? So, by their own doctrine, the LDS teach that God the Father DID commit sins that He was forgiven of.
And think about this: if God the Father (Elohim) committed a sin against someone who is now in “spirit prison,” did THAT person “forget” what Elohim did to them when they were on their original world? What about a sin He had committed against another who is now a “God” like Elohim over their own universe? Did THEY forget also?
Nah, I’d rather stick to the truth of the Bible: that Almighty God had no beginning, has eternally been God, and never HAD to have any sins forgiven.
I would like to know why is it so hard to understand in monotheism? In the OT, God lead the Israelites out of Egypt and explained pretty throughly that He is the only God; and repeated this statement many time. It’s and absolute, there is no other God besides him. If God was happy with sharing this throne with subservient gods he might as well just left them under the rule of Pharaoh.
But Mormons reject the God of the OT by applying polytheism to the equation. Ok LDS’ers before you start quoting, and explaining how you don’t reject God, please explain why God said he knows no other God besides himself (Repeatedly). Do you think God was lying? (BTW withholding information is lying by omission, something the lds church is very good at) Or did God also “forget” that also.
When I joined the church in 2004, I read the BOM which is very monotheistic. two years later I was a temple worker (and was one for 1.5 years) where I learned of the “additional” gospel. I only mention this because I felt as if I had the bait and switch pulled on me. I was liberated by God earlier this year.
How can a man make a choice of free will when important information regarding the pending discussion is not disclosed. Line upon line is fine and all, but you don’t put a teenager in a car and only explain what the gas peddle does.
“As Mormons are, I once was. As I am now, Mormons may become.”
I love our Mormon friends, I truly do. I hope one day, I hope…
Aaron loves to run down this path, waiting for some LDS to make a statement that he can capitalize on, such as this.
Again- provide one statement from the LDS canon or our leaders that suggests that God ever sinned.
You cannot do this. And Nobody I know in the church believes this. I am sure you can find somebody that would accept such a possibility. Are you comfortable with me seeking out some looney evangelical with crazy ideas and claiming they represent your religion accurately?
Yours is a simple and deceptive trap, Aaron. You seem very comfortable misrepresenting our doctrine while insisting on strait forward scholarship from LDS. Rediculous.
I do some of my best thinking when I’m riding my bike and this morning as I was whirling the crank around and around, I got to thinking about this Mormon god who progressed from being a man. Snow’s little slogan would indicate that the Mormon god progressed from a state of being just like present day Mormons.
I don’t know about this. I think Mormons may want to go for a do-over on this concept. I saw something recently that Utah has either the highest or highest per capita “hits” on internet pornographic websites. So was the Mormon god peeking at porno when the wife and kiddies were in bed with visions of the Celestial Kingdom dancing in their heads?
Also what do we know about the incident rates of child abuse and the use of prescription drugs (known as mother’s little helpers) and suicide rates in Utah? I believe the rate of “temple divorce” is about the same as regular divorce. Pretty grim picture and to think that the Mormon god was subject to all of this too.
See, I’m not pointing my finger at Mormon sinfullness or sexual proclivities. I know I’m a sinner. I agree with God concerning this. But the very nature of God is absolute and total holiness. He was never like me and the only reason I have half a chance at eternal life is because He took mercy on the poor wretch that I am and covered me with the Blood of His precious Son when I received the gift of eternal life through faith.
Joseph Smith in his egomania decided to make God just like him. He tried to pull God down to the debase level in which Smith lived his own life. Well if it gives Mormons comfort to believe that their god was just like them fine. Just pop another pill and watch the latest internet porn flick and know that the Mormon god used to do the same thing before he progressed.
Olsen Jim, hence the denial I was talking about in the original post.
Preach it to Ralph and Kevin, and other fellow Mormons who did the video interviews at GodNeverSinned.com.
Not me.
Also see the Q&A at GodNeverSinned.com:
I just want to make sure I was clear on my last post. The additional gospel that I am referring to is the switch from Mono to polytheism, hench the bait, of a monotheistic religion, to the underlining “true” religion of polythiesisum, the switch; God is a god of many in the line of gods.
Mr. Olsen, I was a faithful member of the church for sometime, I had many callings, served in the temple (as previously noted), I was a model member. Slowly I started to see evidence of polythiesisum in my Ward, stake, and really the whole church in general. I am not making this up because I left Mormonism, Mormonism drove me away because of these beliefs. Maybe the church does not teach those things at this point in time, but, in the past they did, it came from the presidents of the church. Now as you are a faithful member you must follow those teachings or you are going against the lords anointed, “speak not against them”. If you dismiss you previous presidents, then who is to say you cannot dismiss the ten commandments, the teachings of Christ? That is all in the past also. You cannot pick and choose. You are either in the religion, LDS, or you are not, there is not middle ground. I believe Hinckley said that.
So blame Aaron all you want, kill the messenger if you must. At the least, please be humble and meek enough to believe me when I tell you that is what the Mormon church taught me, and that is the reason why I left. If you remember any of my previous postings I will defend the LDS people when they are directly attacked, I have even challenged Aaron on his approach, and yes I believe he would be more effective with a more gentle approach; but don’t so swiftly dismiss the message Aaron brings, there is validity in what he posts, I know this because I have seen the man behind the curtain before I came across this blog.
“As Mormons are, I once was. As I am now, Mormons may become.” Vivre Pour Libarer~
Aaron,
I fully embrace the teachings and the doctrines of the church. I deny none of them. You still cannot provide one statement from the church that suggests we in any way believe God was ever a sinner. Yet you have the gall to say I am in denial. Give me something about this to deny. Your scholarship on this is truly pathetic.
You simply have nothing to quote on this- of all the prophets and manuals and scriptures- nothing to suggest we believe God was a sinner. Your claims are misrepresentative in the fullest.
Kevin- you are claiming that you were taught by authorized people of the church that God the Father was a sinner in the past? I simply do not believe you if this is what you are saying. It is nowhere in our literature, canon, or teachings.
I might as well just claim you evangelicals believe that children should be beaten severely on a daily basis. Your denial of such a thing would be a denial of the same category.
Olsen Jim, please direct your complaints toward your fellow Mormons who believe that traditional Mormon doctrine suggests that God the Father could have been a sinner.
I find it absolutely telling that you are directing none of these comments toward Ralph, the Mormon quoted in the original post. Do you believe Ralph exists, Olsen Jim? If so, why have you not directed your complaints against his reasoning, etc.?
I see the approach that Mr. Olsen is trying to take, it’s like trying to split hairs with a hatchet. A common russe that lawyers uses when the evidence is staked against them. It’s all systematic reasoning, or lack their of; to confuse the empirical evidence that is presented.
Yes I had the Temple President tell me in these exact words. “God was once a man just like you, and now as you administer the sacred ordinances here in the temple today you are acting as our God, do so with reverence”
In order to be a man like me, then it is completely reasonable to think that God has sinned; because if he did not sin, lol, he was not like me.
It is in the teachings, absolutely, I am not a historian, or a script-torian, so I hope someone can come to my aid. I believe it was Snow who said, “As we are now, God once was. as God is, we may become.”
As we are now. We are all sinners, do you disagree with that? Are you perfect? Please don’t answer that, I am venting, sorry. “As we are now” is not a semi synthetic explanation of rational behavior. It’s a holistic argument to inspire people into believing that God was exactly like us, to include sinning. We use the same analogy in todays world, when talking about athletes. But we say, “They put on their pants one leg at a time”. It brings them down to earth, makes them more human. The problem is, God is much more then human.
Mr. Olsen, it was taught by your presidents of old during pulpit summons. According to the LDS faith, this is the word of God. I really understand that it is hard to accept. My wife was an LDS’er since birth. The day that God reveled the truth to her was a hard day indeed. She felt disappoint, used, manipulated, to say the least. She is a strong woman who I admire and come through it better then ever.
“As Mormons are, I once was. As I am now, Mormons may become.” Vivre Pour Libarer~
Olsen,
Everyone has been showing you how LDS teaching suggest that God was a sinner. You have chosen to be in denial because you just might have to make a decision at some point to leave the Church when you find out you have been duped all these years. That is a difficult prospect for anyone to consider. You said, “You simply have nothing to quote on this- of all the prophets and manuals and scriptures- nothing to suggest we believe God was a sinner.” The very words of Lorenzo Snow suggest this as everyone has pointed. But, to understand the implication of his words, one has to understand the sinful condition of man. You see, when one says, “As man is, God once was…” we have to consider what man is. Put simply, man is a sinner. Therefore, taking Snow’s words to their logical conclusion, the implication is that God was a sinner. Now, you can’t deny this and stick to the rest of Snow’s words: “As God now is, man may become,” which implies godhood, creation, omni-everything, etc. The problem you have isn’t really with what we say, but that’s what you want it to be, but is actually with the words of your leaders (and they are not true prophets). To fully embrace the teachings and doctrines of a false church is very unwise. I think you’re smarter than that, Olsen. I used to work with adolescent youth whose parents had abused them, but I couldn’t say anything negative about that parent because they would protect that parent at any cost. This is what happens to victims of Mormonism. They have been lied to, and it hurts too much to acknowledge that. There’s a lot of trust issues going on here, and so the abused member clings to the lies that their parent is good and would never harm them. Something to think about.
Blessings to you and yours, Olsen.
Kevin wrote “I believe it was Snow who said, “As we are now, God once was. as God is, we may become.””
Yes it was, absolutely. I’d post the whole quote, but I’m at the wrong computer.
When I was researching this issue earlier, I found that it became even more removed from the Christian concepts of sin/saviour/salvation, than the above discussion suggests. Maybe I’ll post the quotes relating to it, but one thing I found remarkable was how (the Mormon) God got himself to godhood. It was not by appealling to a saviour, but by his own industry and effort (Evs would call it “works”).
So, not only does this theme in LDS teaching reduce the saviour to a once-sinner, it bypasses the sin/savoiur/salvation message entirely.
This is how I hear the message…
“Good news! God didn’t need a saviour, so neither do you.
All you have to do is be a good boy, and you’ll be able to work your way up the ladder by your own virtue, industry and effort. All Jesus did was to show us that it could be done.”
I’ve got a word for this, but I don’t think it would get past the moderators.
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Cor 1:18
There’s not much more I can add to the comments above regarding the belief that Mormons hold regarding God’s past. Personally, I think they do hold that God was a sinner, because logically, given Snow’s couplet, almost certainly has to be true. The only out is the possibility that man is not inherently sinful, but that cannot be because we are.
But trying to see the other side, it may be like certain areas of Christianity that plague our faith, like the prosperity gospel, that if you believe something enough, it’ll happen. So, if you are sick and don’t get well, its because you didn’t have enough faith. Hogwash that is, but some people really do believe it.
However, a big difference is that Christian leaders are speaking out against this line of thinking. In Mormonism, there is nothing to quell the thought from its leadership. It lets this go on without rebuking it. There are many examples of such trends on both sides of the faith line: where Christians denounce wrong teachings and Mormons keeping their mouths shut.
This is interesting to see. It likely has a lot to do with the method of spiritual interpretation and how we view revelation. Christians are much more apt to use a given standard, while Mormons that fluxuates based on revelation. It also probably has a lot to do with loyalty to spiritual leaders. Christians will stand up for the truth over the legacy of the church or its leaders. In other words, Christians have no problem calling out a false doctrine, while Mormons are locked in an heirarchical “yes man” trap. Since the word of God is most important to Christians, they can easily go to what that word is: the Bible. Of course, they rely on prayer and past teachings as well, as long as what they see from those is consistent with what is in the Bible. Mormons, though, since they rely so heavilly on revelation, and more specifically, a “head prophet” to whom God speaks pretty directly, cannot go against what that prophet says.
In the transcript of the post-1990 LDS ceremony, Lucifer tells Eve:
The big question is whether what Lucifer says here is true or not. The statement goes unchallenged, without correction, and it fits within the larger traditional Mormon worldview.
Frankly, what Lucifer says here seems to throw a gigantic wrench into the “royal line of sinless saviors” idea which some Mormons take to avoid the notion that God the Father could have been a sinner. If the Father took of the forbidden fruit to gain his knowledge, then it follows that he wasn’t like Jesus in achieving this knowledge without eating of the forbidden fruit.
I asked my Mormon friend Jason, “Do you take that as a lie or a truth from Lucifer?”
He responded, “absolutely true”. I asked in response, “That throws a gigantic wrench into the ‘royal line of sinless saviors’ idea that some Mormosn take.” He responded, “Yes it does. People are free to speculate though, including apostles etc.”
What think ye? Mormons, do you take the above quoted statement by Lucifer as truth or a lie?
Cont’d.
So, when a former prohpet says that because god was like us we can become like him, they really are stuck, even if they don’t particularly like what he said. They can’t deny what he said, because that would undermine the position of prophet and undermine the current prophet. And if he is undermined, he can’t be trusted, and if he can’t be trusted, they’ve got nothing.
What it seems they do is to sweep it under the rug, like its not really there. They’ll do all they can from addressing it, and if they ever do they’ll say the quote was out of context, its full meaning is not understood, or any other way to invoke damage control, much like we saw in a particular Time article some years ago.
It seems on this issue Mormons probably do believe God once sinned, just like the rest of us, but because of his ability to repent fully and completely, those sins are wiped from memory. I could not believe in a God who had sinned. I wouldn’t trust him for the things he’s promised to do for us. I need a perfect and holy God, without blemish through eternity, to be with in heaven, and only that type of God can clean me.
The reality is that even when we forgive people, we still remember the things they did. This does not mean we hold it over their head, but that we remember the harm they caused. There is no reason to think whatever god fathered the father would do anything different.
I am a wretch, and the perfect grace that saved me is beyond my comprehension, but I am thankful everyday to have access to that grace. And anyone else out there has the same access. Just ask Christ for a real and personal relationship and for Him to save you, too. He will be there for you.
Blessings.
Here’s Milton R Hunter…
“ Yet, if we accept the great law of eternal progression, we must accept the fact that there was a time when Deity was much less powerful than He is today. Then how did He become glorified and exalted and attain His present status of Godhood? In the first place, aeons ago, God undoubtedly took advantage of every opportunity to learn the laws of truth and as He became acquainted with each new verity He righteously obeyed it. From day to day He exerted His will vigorously, and as a result became thoroughly acquainted with the forces lying about Him. As he gained more knowledge through persistent effort and continuous industry, as well as through absolute obedience, His understanding of the universal laws continued to become more complete. Thus He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He became God by absolute obedience to all the eternal laws of the Gospel–by conforming His actions to all truth, and thereby became the author of eternal truth. Therefore, the road that the Eternal Father followed to Godhood was one of living at all times a dynamic, industrious, and completely righteous life. There is no other way to exaltation.”
Did you notice how God became God? It was through “…through persistent effort and continuous industry…”. There’s no mention of the need for a saviour. So, if God didn’t need a saviour, and the path he trod shows the way for the path we tread, why do we need a saviour? All we need to do is to put our backs into it and try to push the mountain uphill.
If Jesus figures here, he’s not the saviour come to release us from captivity; he’s standing behind us, whip in hand, telling us to push harder.
Furthermore, is anyone else confused by Hunter’s “eternal truth” thing?
I mean, God starts off my learning a pre-existing “truth” that he didn’t create, and then, by complying with it, he becomes its author. Who’s in charge here? God, or this “eternal truth” that he operates under?
In my mind, you’re either the author of eternal truth, or you are subject to it. You can’t start off “under” it, and then progress to being “over” it. The “eternal” truth is either before you, or its not. If its before you, and you grow into it and then become it, then its not “eternal”.
Sounds like a heap of gnostic-babble to me.
Martin,
As I was reading your post/quote I was thinking, “This sounds like Free Masonry.” I believe the whole progression through the levels of Free Masonry relates to gaining more secret knowledge, wisdom etc. The initiate is on a continum to reach the top of the ladder of knowledge. It’s all about self-improvement.
If a being is going to “progress”, there has to be a starting point. In Mormon mythology, where was their god’s starting point? That’s basically what we’re discussing here. He had to start at some point on the continum. If the Mormon god did not start out as a sinner, that’s problematic for the Mormon. It means that he had a head start and wasn’t really “like” them at some point in his existence. Doesn’t really seem fair if he had an advantage in his starting point.
Who would want to pertetuate such lies as these anyway? Who’s purpose does it serve to blaspheme God? It’s the same old story with the devil. It’s so esay to see and yet Mormons have been blinded to the truth with a not so clever lie. It all appeals to human pride and desire. It’s just a continuation of rebellion against God.
Falcon,
The way I’d put it is that Mormonism borrows from Freemasonry, and the philosophy underpinning Freemasonry is thoroughly gnostic in character.
I’m fairly familiar with the philosophy of Freemasonry because my father is a Freemason. I find much of the language and imagery of Mormonism instantly recognizable from the conversations I’ve had with him about Freemasonry.
You’re right. Its trajectory is self-centred in the sense that its about self-improvement. Also, its about progressing through different levels in order to get access to something that’s hidden from your unwashed neighbours.
The on-line game “World of Warcraft” is all about working you’re way through different levels in order to get access to new areas in the game. In my naughtier moments, I think about writing a piece on “Find out all you need to know about Gnosticism by Playing World of Warcraft”. The punch is that, like all the credits you earn in the game, the credits you get from Gnosticism/Mormonism/Freemasonry are worthless outside the game. I can’t skin real boars with my virtual knife, no matter what enchantments I buy for it with my virtual gold.
Give me the “Word become flesh” anyday; something that actually has some relevance to real life, and something that’s worth something outside whatever it is we get up to in church or chapel or temple.
Aaron,
I suspect you looked long and hard to find something, and the statement from the endowment is all you can come up with? I suppose one’s enemies can create and find the vilest and most base meanings from the smallest and most benign words.
The endowment in no way, shape or form suggests God was a sinner. Such a claim is mockery and blasphemy in the highest. But I doubt blespheming and mocking what is sacred to others causes you any discomfort.
The Church has never taught that God ever sinned- to any degree. It is pure dishonesty to claim otherwise.
Aaron- I think you love this type of conversation. You are certainly cunning in your methods. As this is a baseless conversation in which you cannot substantiate your argument, and in which our Father in Heaven is made out to be addicted to Porn, etc. by falco and company, I will no longer participate. I have given you ample opportunity to make your case- you have no evidence whatsoever.
Truth is not what you seek. Yours is a Jihadist mindset.
P.S. Aaron
If Lucifer was telling the truth, it would add nothing to the statement that “as man is God, once was.” He was saying that God passed through a mortal state. Jesus passed through a mortal state. Saying that God being mortal required sin, I suppose you deny Christ was sinless. To say we believe God was once a sinner is no different than me claiming you believe Christ was a sinner.
Martin, It’s interesting you bring up World Of War craft. I had a few friends who played video games almost day in and day out. I did not so often times I had no idea what they where talking about when they used game related terms. One day as they where bragging amongst them selfs about who had the best sword or who knew the fasted way to make their virtual charter more powerful, I simply attested…
You live in a fantasy world that gives you a false sense of accomplishment and personal pride. You spend hours upon days upon years building something that is vacuous by nature.
Joesph Smith might have been a great video game developer.
Ok thats tongue and cheek, joking aside, I think the LDS people are very industrious, hard working people who are just trying to do what is right
I think you missed the point Mr. Olsen.
Was it not a sin to eat the forbidden fruit?
If it is a sin to eat of the fruit, and that is the way that father gained his knowledge, then it is father who sinned also.
This fits perfectly into the grand scheme of the church. God was once like little ol` me.
Well, even if eating of the forbidden fruit isn’t a sin (just for the sake of argument), in Mormonism that path is still a different path than the Mormon Jesus took. The “royal line of sinless saviors” idea is that Jesus was simply copying what the Father did, including play the role of a sinless savior. Jesus didn’t die a natural death and had already achieved godhood in pre-mortality, so it is argued by these Mormons that the Father also played the role of a sinless savior and also achieved godhood in the pre-mortality.
The idea that God the Father ate of the forbidden fruit to gain the knowledge of good and evil, if true, throws a huge wrench into that paradigm. In fact, it makes for an interesting twist on the non-royal-line-of-sinless-saviors paradigm, because it suggests that God the Father played the role of Adam on another planet (not to be confused with Adam-God, where God comes to the garden already with a celestially exalted, resurrected body).
Actually, I have been reading the post-1990 temple ceremony transcript for another reason: to observe the role of Satan in the drama. Satan’s line about the Father once having eaten the forbidden fruit flabbergasted me. It his hardly “benign” to say that God the Father participated in eating the forbidden fruit on another planet.
Please feel free to direct your comments to Jason of JosephSmith.com, a fellow ardent Mormon. You have yet to direct any of your comments toward Ralph, the Mormon on this blog who is quoted in the original post. It still seems that you are in denial, and are obstinately refusing to acknowledge the existence of other Mormons on this board and elsewhere who believe God the Father could have been a sinner or probably was a sinner.
Actually, the question was posed to two Mormons on the street at Manti. Specifically the question was whether it is historically possible that God the Father had such an addiction in the past. They are the ones who affirmed. I am just relaying what they said. But you have still refused to acknowledge the existence of such human beings. I wonder if you think they are figments of my imagination, or holograms projected by technology developed in the Bible-belt by hirelings of Satan? Or perhaps they really are your fellow Mormons, who have names, histories, personalities, and member numbers on the rolls of your Church?
I agree that the idea that God was once perhaps a sinner is “blasphemy in the highest”. That is the one thing we agree on here. But I disagree that you’re particular view on the matter is the only view, or even the majority view held by Mormons.
You keep appealing to the fact that I haven’t demonstrated that the Mormon Church explicitly affirms that God the Father absolutely was a sinner, but you’re missing the substance of my claim. My claim is basically that the traditional Mormon worldview suggests that God the Father was a sinner, and that the majority of Mormons believe it is a historical possibility that God the Father was once a sinner. Can you see the distinction?
Finally, I would ask you to refrain from accusing anyone on this blog of having a “Jihadist mindset”. That kind of rhetoric isn’t welcome here. Deal with the issues in a settled, reasonable way, instead of unleashing the anger of ad hominem.
Grace and peace for those who freely receive eternal life,
Aaron
I would like to say a few things.
First, to Martin. God is the author of all truth, in that he is the one that teaches us truth. It is through him that we gain truth.
It has been said, and rightly so, that noboby has ever truth invented anything, they have simply discovered what was already possible. Edison discovered how to work a lightbulb, and he built the first lightbulb, and thus is the author of the invention. However, the laws governing the creation of the Lightbulb always existed. He did not create electricity, nor did he create the conductivity of the metal.
In like manner, God is the author of all truth because he has discovered all truth, and it is through him we learn all truth.
As to the argument that the only logical conclusion to LDS doctrine is that God was a sinner, anyone who claims this is either severely lacking in the powers of reason, or they are purposely trying top deceive those are.
Yes, God progressed to be what he is now, as did Christ. However, they progressed to that point before they were ever born into physical bodies. Christ lived a sinless life on Earth because was perfected in the Pre-existance. No where can you show a direct statement that says the Father was any different, that he was not perfected before he was born into a physical body.
I will not deny that some LDS believe this idea, but that does not make it true, nor does that mean it is the only possible meaning to President Snow’s words.
Lastly, I should point out that I have spoken to many regular Christians who believe Christ was a sinner. What is their logic? It is a simple idea that since Christ was completely man while on this earth, and all men sin, he must have sinner. What do other Christians have to say about this?
Gospel Principles, chapter 6: Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, latter-day scriptures help us understand that their fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. BECAUSE OF THE FALL, WE ARE BLESSED WITH PHYSICAL BODIES, the right to choose between good and evil, and THE OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN ETERNAL LIFE. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.”
Now, if Adam and Eve could not gain a physical body unless THEY sinned, and if Heavenly Father has a physical body, then by default Heavenly Father MUST HAVE SINNED in order to gain a physical body.
Are you referring to the Mormons shown on GodNeverSinned.com, or to the Christians relaying the logic of those Mormons? Why are these kinds of attacks being implicitly being thrown at evangelicals, and not the Mormons who have said that it is logical that God the Father could have been a sinner?
fourpointer,
Traditional Mormonism says that Adam and Eve’s “transgression” in the garden was not a “sin”. They make a distinction between the two, saying that the “trangression” of Adam and Eve was actually a righteous, wise, holy, and good decision that we should all imitate. See more here.
But the other point still stands. Mormonism says Adam and Even could not be perfected (i.e. they could not progress unto godhood) until benefiting from the experiences of post-fall mortality. If Satan’s statement in the LDS temple drama about God partaking of the forbidden fruit to gain the knowledge of good and evil is true, then it follows that God the Father was not perfected unto godhood in pre-mortality—was not like Jesus in achieving godhood in pre-mortality—but rather needed to, post-fall, do what all of we have supposedly done.
Did you not see the temple quote?
shematwater, any professing Christian who believes Jesus was a sinner is going to the fire of eternal hell unless they repent.
Take care,
Aaron
Yeah, it is hard for me to see how Snow’s couplet could mean anything but that god was sinful. See, he compares god to us before he became god. And the argument that this was before he was man as a spirit that he sinned does not stand up to logic. Here’s why: if he sinned before he became man, and did not sin while man, this still precludes all of us from becoming god, because we all sin as men. So, the before manhood idea is irrelevent, and if it is not, then because we all sin we cannot become god if sinlessness as men is required. Reworded: if the requirement is sinlessness as men, then we all fail, regardless of what happened before.
If they believe that they can achieve godhood, then it must be based on their present state, because they have already failed after the point god failed, if he failed in the preexistence only.
So, god had to have failed after that point if Snow is correct.
There can be no other way to view it that stands.
And thus, the hope that one can become a god is empty, unless god sinned as a man. Only then can the believe stand.
So, did Christ sin? No, he did not, because he is Everlasting God, and God is perfect.
Shem said, “I will not deny that some LDS believe this idea…”
Where did they get that idea from? As a convert I received this information from my bishop, elders quorum leaders and attenedets, Temple president, lay members… to name a few. It was not an underground movement, its a real thing.
“…but that does not make it true…”
Your right, it does not make it true!
“…nor does that mean it is the only possible meaning to President Snow’s words.”
Right again, but Snow spoke in plain English when he said, ‘as we are NOW, God once WAS’
So I ask you Shem, how are you NOW? How is the Mormon population NOW, sinners to some degree? I would bet yes, and there is nothing wrong with that, Jesus Died for your sins, rejoice in that because God WAS never like US.
re:There is no explicit statement in the LDS canon where it says that HF sinned etc. This is
true.However there is more to consider concerning
this.There is no direct statement in the LDS
canon concerning the name and person of heavenly
Mother[HM].Joseph fielding Smith taught that even
though there is no mention of HM in the Bible,
Book of Mormon,or D&C is not sufficient proof
that she does not exist.Answers To Gospel Question
3:142. This is an inferred belief.It is suggested
etc. By teaching that God is our Father and that
we are His literal offspring we then must have a
HM.To LDS this is reasonable.It is suggested.
“…logic and reason would suggest….we have
a Mother in Heaven.” Gordon B Hinckley, Ensign
Nov.1991 p.100
In like manner, when we assemble the statements
relative to LDS eternal progression,particularity
concerning HF we see that the path He trod upward
is our path too.We follow His tracks.Our develope-
ment and progression is based on like begets like,
our mortal probation on this earth was His on
another earth.It is taught:
(cont) “An intelligent being, in the image of God, possesses every organ, attribute, sense, sympathy, affection, that is possesed by God Himself. But these are possessed by man in his rudimental state, …or, in other words these attributes are in embryo, and are to gradually developed. They resemble a bud, a germ, which gradually developes into bloom, and then, by progress, produces the mature fruit after it’s kind….through a continual course of progression, our Heavenly Father has received exultation and glory, and He points us out the same path…..”
” I do not believe that any man lives up to His ideals, but if we are striving, if we are working, if we are trying, to do the best of our ability, to improve day by day, then we are in the line of our duty. If we are seeking to remedy our own defects, if we are so living that we can God for light, for knowledge, for intellengence, and above all, for His Spirit that we may overcome our weaknesses, then I can tell you we are in the straight and narrow path that leads to eternal life. [Doctrines of the Gospel, student manuel, pages 45,92,40]
(Cont) As every worthy LDS male progresses upward at times there is stumbling, mistakes and adjustments are required through Gospel Ordinances, as LDS curriculum teaches, “Repentance is an eternal principle of progress.” [Ibid. pg 38]
Each LDS worthy male is a God in embryo,
Each LDS worthy male is a HF in embryo.
Finally, LDS should not trouble over the inferred belief that HF made mistakes in his progress. As the Temple endowment ceremony isn’t discussed with non-LDS so to particulars concerning HF’s past shouldn’t be discussed either. It is part and partial wit LDS theology and they should appreciate the great differences between their particular beliefs and that of other faiths.
Mike R–
Shutting down the debate, are you? Is this because your beliefs will not stand the test? I do not ask to be derisive, but to wonder why you say that this should not be discussed. I have no problem discussing the particualrs of my faith…
fourpointer,
Adam and Eve did not receive physical bodies because of the fall, they already had physical bodies, otherwise they could not eat the fruit. They received mortal bodies because of the fall. And because of this they were able to procreate, which is why that statement you quoted says that we are blessed with physical bodies because of the fall.
Aaron,
As I said in the quote you have based this article around, we do not know nor do we teach about what our Heavenly Father’s life was like before He gained His potential. Also, we do not know anything about the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were commanded of God not to partake, but do we know if God was given the same command? No. If you have access to the temple transcriptions you would know that Satan, when questioned by God about what he was doing, answered that he was only doing what had been done on other worlds. The giving out of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Now to me, that sounds very much like the command not to partake was only for this world and the other worlds God had created and populated were allowed to have the fruit and it was not a sin. So there is a possibility that IF God partook of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil on His world, it was not a sin.
Michael P
I think you misunderstood my post. The last paragraph of my post should have been worded differently. The part about LDS shouldn’t be troubled is that my thinking was that if they are shocked at learning this LDS inferred belief ( HF made mistakes on His upward progress to Godhood), then either stand up for it or do as most LDS do when discussing the Temple endowment ceremony-don’t discuss it at all etc. LDS shouldn’t try to deny that there is a vast difference between their beliefs and all other beliefs. They should appreciate that difference and quit stating, ” But we’re Christians just like you”. This is what I meant. Reread the material that I quoted which showed the connection between LDS males NOW and HF’s past. Just because this belief ( HF, once a sinner) isn’t cannonical doens’t mean it isn’t embedded in LDS theology, it is plainly inferred.
Most Mormons I have spoken to about this issue so far have said it seemed to allude to a paradigm of Satan having a role in the fall of first parents on other worlds which were under our Elohim and Jehovah. This is not a new idea, of course.
Also, I hate to teach you your own theology, but eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve isn’t considered a bona fide sin according to traditional Mormonism. It is, however, the precursor to a post-fall life of temptation, suffering, sin, atonement, and resurrection. If God the Father partook of the forbidden fruit, it wouldn’t have to be a sin at all according to traditional Mormon theology. My point it bringing it up is that it challenges one LDS notion that God the Father achieved this knowledge (as well as godhood) in a pre-mortal way the same way Jesus did. That is a part of the royal line of sinless saviors idea and it is ostensibly challenged by Mormonism’s own temple ceremony.
To quote Satan in the LDS temple ceremony again,
Ralph, do you believe this statement by Lucifer was true or false? Do you believe this is the way that God the Father “gained his knowledge”?
Mike R, thank you very much for your remarks. The idea that a teaching can be embedded in Mormonism and be considered a logical and reasonable extension of things made most explicit is important for people to hear. Just because an idea isn’t explicitly canonical in Mormonism doesn’t mean it isn’t a part of the Mormon worldview.
Goodnight, friends,
Aaron
Shem wrote “God is the author of all truth because he has discovered all truth”
Its been said that Mormons habitually divorce words from their meanings, and I’m beginning to see how. I guess they get a buzz out of being able to say two mutually exclusive and contradictory things in the same sentence, and feel good about it. Maybe this gives them the “burning in the bosom” they need to legitimize what I can only describe as a schizophrenic world view.
Shem argues that by discovering truth, God becomes its author. He uses Edison’s invention of the light bulb as an example. Edison didn’t create light, he just found a way to put it together.
Shem, will you just listen to yourself? Didn’t light exist before Edison “discovered” it? But he doesn’t become the creator of light by discovering it. How could he?
Or, to use another metaphor, the America’s existing before Erik the Viking “discovered” them. That does not make Erik the “author” of the America’s.
For God to “discover” the “eternal” truth”, the “truth” must be there before God. And, if it is there before God, He cannot be its author/originator/creator.
That is, unless God somehow subsumes the “eternal” truth and recasts it according to his own design. But then, it would not be “eternal”.
I think you’ve taken some religious phraseology and used it to say something that is completely meaningless.
Are you trying to impress us? I’d be better impressed if you used plain language and introduced some integrity into the way you use it.
You know from blasting through all of yesterday’s posts, I couldn’t help but get a little attitude here from at least one of our Mormon posters. That attitude is typical cult-like in substance and could be expressed simply by saying something a kin to: “Well, those poor Christians are in spiritual darkness and they are not as high on the rung of spiritual understanding as we Mormons are and they can’t possibly understand all of these complicated and deep spiritual truths we possess, so it’s really better not to talk about it.”
This is typical gnosticism with its “secret knowledge”. It’s “in group” thinking and keeps the adherents locked in pride and self-deception. The idea of course is that these “truths” are so deep and complicated, that only the truly enlightened could ever possible understand them. It’s part of the spiritual progression of course.
So under the delusion of secret spiritual truth and knowledge, the most hideous, blasphemous beliefs are embraced. It’s all about a process of seduction where by a thought or act would be so repundant initially, with time and the application of specific conditioning, becomes acceptable.
Hence, that’s why Moromons slip into beliefs and practices such as being discussed here. A pimp doesn’t get his whore to turn a trick on the first night. Praise God that our exMormon friends who post here, responded to the light God sent them and escaped from the insidious cult that is Mormonism.
I only got one reply to the fact that many Christians believe Christ sinned, and it wasn’t really a reply. All they said was that if any Christian believes this tehy would be damned to hell. Now, the LDS could have answered this thread in the same manner, but we would have been ridiculed for not addressing the “concern” that our doctrine actually teaches that. So, why doesn’t a good upstanding Christian explain to us all why their doctrine cannot infer that Christ was a sinner when many Christians believe it does?
Can you name one Mormon here who has said that fellow professing Mormons who believe God the Father possibly or probably was a sinner are going to eternal punishment, eternally?
Also, shematwater, the difference here is that the idea that Christ never sinned is rooted in unanimous theology tradition for over two thousand years. On the other hand, very informed Mormons who have teaching positions at BYU and who write popular theological books at Deseret Book believe God the Father possibly and even “probably” was a sinner.
Can you find such a parallel in evangelical protestantism? Name me one evangelical seminary professor who believes that Jesus Christ was historically probably a sinner. Alonzo Gaskill of BYU has already told me that he believes God the Father probably was a sinner in the past.
The chasm is real.
Now, shematwater, are you going to address the issue of whether God the Father “gained his knowledge” by eating of the forbidden fruit, as reported by Lucifer in the LDS temple ceremony?
Aaron,
“Traditional Mormonism says that Adam and Eve’s “transgression” in the garden was not a “sin”. They make a distinction between the two, saying that the “trangression” of Adam and Eve was actually a righteous, wise, holy, and good decision that we should all imitate.” Yeah, and I always wondered how they could get away with saying that Adam’s sin was a “good thing” when nowhere in the Bible is it ever described as anything but a BAD thing. Perhaps that’s how the LDS can teach that God sinned like Adam–because it wasn’t such a bad thing. Which raises another question: If Adam and Eve were “blessed” because of their transgression, why isn’t Satan “blessed” for introducing it to them? I’m sure Salt Lake City has an answer for that one.
Ralph said, “Adam and Eve DID NOT RECEIVE PHYSICAL BODIES BECAUSE OF THE FALL, they already had physical bodies, otherwise they could not eat the fruit. THEY RECEIVED MORTAL BODIES BECAUSE OF THE FALL. And because of this they were able to procreate…” So when God told them to “be fruitful and multiply, that was a command He knew they couldn’t follow?
“…which is why the statement you quoted says that WE ARE BLESSED WITH PHYSICAL BODIES BECAUSE OF THE FALL.” Wow! That is Mormonism in a nutshell. Double-speak, the art of “Well, that’s what he said but it’s not what he meant,” turning phrases on their heads. How about the fact that if God the Father has been forgiven for His sins–the ones He committed in His existence on whatever planet He existed on before He became a “God”–if He has been forgiven of those sins, doesn’t that, by default, mean that those sins actually happened?
AARON
I will not comment on anything that is said in the Temple. First, because I have not been to the Temple and I do not know if what you are quoting is accurate. Second, the Temple is far to sacred to debase it on these threads.
As to your agument, it is just another avoidance of the whole question.
BYU professors can say anything they want, but that does not make it LDS doctrine, nor does it even make it a reasonable conclusion. There have been professors excommunicated for some of the things they taught.
The only real question being adressed by this thread is simple. “Does the doctrine of the LDS church, or the words of any of the prophets, allow for the inference that God sinned?” Quite obviously the answer is yes, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. The proof is in the simple fact that faithful people see it.
However, that does not mean it is true or even likely.
Having said this, I would like you to answer the simple question “Does the doctrine of Christianity, or the words of any of the prophets, allow for the inference that Christ sinned?”
You have yet to answer this. However, as faithful people do believe it, the answer would be the same.
Now, explain to me how it could not be infered. Do not explain to me how it is false, but how people could not believe it. That is what I am asking you to do.
Personally, I will not say that I person who believes God could have been a sinner is damned, because we have no explicit teaching on the subject. Thus such ideas are left to the individual, and God will judge.
Now, I would like to ask another question. Considering that there is no explicit doctrine concerning this, considering it is a matter for individual belief, what is the point of even bringing it up? Why make this a thread? It will not enhance the understanding of anyone regarding the LDS faith. If people are are actually searching for truth this discussion can only hinder that search. So, what is the point?
I find the above from Shem very interesting.
Since I have been here, Shem seems to be the most outspoken of all the LDS about being called a devil-worshipper.
My musings on this made me think: I’ll be he never has “taken out [his] endowments”.
If I can sum this up for you Shem, the reason you don’t understand why people say that the LDS are praying (etc) to Lucifer in the temple is because you’ve never been there to see it happen yourself. Wait until you go, and see if you don’t all stand around an altar, chanting the same prayer that “Adam” did and got Lucifer to come to answer. See if you aren’t given the “emblem of Lucifer’s power and priesthoods” to wear (an apron). See if you’re not told that if you don’t follow through on every covenant, you are putting yourself in Lucifer’s power. Just wait and see when you get there why any of us say what we have said.
And no, Christ never sinned.
Again, Aaron isn’t trying to say that “God the father sinned” is taught from LDS pulpits. He’s saying that the things that ARE TAUGHT from LDS pulpits make the people believe that He could have sinned. And that is completely true, as most Mormons who have been asked say yes
It takes some people a whole year to begin to understand that distinction. Thanks from my heart for articulating it 🙂
I have personally witnessed Aaron ask the question to several LDS, and MOST OF THEM have replied that yes, God could have been a sinner.
One or two (that I’ve seen) said “No way”, and go on to admit that down deep in their heart, God is God, and He’s the only One.
It’s my opinion (based on what I’ve witnessed), that it is generally the Mormons who haven’t been Mormons long, and still don’t know that Mormons teach or believe that we can become gods, who think “NO WAY, God could NEVER have been a sinner.”
Aaron,
I agree that God could have partaken of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and that is how He received His knowledge, especially from the quote you gave. But I did give another part of the same presentation to show that there is a possibility that the command not to partake of the fruit – thus making the partaking of it wrong – may only apply to this world. In which case God would not have sinned when He partook of the fruit.
I think it’s very sad that Mormonism fosters a theology in which its adherents could even consider the idea that God “could have partaken of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and that is how He received His knowledge…” (Ralph). Then, they have to resort to all sorts of convoluted thinking and hypotheses in order for LDS presuppositions to work. God has always existed and has always been God. Why are Mormons so averse to that biblical truth? God did not acquire knowledge, but is THE SOURCE of all knowledge. Why are Mormons averse to this biblical truth? How can one not see the red flags that are also sounding off with high-pitched and screeching whistles?
Praying for the deliverance of the Mormon people…
“God Himself, finding He was in the midst of spirits and glory, because He was more intellegent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like Himself.” [Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith page 354]
“He became God-an exalted being-through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey.” [The Gospel through the Ages page 104]
By these LDS teachings we see that man’s advancement mirrors God the Father’s. Man follows His laws. We overcome our mistakes by keeping Gospel laws and ordinances, as He did before us. One such law man is counseled to keep is that of repentance. It is a requirement for advancement, for moral refinement, on the road to perfection, to Godhood.
Tragically, the reducing of the Creator to just being “of the same species”, as His creatures is an old lie. Romans 1:23
Ralph, I’m doing a blog post on the 27th on this issue.
SETFREE
I have yet to meet one who would say yes.
Anyway, that is really not the point I was making. I know that Aaron was not saying the LDS teach this. However, the “Christians” don’t teach that Christ sinned, but from their doctrine there are people who believe this. It is the same thing, and yet you refuse to address this.
Second, you have not responded to my last question. What is the pupose of bring this up? How does it enhance ones knowledge of the LDS faith? And, Given the fact that Christians believe Christ could have sinned, could not this same thing be applied to the Christian faiths?
Now, MIKE gave some nice quotes, ant by themselves they seem to support the idea presented. However, as we are also taught that Jesus walked this same path, and he was perfect, the fact that God the Father walked it is not really proof that he sinned.