More Reasons Why The Royal Line of Sinless Saviors Just Doesn’t Add Up

Clint Roberts writes,

If only a few rare beings in the infinite family tree are part of this unique royal succession who lived sinlessly on earth in order to be redeemers, then it still remains that sinners become gods just as great & powerful as ours (in fact it’s the norm). So big deal if WE just so happen to be offspring in that rare line of succession in which one son (always the eldest, I guess?) in every ‘litter’ carries the sinless-while-on-earth gene. Right?

Brian Mackert writes,

It moves the problem to a different God. You and I who ARE SINNERS are, according to Mormonism, supposed to be able to become Gods just like God the Father did, but God the Father wasn’t a sinner? See the contradiction? God the Father wasn’t a sinner, didn’t need a Savior, didn’t need atonement for sin, didn’t need to be redeemed, never fell into sin, it is impossible for us to become a God like He did!!!
The whole of Mormon Theology begins to unravel. If God was a sinless Savior like Jesus, then how was He tested by the flesh so that He could earn His own godhood and be exalted? Was he special somehow? And if we are to become gods just like he did then why aren’t we all sinless Saviors too?
What about the Holy Ghost? How did He become a God without a physical body and being tried by it? What’s up with that? Is He special too?
What about Jesus? How come it’s possible for him to become a God without ever having fallen into sin like us and needing to be redeemed?
It seems to me that if being a sinner or being sinless is optional then there is no need for this probationary period and the trials of the flesh. Why should we have to endure the trials of the flesh in order to become a God if this is optional. It seems to me that if we were to become Gods as they became Gods, then we wouldn’t have had the fall in the Garden of Eden. We would have all remained sinless and become sinless Gods as God the Father did and as Jesus did.

It moves the problem to a different God. You and I who ARE SINNERS are, according to Mormonism, supposed to be able to become Gods just like God the Father did, but God the Father wasn’t a sinner? See the contradiction? God the Father wasn’t a sinner, didn’t need a Savior, didn’t need atonement for sin, didn’t need to be redeemed, never fell into sin, it is impossible for us to become a God like He did!!!

The whole of Mormon Theology begins to unravel. If God was a sinless Savior like Jesus, then how was He tested by the flesh so that He could earn His own godhood and be exalted? Was he special somehow? And if we are to become gods just like he did then why aren’t we all sinless Saviors too?

What about the Holy Ghost? How did He become a God without a physical body and being tried by it? What’s up with that? Is He special too?

What about Jesus? How come it’s possible for him to become a God without ever having fallen into sin like us and needing to be redeemed?

It seems to me that if being a sinner or being sinless is optional then there is no need for this probationary period and the trials of the flesh. Why should we have to endure the trials of the flesh in order to become a God if this is optional. It seems to me that if we were to become Gods as they became Gods, then we wouldn’t have had the fall in the Garden of Eden. We would have all remained sinless and become sinless Gods as God the Father did and as Jesus did.

This entry was posted in Nature of God. Bookmark the permalink.

182 Responses to More Reasons Why The Royal Line of Sinless Saviors Just Doesn’t Add Up

  1. falcon says:

    The acceptance of “light and knowledge”. This is a fascinating concept within Mormonism. I believe it gets to the whole idea of “continuous revelation”. Our Mormon friend seems to be jumping up and down screaming, “Why won’t you accept that I receive light and knowledge from the Holy Ghost?”.
    Well it gets back to the subject of this thread which basically ask the question, “Who is your God?” You see once I know who someone acknowledges as God, then I know the source they are receiving light and knowledge from. The Mormon false god will produce “light and knowledge” about Mormonism. Actually I believe that whatever Mormons are receiving is coming out of their own minds and they are “feeling” it’s coming from their god. Or, of course, we know that Joseph Smith was an occultist and the Mormons past and present claim encounters with the spirits of dead people. That could be another source of their light and knowledge.
    The Bible is real clear about testing the spirits. I’ve tested Mormonism and found it’s “prophet” Joseph Smith and all he taught to be false. Smith’s not that difficult to debunk. I get a real bad “feeling” about that guy and his fraudulent BoM and BoA.
    So this idea of receiving “light and knowledge” is only as good as it’s source. Mormonism is a religion of a false god and a false prophet. Any light and knowledge that comes from the Mormon prophets and Mormon individuals has nothing to do with the living God and His revelation the Bible.
    God is speaking to Mormons as they come here but their minds are so seared by deception that they can’t accept the witness of the Holy Ghost. Mormons have chosen a path not of light and knowledge but of darkness.

  2. Ward says:

    Hank – from the 11th -“Again Ward, I repeat that what I posted was in response to false facts and evidence that are the norm here.” I won’t repeat the rest of the post, because you appear to be talking to someone else, again with your moser quote. I haven’t been posting about any arguments, other than calling on you to account for yourself. You were cutting and pasting, and you were warned about it. Yet, you completely ignored that (I guess I would have expected a simple ” oh, sorry, I made a mistake.”) Instead you wander around accusing other posters of doing the same thing. I have attempted to hold you in some credible light, and I have attempted to ask you to look at yourself and see the arrogance you are displaying, in hopes of helping you to still have an audience here. It is not about Joseph, BY, plural marriage, you name it. It is about you, yourself. NO one else. It is about your testimony as an adult, capable of dialogue, contention and discourse. Can you acknowledge your transgression when you are confronted with it about cutting and pasting? Why is it so hard to be human with the rest of us? Does admitting your frailties somehow cause the whole house to fall down? I doubt it. Look at the rest of us..not a pretty sight. We are all sinners saved by grace. You are appearing here as an angry threatened arrogant person. I don’t think that is showing you at your best. Please consider this, from one who is attempting to be friendly.

  3. falcon says:

    There is no such thing as having “some” light and knowledge or “some” truth; not when it comes to God. If a person gets the nature of God wrong, they get it all wrong. There are several prophet or revelatory errors within Mormonism and the most egregious of these is their doctrine of the nature of God.
    Some of the other revelatory or prophetic errors in Mormonism are:
    1. Lack of accountability for prophecies that do not come true.
    2. The attempt to establish doctrine and practice by revelation alone, a part from clear Biblical support.
    3. Manifesting an attitude of superiority through the false impression of a special body of information.
    The apostle John writes in First John 4:1 “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
    Having denied God and by creating his own god, Joseph Smith proved of what spirit he was. His occult practices and the spirit manifestations reported by Mormons during temple ceremonies further confirms this. This is no “light and knowledge” in Mormonism. Just a lot of people who have decided to follow Smith and accept his god while rejecting God.

  4. HankSaint says:

    I like friendly, I dislike false accusations. Yes I copied and pasted, and in doing so revealed my source. The difference is the weakness of most Evangelicals here to admit their talking points are not their own. You may disagree, but the accusations have not changed since the time of Joseph Smith except for recent DNA criticisms. What difference does it make that I come here to show visitors and guest that there are two sides and the side I take can be proven through promises our Heavenly Father makes in the scriptures. Faith, study, pondering, and sincere prayer. I can be friendly or sarcastic, I follow the lead that most often pops up here.

    How does it make you feel when having to deal with criticisms of Creedal Christianity? Defending the nature of God, six days of creation, and ex nihilo. When I mention these, I see I have hit home to some very sensitive nerves, and the anger seems to pour out instead of calm responses that would and should be proven by scripture.



  5. HankSaint says:

    I sense a failure to address my point Falcon, did or did not the HG reveal that Mormonism is false? You have stated clearly that the HG works in your life and I applauded you for that. I also gave a heartfelt and sincere response that the light and knowledge you have received was most likely from the workings of the Holy Ghost in your life. You have I suppose received a witness of the Triune God, six day of creation and ex nihilo, right. I never accused anyone of rejecting God, how can I know what and how he was revealed to you nor can you know my heart and the revelations I hold dear and near to my testimony that Jesus is the Christ. I state truthfully that the Scriptures reveal Christ, and that light and knowledge are the truth of God and not men, hint the Creeds.


  6. falcon says:

    Look Hank,
    I spent the better part of a week with you when you first started here going over point by point from the scriptures and my own personal experience God’s revelation as to who He is and what He has done for us in His Son Jesus Christ. You seemed to be making some progress and then “BANG” the curtain of understanding went down and the old Mormon rat-a-tat-tat mantras returned.
    Never having been a Mormon but borrowing on the experience of those who have been and who post here (some of whom I’ve gotten to know personally) there’s something (they explain to me) in the mind-set and spirit of a Mormon that blocks them from “getting it”.
    I can see in your responses that you fall back on Mormon mottos and a lack of any real understanding of Christian doctrine and Church history. It’s just Joseph Smith 24/7. Having received that spirit you’ve become clouded in your thinking to the point where you reject God for an idol created by a very corrupted and flawed man.
    You keep haranguing at the creeds like you’ve discovered some deep dark secret. People on this blog have done a good job of explaining to you the purpose of the creeds. I’m not going to do it again except to say that the Creeds laid out information to counteract the heretics.
    Based on what you write and what you confess to, I’ve got a pretty good idea what’s in your heart. The god you confess and bear testimony to is not the God of the Bible. The Jesus you proclaim is not “thee” Jesus. The plan of salvation you endorse is not that which God revealed through His written Word, His living Word and proclaimed by His apostles and prophets. Your’s is a different gospel. One that can’t provide for you salvation but can make you feel comfortable and smug.

  7. falcon says:

    So is it possible to know what’s in another person’s heart? Of course it is. If some guy is hitting on every woman or girl in town while being married, I know what’s in his heart. If someone is pulling scams and taking money from people in fictitious adventures that are going to result in faux monetary rewards, I know what’s in his heart.
    Joseph Smith “married” other men’s wives. He cheated people in treasure hunting scams. He proclaimed prophesies that never came to fruition. He preached another gospel. It’s really not very difficult to determine what was in his heart unless you’ve bought it emotionally and are therefore in a deep state of denial.

  8. grindael says:

    I have been amazed at the of “re-visiting” my mormon experience due to some conversations with some LDS acquaintances I met here in Buffalo. Having been “out of touch” for so long, I made use of the internet and have been all over the FARMS sites, and the official LDS sites on said internet.
    My interaction with mormons has left me with creepy feelings, mostly because of the stubbornness of their not putting 2plus 2 together to = 4: in the mormon world it equals something else.
    I bring this up because in reading the banter back and forth on this and other web-sites I took a good look at who I used to be (in mormonism) and I was (then)just like the mormons are now.
    The only difference, was that I could not continue with good conscience defending what I knew was a lie. To have stayed and lived in such a state of denial would have taken a heavy toll on my life and I am grateful for a loving God who helped me through it.
    I think I am like a lot of other non-mormons here, we honestly research both sides of the issue and with an open mind lay down the truth. That being said, I went to a FARMS site this morning and looked up the official stance on if mormons believe God at one time was a sinner. They said no it is not doctrine, it is all lies, and then used a quote from the lectures on faith to clarify the point.
    In the lectures on faith, Smith teaches God is a spirit, Jesus has a body and the Holy Ghost is the mind of God.
    Simple conclusion, they cherry pick their own doctrines. This is the official, un-official way to get around every issue. They want to have it both ways: Prophets who speak as if they are God, who have seen and conversed with Jesus and supposedly still do, deny what other prophets said. Hinkley said to L.King that polygamy was not doctrinally sound? JS taught opposite. It blows my mind. What a system! Accountable to nothing.

  9. Ward says:

    I like friendly, too Hank. You have now admitted that you copied and pasted. thanks. I appreciate that. Remember I am addressing you personally and directly. I see a lot of Evs giving references. I am not sure why you have to become accusatory so fast, as in the next sentence. It is as if you cannot admit something without immediately justifying yourself because “they have done it.” Let’s avoid that.

    By your criteria, I cannot participate here. These observations us nevermo make are based on research and friendship with formermos, and in reading what stillmos write. I think we can be in this space just as much as you. Certainly neither side appreciates the criticism, but it doesn’t help to see it all as attack. It is debate and discussion.

    I am not a creedal Christian. We don’t recite the creeds in my church, and never have. I don’t get too moved when you brig up this broken record. However, when I attend a creedal church, I recite the creeds along with the rest and best of them. Why? Because they are grounded in scripture. I believe others here have shown you this. I am wondering now, for the sake of argument, what my CHurch of Christ friends would say about this, because they definitely self-identify as noncreedal. ANd yet, they would argue against you using the same scripture which the creed references.

    Regardless, in many cases you and I can look at a single verse of scripture and see completely different issues/doctrine. We have a BIG disagreement about context, or lack thereof, but that comes with the territory. Why do we keep doing this? There are many reasons. I enjoy the attitude sparring. I enjoy the give and take. I don’t enjoy being belittled, but I really am a baby in this stuff. I don’t like being treated with disdain. BUt I am not a baby in this regard. I can choose to let it slide off my back or not. However, I will also choose to call it when I see it. It is about common courtesy…So, courteously, I bid you adieu!

  10. subgenius says:

    as usual, your rhetoric is amusing and, as usual, unfounded.
    It is presumptious to assume to know what is in a person’s heart, many of these scenario’s are absurd and a distraction from this discussion.
    For example, you know nothing of what is in the man’s heart who is “hitting” on every woman in town, when so many possibilities may lay within his bosom…..all foregin to the outsider.
    John 8:15

    Now, about JS
    Fortunately you put “married” in quotations to admit that you are mischaracterizing (once again) – he was accused of “treasure hunting” by one man with one warrant and the Ev seems to be content with that constituting a complete truth. JS did not preach another Gospel – let’s see Atonement, Love, JC as savior, endurance, etc…yep, its all there.

    Prophecies not come true?,
    Civil War prophecy? true (confirmed by Phila Sunday Mercury)D&C 130:12-13 (grindael should love this reference)
    Saints driven to Rocky Mountains….true
    Stephen Douglas….true
    Word of Wisdom…..true
    His own death….true
    non-member Mrs. Johnson…..true
    the motion of stars….true
    and one particular is of interest here….read
    Doctrine and Covenants 71:9-10……true

  11. Wrap it up, please, this thread it getting closed later today. 🙂

  12. liv4jc says:

    Sub, your reference to D&C 130:12-13 prove nothing. There was a lot of speculation during Smith’s time about state’s rights issues, the importation of new slaves had already been forbidden by law, there was a groundswell of opposition from the northern states against slavery, etc., so naturally slavery was an issue that all knew could spark a civil war. Having the common knowledge available to any man who could read a newspaper and deducing a probable outcome proves nothing. That’s like me saying that Israel will be engaged in war with Iran, then 30 years from now it happens. Am I a prophet or not? I’ve probably got an 85% chance of being right.
    Nevermind the fact that one, two, three, four, or four hundred predictions coming true does not a prophet make. The standard is 100%, which JS fails. He also lead men away from the God of the Bible (Deut 13), confirming that he was a false prophet even if every one of his predictions came true. Nice try, but nobody here is buying it.

    As for D&C 71:9-10, its fulfillment is in the eye of the beholder. I certainly do not feel confounded by any of your answers. I’m confounded by your refusal to give straight answers. When I interview a murder suspect and he lawyers up, he’s confounding me. Does that mean he’s not guilty. Just because you refuse to see the plain evidence about your church and JS does not mean that there is no weapon formed against you that shall prosper (nice ripoff of scripture there, Joe). Many have seen the evidence and left your false church, so our “weapons” did prosper.

    Furthermore, it’s not too hard to prophecy your own death when you have declared yourself a General, are engaged in armed conflict with your neighbors, and you are also screwing your friend’s wives. Oh yeah, JS is a freakin’ genius. I’ll follow him anywhere.

    OK, so let’s hear the usual atheistic counter-attack against the reliability of Biblical prophecies instead of admitting JS is a failed prophet who has deceived millions.

  13. Olsen Jim says:

    BOTTOM LINE FOR THIS THREAD- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never taught anything but that God has always been perfect. The Church has never taught anything to suggest God was ever a sinner.

    It is absolute false representation and providing false witness to claim otherwise.

    It is supremely pathetic to make such claims. Aaron has chosen a topic that is as inflammatory as possible and marketed the idea as far and as frequently as he can. Shame on you Aaron.

    Just because your cynical and sarcastic mind goes to certain places doesn’t give you any right to claim such things about an organization and people. It simply doesn’t make it true.

  14. Ward says:

    Of course, this is only my perspective, but Aaron provides a service to LDS by encouraging them to look at some of the aspects of their belief systems and wrestle with them and make up their minds. I think we all try to do that. Otherwise, MC would not exist. I thank you, Olsen, Jim, Hank, sub, and others giving your testimony, so that I can learn as well. Perhaps we don’t do the best job in discussing, but at least we can and we do.

  15. falcon says:

    I get a kick out of the constant “you’re wrong” snappy come back of our Mormon posters. I know I’ve said it before but it reminds me of Napoleon Dynamite shouting “Why don’t you go home and tell your mother to shut-up!” Way too amusing.

  16. grindael says:

    On July 14, 1832, Congress passed a tariff act that South Carolina declared null and void. Because tensions were high, President Andrew Jackson put the U.S. army on alert and the United States expected war in 1832! The LDS Evening and Morning Star and many other U.S. newspapers reported that information before Smith’s prophecy! Anyone who might have read smith’s prophecy at that time would not have been impressed by a prediction of war beginning in South Carolina – IT WAS EXPECTED . But it blew over. Perhaps that’s why, even though D. & C. 87 is dated December 25, 1832, it did not appear in the 1833 Book of Commandments or in any edition of the D. & C. or other LDS scripture until after the Civil War began! Vs. 2&3: “And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.” Now, the south DID call upon Great Britain, but they did not get involved, nor did they call upon other nations. If one reads this with intellectual honesty, it’s easy to see that Smith establishes the South Carolina rebellion as the causal factor in war being poured out upon all nations. This simply did not happen, and given the wording of the prophecy, it can in No WAY be construed as something that can still come to pass. It doesn’t say, “and someday down the road, war will be poured out on all nations for reasons other than the South Carolina rebellion,” World War I did not start because of the South Carolina rebellion: it’s roots didn’t begin there. Linking the South Carolina rebellion or the American Civil War with any war that has happened since is simply illogical.D&C 87 was NOT a divine insight. It was a false prophey.

  17. grindael says:

    Thanks for your patience with this Thread, seems it’s not always easy to stay on topic.


  18. liv4jc says:

    Jim, this is the bottom line for this thread. JS taught that our Father in Heaven progressed to godhood, and that Jesus Christ was doing just as he saw his father doing. Jesus was being the savior for this world, just as his father was before him. Jesus would then give his kingdom to his father, then the Father would progress to higher godhood, yet you worship the Father, and not Jehovah, who clearly has the powers of a god. Progression means going from a lesser state to a greater state, but since Jehovah claims to be God from eternity, how can he have progressed?
    It is taught that Jesus is Jehovah of the OT. From Isaiah 42 and other texts we learn that Jehovah is the creator of the universe, and the only God. How did Jehovah/Jesus progress to godhood, which it is taught that he did, without going through mortal probation? Why was Jehovah allowed to progress in the spiritual realm, while the rest of us have to go through mortal probation? This is just one aspect of JS’s god theory that is so convaluted that nobody can figure the whole thing out.
    What about his last revelation on the nature of God in the KFD given three months before his death? In that revelation JS says that God didn’t create or give birth to any of us, but we are all co-eternal with him. The evidence that JS’s theory on the nature of God was progressive is overwhelming. Who knows what else he would have revealed about God if he had not died.

    Aaron’s question is perfectly fine, but I for one struggled with answering it because I can’t even determine who the god of Smithianism is.

  19. Olsen Jim, it sounds like you need to take issue with all the Mormons who say God perhaps was a sinner before you take issue with me. You should really ask yourself why it is that I meet Mormons every single week at Temple Square who say they believe God was perhaps once a sinner, and that sinners like us can become Gods over our own future spirit children and expect worship from them.

    That kind of stuff just doesn’t come from nowhere. Better to tackle the issue head on than to pretend the problem doesn’t exist. As with other vehement internet Mormon apologists, it seems they simply want to pretend the interviewees on don’t exist.

  20. Olsen Jim says:

    Aaron, liv4jc, falcon, etc.,

    If you can take our doctrine and teachings and claim we believe God was once a sinner, lets take a look at your god and follow the same process.

    Using the same freedom to extrapolate upon your doctrine as you take with ours, I say- YOUR GOD IS A PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC WITH MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER. YOU CANNOT PROVE THIS ISN’T TRUE.

    Why do I say that- just look at your doctrine on the nature of God. We have record of him speaking to himself in the third person. The son part of this being claimed the father part of this person was greater than him. He prayed to himself. The son part of this person heard voices from the father part of this person. According to the DSM IV diagnostic manual, this qualifies for Schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder.

    You worship a person with a psychotic mental disorder. I cannot believe you could be so blinded to worship such a being. Just because a person says they are something doesn’t mean they actually are that thing. I could say I am the president of the United States. Similarly, just because your god claims to be perfect doesn’t mean he is. After all, he has a mental illness.

    You cannot provide one shred of evidence that the LDS church teaches or believes that God was once a sinner. None of Joseph Smith’s teachings imply or require God to have been imperfect at any stage of His existence. My asking you to explain how Jesus became God is just as legitimate as you asking us to explain how He became God.

  21. claim we believe God was once a sinner

    Olsen Jim, how can we have a constructive dialog on this point if you can’t even get my claims about Mormonism’s claims correct? See the Q&A section on

    “But our church doesn’t have an official position on whether God the Father was a sinner.”

    That is part of the very problem. Mormonism claims to be the most clear and bright beacon of doctrinal clarity, particularly on things that matter. Yet Mormonism’s traditional worldview has fostered confusion on the most important thing in all of reality. Mormonism has historically taught, “As man is God once was, as God is man may be.” The traditional and majority Mormon view is that while Jesus is unique and special for obtaining godhood in pre-mortality and for living a mortal life sinlessly, Heavenly Father obtained godhood more like we can: he experienced a mortality replete with sin, yet still progressed unto exaltation and godhood. Some Mormon authors essentially appeal to this “one eternal round” as a point of comfort for members. Whether or not the Mormon institution has an official position on the issue, it still bears responsibility for letting such blasphemy persist among members. Individual Mormons still bear responsibility for acquiescing to the institution’s lack of repentance over the issue.

    “I have never heard a Mormon Church leader teach that God was once a sinner.”

    They don’t have to. What we are talking about here is a natural extension of the traditional Mormon worldview, a worldview that Mormon leaders are responsible for fostering and acquiescing to.

    Also, how can you brush over the claims of Mormons themselves on the main video? Why do you think these Mormons believe God was either perhaps or probably a sinner?

    Olsen, no offense, but you’re still leaving us hanging with a sense that you’re in denial about the very existence of other Mormons who believe God was perhaps (or even probably) a sinner.

  22. subgenius says:

    all the pleasnatries of falcon’s eloquence, grinadael’s grip of wiki-history, and your rumored “inflammatory” topic aside…it seems reasonable to assume that, as i said before, your premise is erroneous.
    God can not sin for He is sin and He is not sin. His being confounds the senses and “we” will never see His face in this life. To not embrace the intellectual paradox that God presents Himself in all of the Scriptures is either a naive or nefarious endeavor.
    It is reasonable to assume, outside of the doctrine of LDS that God knows sin. You claim that there is something that God does not know or has done? He is all things…ALL things.

    Nevertheless, it definitely was a topic that helped myself, and no doubt other Mormons, realize how much help our Ev brothers and sisters really need. The diluted Gospel of the apostatsy has permeated so many churches it is alarming. Though we have an article of Faith that insists we permit all men to worship with “good conscience”, i am not sure that has occurred here.

  23. Olsen Jim says:

    Aaron, does your church and religion have an official statement on whether God is schizophrenic? I am guessing no. But LDS give you the benefit of the doubt on the matter, which you are not doing for us.

    I have been in the church almost 4 decades and have never heart anybody express the belief or thought that God was once a sinner. I do not consider myself isolated to any degree. What I have heard is “under the radar” wonderings about God having been a Savior, just like Jesus. And I actually belief this is supported, or at least implied by scripture. (Think of the symbolism found in Abraham offering Isaac and our modern scriptural account of Abraham’s own history on the alter- this adds infinitely to the sacrifice made by God- and there are more examples).

    I really think it is overstating it to say a lot of LDS belief what you suggest. Yes, of course you can find a few who will express beliefs representing every possible doctrine under the sun. You suggesting such a concept to people does have the influence of leading them, like leading a witness in court. I and essentially everybody I know in the church would find this blasphemous in the highest. And I think the brethren would too.

    You use vague words like “mormon worldview” to claim we support a sinful God idea. What specifically about our “worldview” suggests this? You say we believe that “Heavenly Father obtained godhood more like we can: he experienced a mortality replete with sin, yet still progressed unto exaltation and godhood.” Yet you cannot support this to any degree in looking at our scriptures, teachings, or statements from the leaders. I can just as easily interview far-out evangelicals who believe outrageous and blasphemous things and post on the internet the stated fact that you and other evangelicals believe all those things. It is simply not fair or honest.

  24. Olsen Jim says:

    I think it is ironic that of the two sets of doctrines, the evangelical theology- if you follow the logical implications- places responsibility for sin in God’s lap. After all, from your perspective, we are saved by grace and faith, both of which are gifts of God- we contribute nothing to our salvation, right? So God chooses whom he will gift with faith and grace. It is up to God, and we do not know the criteria He employs in His choice. According to this, we do not have ultimate choice in the matter. We are born in sin- we cannot choose anything else. And God chooses whom to life out of this sinful state through His salvation. And if we do not have choice, the responsibility falls upon God, making God the creator and author of sin. You simply cannot brush off this reasoning.

  25. grindael says:

    subspecies –

    Even on wiki they knew that the civil war was fought over slavery.

    no axe to GRINDael

  26. Enki says:

    Here is a very interesting prophecy concerning Joseph Smith and Bahá’u’lláh.

    “On April 6th, 1843, Joseph Smith prophesied:

    “I prophesy in the name of the Lord God–& let it be written, that the Son of Man will not come in the heavens till I am 85 years old, 48 years hense, or about 1890.” (Diary of Joseph Smith, 6 April 1843, LDS Church Archives, quoted in The Revelations of Joseph Smith, p.345n.3)
    LDS Church leaders removed this direct prophecy when they incorporated Joseph Smith’s diary entry (April 6, 1843) as D&C 130 in 1856; 14 years after Joseph Smith was killed. Why? Perhaps they feared it would not come to pass. The vast great majority of Mormons are totally unaware of this direct prophecy. Only Mormon historians and a few apologists and researchers are aware of it.
    H.M. Balyuzi, a Bahá’í “Hand of the Cause” (apostle) wrote:

    “In that year, 1890, Bahá’u’lláh visited Haifa, and pitched His tent on Mount Carmel. To the Mounain of God came the Lord of Hosts, and the prophecies of old as well as His own emphatic promise were fulfilled.” (Baha’u’llah~The Word Made Flesh, p.63) ”

    The Bahais believe that Baha’u’llah is the second coming of christ. Most christians and mormons reject anything from the Baha’u’llah or Bahais.

  27. HankSaint says:

    Hmm, what we do have is Joseph Smiths Diary, (Richards) and the following:

    I earnestly desired to know concerning the coming of the Son of Man & prayed,when a voice Said to me, Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old thou shalt see the face of the son of man. therefore let this suffice & trouble me no more on this matter–

    Then the Clayton Diary:

    During the day president Joseph made the following remarks on doctrine. “I was once praying very ernestly to know the time of the coming of the son of man when I heard a voice repeat the following ‘Joseph my son, if thou livest untill thous art 85 years old thous shalt see the face of the son of man, therefore let this suffice and trouble me no more on this matter.’ I was left thus without being able to decide wether this coming referred to the beginning of the Millenium, or to some previous appearing, or wether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the son of man will not be any sooner than that time.”

    Joseph Smith Diary as in the Original,

    Prayer About Second Coming
    If I had not actually got into this work, & been called of God, I would back out. but I cannot back out. I have no doubt of the truth. were I going to prophecy I would prophecy the end will not come in 1844 or 5 or 6. or 40 years more there are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death til christ comes. I was once praying earnestly upon this subject.2 and a voice said unto me. My son, if thou livest til thou art 85 years of age, thou shalt see the face of the son of man.–I was left to draw my own conclusions concerning this & I took the liberty to conclude that if I did live til that time Jesus he would make his appearance.–but I do not say whether he will make his appearance or I shall go where he is.–

  28. Enki commented

    The Bahais believe that Baha’u’llah is the second coming of christ. Most christians and mormons reject anything from the Baha’u’llah or Bahais.

    Perhaps not everything. Bahais value education, as do Christians.

    However, when it comes to Christ’s second coming, what He said was

    For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect— if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

    …so, Jesus predicts that his return will be sudden, dramatic, and recognized by everybody. He will not even need a special herald – He’ll just turn up and He’ll be impossible to ignore or deny.

    Bahá’u’lláh, and others claiming to be Christ returned, are not universally recognized, so, to put it bluntly, they fail on this account.

    PS I’ve been to Mount Carmel and Haifa and I had a photo of the Bahai Shrine. Bahai-ism is a minority sect and, IMO, it will remain so as long as it attempts to syncretize from other religions; in its case Islam and Christianity (I understand).

    I like your comparison between Bahá’u’lláh and Joseph Smith In their own ways, both professed to be Christ, or to have had his spirit in a special way, but neither, I think, had any comprehension of whom He was (see John 1:5).

  29. Oops,

    That quote was cut and pasted from Matt 24:24-27.

  30. subgenius says:

    since you insist on passive-agressive juvenile insults by misspelling my name, i will ask you this (in trade),
    why did the “radical republicans” insist that Lincoln free the slaves in 1863, why is it documented that at that point Congress wanted to shift the meaning of the war to slavery and further cripple the underestimated Confederacy so that this “insurgency” could finally be put down? I sincerely you hope you have a deeper understanding of the scriptures than of our nation’s history, because here you have displayed a shallow understanding of both….and you are right,you need an axe to grind, because this is rather dull.

    Enki, Martin (and others)
    so all prophets have had a 100% prophesy rate? i simply provided a small list (portion) and the best anyone can do in rebuttal is to either provide arguable rhetoric about south carolina or altogether avoid the list and talk about Baha, typical Ev inability to focus on the topic at hand. and so many accuse Mormons of not directly responding…avast ye kettle this pot is not impressed!

    To not embrace the intellectual paradox that God presents Himself in all of the Scriptures is either a naive or nefarious endeavor.
    It is reasonable, even outside of the doctrine of LDS that God knows sin. You claim that there is something that God does not know or has done? He is all things…ALL things.

  31. grindael says:

    Sub – (whatever)

    Here are the quotes again, one from the Vice President of the Confederacy:

    From Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens’s “Cornerstone Speech,” Savannah, March 21, 1861:

    “Our new government is founded upon … the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition.”

    From Senator Charles Sumner (1863):

    “[T]here are two apparent rudiments to this war. One is Slavery and the other is State Rights. But the latter is only a cover for the former. If Slavery were out of the way there would be no trouble from State Rights.”

    It obviously makes you feel superior to demean people with your snide and denigrating comments. If the name fits, wear it. You obviously revel in your wrongness. Your opinion about the civil war is a tiny minority. But it is the same with all the rabid smithians. You cant take a dose of the truth. You turn to attacking. You dont phase me at all, and I forgive you. Perhaps with some prayer before you post, you will be a little more amenable to the banter here. You were so superior about your spelling, but you misspelled on a post just before that. Wow, talk about Karma! Take the building out of your eye, dude!

  32. Olsen, never have I stated that Momronism explicitly teaches that God was once a sinner. Rather, for many Mormons I encounter, it is a logical extension of other Mormon worldview components. Mormons don’t go around asking the questions I ask, so of course the God Never Sinned issue isn’t going to passively come up in wards like it comes up actively for me on the streets. I drawing the issue out of people’s hearts and minds, showing what, in their own mind, implications flow from their own worldview.

    I and essentially everybody I know in the church would find this blasphemous in the highest

    In my experience, of the people who do take the royal line of sinless saviors idea (or something like it), the overwhelmingly majority of them do not find it blasphemous for a sinful person to repent and become a God who expects worship from their own spirit children. The logical almost invariably goes like this: When God forgives our sins, he no longer remembers our sins, and it becomes as though we never sinned. Therefore, they say, if a sinner is forgiven (indeed, even if God was once a sinner), the power of the atonement rendered it as though he never sinned, thus we can now speak of God as never having sinned. Not only does this serve to muddy the waters concerning our particular Heavenly Father, but it shows me that Mormons don’t fundamentally find it blasphemous for a once-sinner to become the Holy of Holies, the Alpha and Omega, etc.

    Olsen, I have found it dishonest of you to have, over the course of a number of threads, to not only have avoided engaging your fellow Mormons on the issue who are interviewees in the main view, but also to have avoided engaging your fellow Mormons on this very blog who have expressed similar views as those in the video. You have repeatedly responded as though they don’t exist. It is exactly people like you who have highly motivated me to do the God Never Sinned project, because instead of acknowledging the problem you pretend it doesn’t exist. Your unwillingness to engage the issue only drives me more to hit the streets and get more video footage of Mormons saying they believe what you insist they don’t.

    Let me quote some Mormons who have interacted me on this issue:

    “If God was ever a sinner, he could have been a homosexual drag queen, at one time, before he later chose to repent from that sin, if that was a sin at the time when God was a homosexual drag queen, if he ever was.

    “We still don’t know if God was ever a sinner, though, so any speculation on what kinds of sins he committed, if he ever committed any sins, are a waste of my time…

    “I think there’s more power in believing that our Father may have committed sin, way back before he even became our Father or anyone else’s Father, because that would mean that we can also become like he is NOW even though all of us have fallen short of the glory of God, except for those who have been appointed and fulfilled their mission as a Savior for all of the rest of us…

    “I think we are safe in saying that any Savior would have to be without sin.

    “The question then becomes:

    “Did our Father also have a Savior appointed by his Father in heaven, like the Savior that he appointed from among his own children, or was our Father in heaven the one that was appointed by his Father in heaven to be the Savior of his Father’s other children ?

    “… and as I said, as far as I know, our Father hasn’t given us that answer, yet.”

    Another (this one with an attitude):

    Eons from now, on one of the countless worlds that Aaron Shafovaloff will create and populate, some of his spirit children then undergoing their mortal probation will be SHOCKED, SIMPLY SHOCKED! to learn that any of their fellow mortals could dare to speculate that their creator could possibly have been, during his own mortal probation, a sinner.

    Aaron will chuckle. Turning to his wife, still as lovely and youthful as the day he married her on earth, he will say, “Yep, we sure were.”

    Then they will both turn in humble prayer to their Eternal Father, who will forever be their Lord and Master, and thank him once more, as they shall throughout all eternity, for the infinite grace extended to them through the gift of his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, which enabled sinners like them to become, by grace, after all that they could do, clean and spotless , to inherit all that their Father had promised them.

    And another,

    God cannot sin, man can. You are confusing man and God. If we believe God was a man before He became God, then He must have sinned as a man, but overcame the trails necessary to become one. He sinned as a man, but not as God. He is perfect now and thats all that matters to us. We do not need to worry of His life as a man. It is none of our business, and certainly, does not pertain to our salvation.

    And another

    “Since God was once a man, He experienced life and He made His own mistakes (since He was a man), but now He does not, for He is perfect in all things.”

    And another from a youngin’ LDS:


    And another:

    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. Of course Gordon Hinckley emphasized that stuff like this is more speculation than official doctrine; still I believe it.

    And another:

    The more interesting question is whether we Mormons believe that Father ever sinned. I do not believe that question to have been answered. We tend to believe, with Lorenzo Snow, that “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” That aspiration seems to be consistent with John 1: 12 and 17: 21 – 23.

    If we can become “as God is” despite our current sinfulness, I see no horror in the possibliity that Father may (before He become God) have sinned, repented, and been redeemed,.

    And another (this one wasn’t part of an interaction with me, but rather was written in at a MADB thread):

    The whole issue depends upon how literally we interpret John 5:19. Over the years, I have noticed that many members of the Church–as well as many non-members–often seem to display a marked penchant for applying overly literal interpretations to the scriptures, and John 5:19 is a case in point:

    “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (John 5:19)

    The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that, in order to interpret a passage properly, it is necessary to interpret it in context. In this case, the context is that Jesus had been accused of doing work on the Sabbath because He had healed a man on the Sabbath. It was in that context, then, that He replied that He did nothing but what He had seen His Father do before Him. In other words, He had seen His Father work on the Sabbath, and He did likewise. This interpretation is supported by verse 17, where Jesus said, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” The use of the present indicative tense, in verse 19, need not confuse us, as many languages, such as Spanish, commonly use the present indicative tense in situations where English speakers would tend to use the present progressive tense, and apparently Aramaic was the same way. It’s similar to my wife correcting my son for putting his elbows on the table and my son answering, “I’m not doing anything that I haven’t seen Dad do before.” Notice how, in English, we prefer to use the present progressive tense, whereas, in Spanish (and apparently in Aramaic), they prefer to use the present indicative tense.

    But when had Jesus seen His Father perform work on the Sabbath? In the creation. Many members of the Church seem to believe that God finished the work of creaton on the sixth day and took the seventh day off, whereas a careful reading of the scriptures would seem to indicate that the Father actually finished His work on the seventh day and took the rest of the day off (see Gen. 2:2, Moses 3:2, Abr. 5:2, and D&C 77:12a). This is particularly clear from a careful reading of Abr. 4-5. Thus, the point that the Savior was making was essentially, “My Father created man on the Sabbath, and I healed a man on the Sabbath. So, what’s the big deal?” We are not justified in reading anything more into John 5:19 than that which is warranted by the context.

    It’s true that the Prophet Joseph Smith read more into that passage than is warranted by the context, but then, he was, after all, a prophet of God, so he could read into it whatever he liked:

    “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world its in orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible — I say, if you were to see him today you would see him like a man in form — like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another…

    “These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel
    to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did [and, it might be added, just as we all do]; and I will show it from the Bible.

    “I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for ever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power — to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious — in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.Do we believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. . . .

    “What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same. ” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347)

    In the first place, note that the Prophet Joseph Smith said that “God himself was once as we are now.” He did not say that God the Father was once a sinless Savior of worlds, as Jesus was.

    In the second place, he also said that “he [meaning God] was once a man like us.” He did not say that He was once a man like Jesus Christ.

    Finally, all that the Prophet Joseph Smith read into that passage was that “God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an eath,” that He once laid down His life and took it up again (which is nothing more than each and every one of us will do), and that God the Father once worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, which is nothing more that what the Apostle Paul exhorts us all to do (Phil. 2:12). Thus, while the Prophet Joseph Smith did, in fact, read into the scripture more than is actually warranted by the context, he did not read into it that the Father was once a sinless Savior of worlds, as the Son was. Obviously, neither John 5:19, nor the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith rule out that possibility, but neither does either one justify us in jumping to that conclusion. Therefore, while it is, indeed, possible that the Father was once a sinless Savior of worlds, as His Son was, nevertheless, it seems unlikely, due to the fact that the vast majority of exalted beings must necessarily be those who were saved from their sins by a Savior, and those who served as sinless Saviors of worlds must necessarily constitute and very small minority.

    Finally, the idea that God the Father was once a sinless Savior of worlds leaves a bad taste in my mouth for one reason–i.e., that the apostate True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days (TLC) uses that idea to support their apostate teaching that all members of the Church must serve as Saviors of worlds before they can be exalted to the same degree of exaltation as that currently enjoyed by God the Father, thus necessitating another mortal probation as the Savior of worlds for each of us. This is part of a doctrine that they refer to as Multiple Mortal Probations, which is really just reincarnation, but since the Prophet Joseph Smith had said that reincarnation was a “doctrine of the devil” (TPJS, p. 105), they believe that they can rehabilitate that doctrine by calling it by a different name. In fact, I believe that one of the previous posters referred to either the Father or the Son having passed through multiple mortal probations. He wouldn’t be a TLCer, would he?

Comments are closed.