Sargon Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Aaron Shafovaloff has made this his flagship issue. He enjoys asking Mormons if God the Father has ever sinned in his distant past. He has a website about it, and I've seen him writing about it for a long time now. He has another recent post about it on the Mormon Coffee blog.Aaron seems to think that this is some sort of "bulls-eye" issue that he can use to fluster the LDS. He has chosen a particular issue which he knows can elicit an emotive reaction from non-Mormon bystanders, and which is an issue which he knows the Church has no official position on. Admittedly, there seems to be a variety of answers given by LDS to this question. I suggest that Aaron feels that this is a very important issue because of his traditional Evangelical views about God. For Aaron, if God committed any unrighteous acts in his past this has very serious implications. He probably feels that God could not be God if such were the case. He probably holds to some sort of philosophical view that argues that God is not God if God has ever sinned. What is this philosophical argument? Is there an counter philosophical argument to it? Note that the premise of this discussion is that Mormons do believe that God the Father may have sinned in his distant past. This premise is of course open for debate, but in another thread please!
LeSellers Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 What is this philosophical argument? Is there an counter philosophical argument to it?My position is quite different from that of whatzisname: It doesn't matter at all. He is God because He is perfect, whether that means He has always been perfect or that He is now perfected, His perfection is beyond question. He has overcome all and that's good enough, and more so, in my book.Lehi
Avatar4321 Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I have to echo Lehi's position. It doesn't matter. If that's what Aaron wants to focus on that's fine. We have more important things to do.
Cold Steel Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 He's spitting into the wind. We don't know anything about God's past, so smart LDS won't even engage him. He simply fails to understand the LDS view on God to begin with.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I think part of the reason is because it is something that flies in the face of his target audience and so he exploits the shock value.
Sargon Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 I think part of the reason is because it is something that flies in the face of his target audience and so he exploits the shock value.I tend to think so too, and I tried to say something like that in the OP.Still, I wonder if there is a philosophical reasoning behind his views of God's past.
Mudcat Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Aaron Shafovaloff has made this his flagship issue. He enjoys asking Mormons if God the Father has ever sinned in his distant past. He has a website about it, and I've seen him writing about it for a long time now. He has another recent post about it on the Mormon Coffee blog.Aaron seems to think that this is some sort of "bulls-eye" issue that he can use to fluster the LDS. He has chosen a particular issue which he knows can elicit an emotive reaction from non-Mormon bystanders, and which is an issue which he knows the Church has no official position on. Admittedly, there seems to be a variety of answers given by LDS to this question. I suggest that Aaron feels that this is a very important issue because of his traditional Evangelical views about God. For Aaron, if God committed any unrighteous acts in his past this has very serious implications. He probably feels that God could not be God if such were the case. He probably holds to some sort of philosophical view that argues that God is not God if God has ever sinned. What is this philosophical argument? Is there an counter philosophical argument to it? Note that the premise of this discussion is that Mormons do believe that God the Father may have sinned in his distant past. This premise is of course open for debate, but in another thread please! Aaron makes a good point, IMO Sargon, my own EV views aside.I don't pretend to know all the ramifications from an LDS perspective.However, (emphasis mine) as I see it the difference between Elohim sinning and Elohim being without sin is a big "may".On the one hand you have a sinful Father, who is much like the rest of us. If that were to be the case, seems there would have to be a Christ-type figure who redeemed him. I think it would also be interesting that the sinful Father couldn't redeem his own world but his son could.On the other, you have the sinless Father. Did he need redemption? Is anyone really qualified for exaltation if the Father was sinless and so was the Son?
Droopy Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 As LeSellers has implied above, the only possible problem that could arise for LDS would be if God the Father had sinned as God the Father. If he sinned or made human mistakes of various kinds in his eons past mortal existence, this has no relevance to his present state.In like manner, all of us presently using this message board will, if we are faithful to our covenants and obey the gospel to the best of our mortal ability, become gods, equal in power, wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence to our Father in Heaven. And yet, how many Latter Day Saints would claim to be sinless? In other words, mortal sinlessness has little to do with future godhood (except in the Lord's case, on another like him having a similar mission in mortality).Mr. Shafovaloff is barking up an empty tree.
Joseph Antley Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 On the other, you have the sinless Father. Did he need redemption? Is anyone really qualified for exaltation if the Father was sinless and so was the Son?After the effects of the Atonement, the end product is the same.
Droopy Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 On the one hand you have a sinful Father, who is much like the rest of us. If that were to be the case, seems there would have to be a Christ-type figure who redeemed him. I think it would also be interesting that the sinful Father couldn't redeem his own world but his son could.He redeemed his world through his Son. Therefore, he redeemed his world.Oh, you mean, why didn't he do it himself personally?That, I think, has something to do with the plan of salvation and eternal gospel laws that are fundamental to existence qua existence and by and through which God became God.Mysteries indeed.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I tend to think so too, and I tried to say something like that in the OP.Still, I wonder if there is a philosophical reasoning behind his views of God's past.The God of the creeds. Immutable, immovable, eternally the same in every way, unchanging, omnipotent, omniscient, all that jazz. He is a very strong Calvinist, so take that into consideration.
Mudcat Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 After the effects of the Atonement, the end product is the same.I don't think the end product is the issue though.
Lightbearer Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 It really is the heart of the issue of which version of Christianity you believe in. I can understand why Aaron thinks this if his philosophy is: That man is really a depraved creature, a blot or a stain on the fabric of creation, inherently evil and that the Gospel is just a plan to forgive those who really do not deserve it, to excuse mankind for being unholy because God made them that way, or introduced conditions that caused him to fall into sin. If all of our good works are nothing more than filthy rags to God and all we are here for is to glorify God or to be His mere plaything with no purpose for our creation then I can see how Aaron and others might think the idea that God could have sinned is unthinkable. But the LDS position as I see it is vastly different. We believe that we are of the same species as God is, only we are undeveloped or embryonic as pertaining to Godhood. That is why we believe we are in the image and likeness of God. The purpose of the creation was for our development and progression toward our divine potential. All mankind including Lucifer were spirit children of our heavenly parents. Thus we have the spark of divinity within us, we are eternal beings just as God is, we are a part of Him and He us. Yet we are created or formed or organized as free agents, we are given the power to act and not just be acted upon. So this earth is designed as a probationary experience where we will learn those tutorials that will give us the knowledge and power to become as God is. The veil over our minds was a necessary part of that development of faith that gives us the power to overcome the world. We had to be tested to see what we would do with the power that God has, if we would choose the good and be of benefit to our fellowmen or if we would choose evil and do what is selfish and harm or take from others. We were given the weakness of the flesh so that this temptation would be real, we had to obtain a body of flesh and bone and learn to control it and subject it to the will of our spirits and to God. The pre-mortal existence of "first estate" was part of this test, it was of a different nature than this second estate. In that sphere we could see God and their was no veil on our memory. Yet we still had to exercise faith by accepting God's plan for our progression. We were taught this plan and even there there was opposition. Lucifer opposed the plan in fact he instigated an insurgency and rebellion against it, he successfully convinced one third of God's children to reject the plan and to try to replace it with a plan of his own devising that did away with agency. It would be a test that all could pass because their was no risk, because he essentially advocated force or no options. His plan was rejected by the hosts of Heaven and God caused that he and the other rebels be cast down to this earth, without a body forever, and they became the opposing forces that try to tempt and destroy us if we allow it by our own agency. By contrast the Father's plan would require His beloved Son, one who was more intelligent than all the spirits of the Father, to come to this earth and take upon Himself flesh, to condescend to become subject to the flesh (thus Mary had to be His mother) and God the Eternal Father who has life within Himself because He is an exalted being of flesh and bone, had to be His Father. Thus Jesus became the only begotten of the Father in the flesh, and the first born of the spirit children in the first estate. He had the power to overcome death and sin, because He chose to live a sinless life while in the flesh He was able to be that infinite and eternal sacrifice and thus purify all of us on conditions of repentance. Through His life He marked the path and showed all men the way back to the Father. Through His atonement He brings all of us back to the Father and purifies us of all sin if we repent and follow Him.Now in the first instance we come to this earth innocent, the original sin of Adam being atoned for by the blood of Christ, so all will be resurrected and also all would begin this probation in a state of purity and innocence, and so little children are without sin, until they begin to be accountable and capable of sin. So then they are subject to temptations and become capable of sin. If they listen to the enticings of the Holy Spirit then they can through Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repentance of sin put off the natural man, by making the covenant of baptism and honoring that covenant through obedience we can be come clean and pure just as Christ and His Father are... if we endure to the end continually exercising faith in the Son of God and obeying the Gospel, repenting and changing our lives and relying on the gift of the Holy Ghost that comes to those who honor their baptismal covenants and follow the Son of God with all of our might mind and strength, then we can eventually have the gift of eternal life, which is exaltation, which is to be a joint heir with Christ and all that the Father hath will be given us. Just as an earthly inheritance is not "wages" or "earned" so our gift of eternal life is given to us as we become the adopted sons and daughters of God in the flesh. Both the flesh and spirit becoming one with the Father and the Son, His will becomes our will... thus we become rightful heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.The real question for Aaron is does the blood of Christ fully cleanse us of our sins? Can we really become holy as He is holy? Can we really become one with the Godhead? This is the question. Now if God did sin in His mortal existence, and if there was a Christ who atoned for the sins of that world, then was that atonement infinite and eternal? Likewise is the atonement for our world infinite and eternal? Or are we still tainted? Does being born again really mean anything? Can we not change our sinful nature by becoming a Saint through the blood of Christ and our repentance and faith on His holy name? Personally I believe that it does, and Aaron's harping of the possibility of God the Father having been a sinner is the most complete form of blasphemy I have ever witnessed. It is offensive to God and man and it is like unto Lucifer, who is the "accuser of the brethren" and so I would not want to be in his situation. To me this is the true "good news" that not only can our faults be pardoned, but we can overcome the world through Christ the Lord omnipotent. Our beloved Father can once more welcome us as His sons and daughters and our elder brother Jesus Christ can embrace us in the arms of His love.
ERayR Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 He's spitting into the wind.I have noticed that he literally does that when he gets worked up and goes on one of his rants.
SilverKnight Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 What is this philosophical argument? Is there an counter philosophical argument to it? Note that the premise of this discussion is that Mormons do believe that God the Father may have sinned in his distant past. This premise is of course open for debate, but in another thread please! "Mormons believe God is a man!" - Gasp!The oldest evangelical heresy in the book. Shaf is hardly bringing anything new to the debate. EVs hate mormon deification and divine anthropomorphism more than anything else. Public enemy number one, yet so utterly laughable.It's one of the weakest arguments one could cobble up, reducible to "my god is better than yours because he looks different and has different super powers."Why Shaf feels his uncreated invisible force is fundamentally superior to an exalted human is a mystery to me.It's as if you were compelled to criticize the Hindu religion because their deities are blue and have multiple arms.The logical implications of an exalted human god are no more problematic than an invisible force god.As for the "sinner" past of the LDS God. That is even weaker, relying on a freshman-level fallacy and requiring a quantum leap of speculation that places one miles outside of LDS doctrine. Since LDS doctrine is mum on God's past - it is a classic argument from silence.
ERayR Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Aaron makes a good point, IMO Sargon, my own EV views aside.I don't pretend to know all the ramifications from an LDS perspective.However, (emphasis mine) as I see it the difference between Elohim sinning and Elohim being without sin is a big "may".On the one hand you have a sinful Father, who is much like the rest of us. If that were to be the case, seems there would have to be a Christ-type figure who redeemed him. I think it would also be interesting that the sinful Father couldn't redeem his own world but his son could.On the other, you have the sinless Father. Did he need redemption? Is anyone really qualified for exaltation if the Father was sinless and so was the Son?This is something that has crossed my mind a time or two. If he was totally sinless ( I define sin as being in error or in opposition to an eternal principle) throughout his eons of eternity then it would be difficult for him to relate to how I am or to understand what I am. Also how could I ever expect to be a recipient of his promise to share all that he has with me if I can't measure up to his perfection.On the other hand it seems to me if you define perfection as overcoming all obstacles and that is how he obtained perfection then he understands me and where I am coming from. Then there is hope for me and I can be a recipient of that inheritance that he has promised.I have never taken a stance either way and have decided it doesn't matter and what I need to do is to just trust that whatever way it turns out he meant what he said when he promised that if I were faithful all that he had would be mine.
LeSellers Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 After the effects of the Atonement, the end product is the same.I don't think the end product is the issue though.This part confuses me. It seems to deny the power of the Atonement. So, making the (possibly erroneous) assumption that you are stating your position (instead of just whazzizname's), why would this be an issue for you?(If it's not your position, please take a stab at answering anyway, since it is truly a puzzlement to me.)Lehi
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 As for the "sinner" past of the LDS God. That is even weaker, relying on a freshman-level fallacy and requiring a quantum leap of speculation that places one miles outside of LDS doctrine. Since LDS doctrine is mum on God's past - it is a classic argument from silence.WEll thought out.
Joseph Antley Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I don't think the end product is the issue though.You questioned if anyone would be qualified for exaltation if both the Father and the Son were sinless. My point was that those who endure to the end and obtain forgiveness Christ's Atonement will be sinless as well. That is the nature of his Atonement and hence the oft-repeated phrase that God will not save us in our sins but will save us from our sins.
Mudcat Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I don't think the end product is the issue though.This part confuses me. It seems to deny the power of the Atonement.Lehi, I suppose it would depend on how "powerful" the Atonement was.If the Father did sin, then there would need to be some sort of Atonement for him. It wouldn't make sense for Christ's Atonement to retroactively effect the Father would it? As I see it, if the Father sinned it implies that a pre-Christ Atonement occurred. If there were two... stands to reason, given what I perceive LDS as postulating and infinite regression of Gods then there were likely an infinite number of Atonements as well. So, making the (possibly erroneous) assumption that you are stating your position (instead of just whazzizname's), why would this be an issue for you?I don't really have a position, my beliefs rule either option out, however if LDS beliefs are correct the Father sinning or not sinning actually seems to imply some different things. I liked the way ERayR put it.
LeSellers Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I suppose it would depend on how "powerful" the Atonement was.It is powerful enough that our sins are forgiven and God remember them no more. It is as if the sin had never happened at all. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is infinite as far as Father's creation is concerned. Any other Atonement, if, indeed there be such, would likewise be infinite within the realm of the God of that creation, and it would be suffiicent to make those creations just as perfect as Jesus' will make us. To deny that perfection makes the Atonement much less than it is, and diminishes His sacrifice. I cannot condone that line of thinking.If the Father did sin, then there would need to be some sort of Atonement for him. It wouldn't make sense for Christ's Atonement to retroactively effect the Father would it? As I see it, if the Father sinned it implies that a pre-Christ Atonement occurred. If there were two... stands to reason, given what I perceive LDS as postulating and infinite regression of Gods then there were likely an infinite number of Atonements as well.This is more than possible in our view. The issue, as I see it, is that another Atonement would undermine the traditional creedal position that there cannot be any other creation, nor any other Creator. Of course, whazzizname wants to make our Father into some sort of gross sinner. But I remind him and those who agree with his fallacious assessment that any Atonement can only apply to a repentant sinner. And repentance, coupled with the Atonement, changes the man and makes him other than a sinner, certainly not a "gross sinner". Lehi
LeSellers Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I don't really have a position, my beliefs rule either option out, however if LDS beliefs are correct the Father sinning or not sinning actually seems to imply some different things.If they do, what are those implications?Lehi
Calm Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Still, I wonder if there is a philosophical reasoning behind his views of God's past.I believe the reasoning is what is in my opinion the fundamental difference between LDS and mainstream Christian belief and that is the unbridgeable (in mainstream though) division between God and man, creator and created (in terms of essence or nature...not sure what is the appropriate philosophical term). While man may share many things with God through God's grace, the mainstream belief is, I believe, that he can never become anything truly like God is in a fundamental sense any more than an ant could become human even if humans were able in some way to give it humanlevel intelligence, emotions, etc.It is along the same lines as "Jesus is Satan's brother" which appears to nonLDS to say that we believe Christ is a created being who shares all his essential attributes with at least Satan.IOW, it's not the end product that is causing concern, but the beginning 'raw' materials.
Sargon Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 I also think that Aaron's perspective requires that God is fundamentally incapable of sin. That is, there is no conceivable way in which God the Father could do wrong. It is at least one limit to his power. For me, such a view seems to lessen God's greatness. If God is utterly incapable of doing wrong, then I see no reason for commending or glorying in his righteousness. He hasn't accomplished anything by simply doing what he can't help but do.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.