Did God Ever Sin?

[Damien the Leper]

This is the topic of one of Backpack Radio's shows. Backpack Radio is a Christian apologetics program with a centralized theology in Acts 29 Reform.

The guest is the infamous Aaron Shafovaloff, of Mormon Research Ministries, whom we have seen on other boards.

The background info as to why the question is proposed:

1) Aaron Shaf cites JS in the KFS where he states that we must learn to become gods just as all other gods before our God.

2) A question also proposed is whether or not our God's father was ever a sinner?

So that I don't have to repeat this argument ad nauseum I have provided the link to the podcast.

Did God Ever Sin?

I'm not attempting to propogate the critics argument but I am curious as to what the counter arguments of LDS apologists would be in response to the podcast and its content.

I suppose that I'm more directly proposing my curiosity to Bill Hamblin, Will Schryver, DCP, Brant Gardner, etc. but I am also curious as to how other LDS would respond to this accusation.

[Grillmeister]

Not necessarily. Jesus didn't. However, LDS doctrine does open the possibility of God sinning during His mortal probation. And that possibility is the issue with non-Mormons, IMO.

[BCSpace]

The doctrine is that God was once a mortal man on another world. While it is possible he performed a mission like Jesus on our world, given the fact that Theosis can make Gods of us all implies to me that it is very likely that God, as a mortal on another world, was a sinner just like any of us. And yes, he could even have been "cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood" (Abraham 1:26) on that world if it experienced a situation like ours.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'd turn the question around and ask why we (who have, through the exigencies of history, inherited very specific philosophical schools of thought) so often expect "real" Gods to be eternally without sin. What are the assumptions at work there, and where did they come from? Are they based on the accounts of those who have claimed to have had face-to-face contact with God, or merely our own longing for perfection?

For instance, was Christ sinless? The only references we have that I could find were in the Bible Dictionary and the guide to the scriptures, which I frankly do not accept as scripture. "Without sin" was used twice by the author of Hebrews (9:28, 4:15), but it seems to me that we've built up a rather elaborate theological edifice on these very few, enigmatic references.

I wrote in another thread:

The only time the word "infallible" is used in scripture is in Acts 1:3, in which the author of the text considers the "proofs" of the 40-day ministry by which Christ showed Himself alive after His passion to be "infallible." I don't even know what it would mean for a person -- including God -- to be "infallible"; every Intelligence learns line upon line precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, from one small degree to another. It's evolution; it's eternal progression. Inasmuch as we err, it will be made manifest if we search out words of wisdom and are willing to be instructed, by gathering all the good and true from the best books and accepting that truth from wherever it may come from. If we declare anyone infallible, we've shut off continuing revelation.

If we're searching for idealized Platonic perfection, we're never going to find it, because at the slightest crack the entire thing comes crashing down and there goes our faith. The "perfection" spoken of in scripture is not the unchanging flawlessness of Greek philosophy; it's about completing a Work. Perfectus = completed; perficere = accomplish, finish; per = completely, facere = to perform.

So "perfect" occurs quite a bit in scripture, but it usually refers to the "completion" of the resurrected body (i.e., a physical form not subject to disintegration) or else to a state of wholeness and at-one-ment with others. Not to a philosophical "perfection" in which mistakes are never made and there is no messy learning curve - it seems to me more like coming full-circle to reconcile with others. When God says to Abraham to "Be ye perfect", it reads to me that he's saying "be ye perfect [in relation to your faithfulness towards others, like God is to humanity]." Alma says God is a perfect, just god in relation to how well He fulfills the atonement, not that He has never made a mistake while in mortal life. It's a human tendency to idolize and idealize heroes, but we do no favors to anyone if we put them on a stainless pedestal and deny them their humanity just so they'll look more regal in a pietà.

Since the Gods in the Divine Council must obey the law of justice lest they cease to be Gods worth worshipping, we know that they can sin. What we have faith in is that our Father and Mother and Brother are faithful to this world and therefore they've promised that they won't. Some folks would have us believe that if God wasn't perfect right from the start that He is therefore not worth trusting now. But if God is capable of forgiving sin, and we are meant to be like God, then why can't we forgive whatever sins God might have in His past so long as He keeps His covenants now?

If there is an opposition in all things, then we have to face the fact that we're never free from the possibility of sin. But that's actually a great thing, because it means we're always capable of doing the right thing. Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. The reason God is worth honoring as a Good moral agent is not because He is incapable of sin, or because He never has in the past, but rather because He's learned to choose not to.

But if God could not create Himself, and He found Himself in the midst of other eternal intelligences, that definitely implies a learning curve in which God became God in the same way as all Gods have done -- by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation. The great secret is that God is a human like one of us; it implies that He has made mistakes, just as we all have, working out His kingdom with fear and trembling. But the point is that by learning and eternally progressing, He was eventually able to mount His throne; the point is to take part in the infinite at-one-ment, in which all Intelligences learn to forgive each other for those past mistakes. When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and go on until you learn the last principle; and it will be a great while before you have learned the last.

[ERayR]

If he did he didn't tell me.

[JAHS]

A God does not sin. Our God has never sinned. However the person who evetually became our god might have sinned.

[CV75]

I am also curious as to how other LDS would respond to this accusation.

I would say, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment (John 7:24).” From the appearance of things, and due to the circumstances, neither we nor they can know, except that God cannot sin, and is without sin.

By extension, 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Revelation 21:1 would apply to any conversion from a fallen, temporal being to an exalted, eternal being. So for all intents and purposes, no God or god ever sinned. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new; And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away…”

Elder Uchtdorf shares an interesting “eternal perspective” in his article about being “Always in the Middle” (this Month’s First Presidency message). God is always in the middle of being God, so from an eternal perspective He never sinned. Those who persist in a fallen perspective will be in the middle of that.

[David T]

I have zero interest in the question. It only really matters from the ontological perspective of God being OTHER, the ex nihilo conjurer of all that is not Himself, and therefore defining Sin by what He is Essentially not.Those assumptions are not relevant for Mormonism, and make the question, as proposed, nonsensical.

I understand why it's an absurdity, and perhaps an offensive one for the other end (especially if one's doctrine relies on a Calvinistic doctrine of Absolute Sovereignty). It's also an absurd question from us, as well, but for very different reasons. Either way, the paradigms used in explaining an answer both ways will be mostly talking past each other based on other assumptions and views of what 'sin' is.

From an LDS perspective, all the exalted are free from imperfection, and filled with Charity. That's all that is relevant or necessary.

Edited June 28, 2012 by David T

[Lightbearer]

One point I have always found interesting is, are those who ask such a question doubting the completeness of the atonement? Can we be made totally holy, sinless and pure through the atonement? If so then the question is a moot point. Because the only way we will ever become a God is through the atonement of Christ. Since I do not limit the blessings of the atonement then yes a vile sinner can become a God. So in essence our Eternal Father could have sinned before He was exalted. To Aaron S. I ask SO WHAT? I do not believe in "his god" anyway, I believe in the true and living God who was once as we now are and that we through the blood of Christ can attain that same glory. That is the "GOOD NEWS" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, His atonement is infinite and eternal.

The following indicates this very point:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."(New Testament | Revelation 3:21)

[cdowis]

Not necessarily. Jesus didn't. However, LDS doctrine does open the possibility of God sinning during His mortal probation.

You are mistaken. You might want to study what JS taught in this regard.

The doctrine is that God was once a mortal man on another world. While it is possible he performed a mission like Jesus on our world,

It is unfortunate that people throw out their own ideas and speculation when the prophet JS and the Bible have already spoken on the matter.

Edited June 28, 2012 by cdowis

[Verum]

The question is unanswerable because deity is immune to sin.

Doctrinally, Jesus didn't sin, but if any other person walked into the temple with a whip and started smashing tables, it would be a sin. If God racially discriminates certain people from receiving certain blessings, it is also not sinful. God does ultimately whats best to carry out his plan and sin is really only something the applies to His creations that distort from it.

[Whiskeypete]

"ever" implies sometime in our timeline. In that case, I would say, No. He has been God and perfect from Eternity to Eternity. What might happen outside our timeline there is no way to understand or speculate about.

[halconero]

Personally I subscribe to the belief that The Father was one the Son of another world, so my opinion would be no. I believe that the scriptures point to that.

I know, however, that an outright declaration that such is the case is not in our canon scripture, so I won't state it as fact.

[BCSpace]

For instance, was Christ sinless? The only references we have that I could find were in the Bible Dictionary and the guide to the scriptures

Neither of them is scripture, but only one of them (not the Bible Dictionary because it's preface says so) is official LDS doctrine. I would agree though that other churches have built up and edifice of speculative false doctrine in assuming that if God was once mortal and/or sinful he cannot possibly be God now or do His current job perfectly.

[kolipoki09]

This has been a pet issue for Aaron for quite some time, and as much as he's attempted to link the theological possibilities together, I don't think he's accurately describing Mormon doctrine when he claims that we believe God was once a sinner.

It simply goes beyond what the authoritative texts actually say. Joseph Smith never elaborated on the subject to in fact claim that Elohim was a sinner on some other world, nor has it been considered a tenet of mainstream Mormonism literally from its inception.

The strongest statements used to imply it are better used to define God's physical body and of His mortal progression. Frankly speaking, I don't believe Aaron's latest strawman holds any water.

[Calm]

when he claims that we believe God was once a sinner.

Just a nitpick....while I may be wrong since it's been quite some time since I read his stuff, I don't believe AS claims this is what we believe, rather I have the impression he thinks this is what we should believe if we were truly committed to LDS doctrine, etc. as he believes this is the implication, logical outcome of JS's comments and our beliefs about theosis. I think he is wrong myself.

If he outright claims this is an actual LDS belief ("that God is a sinner"), I would love to see it.

[Calm]

I suppose that I'm more directly proposing my curiosity to Bill Hamblin, Will Schryver, DCP, Brant Gardner, etc. but I am also curious as to how other LDS would respond to this accusation.

Not sure if you've seen the FAIR response (it is pretty short as we try to keep wiki answers sweet and to the point):

http://en.fairmormon...d_once_a_sinner

The idea that God may once have been a sinner is speculation. Many Latter-day Saints find the idea impossible, while others consider it a possibility. Latter-day Saints do not generally speculate on events that happened prior to the war in heaven.

The details of God's mortality and existence before the war in heaven are largely unknown and have not been revealed. We do not have an exact answer to this question. For some, however, the idea that God may have once been a sinner like us gives added hope and faith in the atonement, and its ability to ultimately make us without sin regardless of what we may have done.

But the question to ask is: "Does it really matter all that much?" Whether it is true or it is not, does anything change? Knowing details of God's previous mortality doesn't change the fact that our Heavenly Father is still our Heavenly Father, who loves us very much. He has perfect knowledge, flawless character, and all power, and we can therefore have perfect faith in his ability to save and exalt his children. He sent His first born son, Jesus Christ, to sacrifice Himself for us. He wants us to be "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ."

Edited June 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[CV75]

Not sure if you've seen the FAIR response (it is pretty short as we try to keep wiki answers sweet and to the point):

http://en.fairmormon...d_once_a_sinner

For those that do believe in it, I ask how do they know He was an accounable person in the first place?

[DarkScythe]

Does it matter if God was a Sinner or not in his previous life? Is it more important that He is Not a Sinner in this Multi-verse?

[Bikeemikey]

Why does it matter if he sins now?

I dont think god is in a state of stasis, i think there is change, why change if there is not something better that you are currently not doing?

[Mansquatch]

When I am made Eternal and Perfect and receive all that the Father has it will be said of me that I was from eternity to eternity perfect. To deny that is to deny the power of Christ to actually cleanse us and make us actually Perfect. We will not be semi-Perfected Eternal beings. We will be perfect. There is only one meaning of "Perfect" and if we can never actually be Perfect then why does Christ tell us to be. Why does Shaf deny the power of Christ?

[kolipoki09]

Just a nitpick....while I may be wrong since it's been quite some time since I read his stuff, I don't believe AS claims this is what we believe, rather I have the impression he thinks this is what we should believe if we were truly committed to LDS doctrine, etc. as he believes this is the implication, logical outcome of JS's comments and our beliefs about theosis. I think he is wrong myself.

If he outright claims this is an actual LDS belief ("that God is a sinner"), I would love to see it.

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.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think it is a pretty logical outcome of Joseph's teachings, and I rather like our various heresies and blasphemies.

[Calm]

Wow, I am astonished he thinks it is a majority view.

[Buzzard]

Tell you what, next time I see him, I'll ask him.