Did God Ever Sin?

[Calm]

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

Logical perhaps but so is the concept the Father was sinless (since not only scripture but Joseph talked about Christ doing only what his Father had done), but unless there is a revelation stating it, I don't see it as being anything close to doctrinal.

[Storm Rider]

I do detest these types of questions because they are far too often, almost always, asked by critics, more often the really poor anti-Mormon junk attacks, that really seek to sensationalize. It walks only where we have speculation within the Church and very little doctrine that is explained in any degree. To throw my weak thoughts into this fray I would say the following:

• Jesus was necessarilyl sinless in order to pay the price of all sin, to provide the atoning sacrifice for all humanity.
  
• Is God the Father sinless; I cannot imagine him being anything else but sinless. His very name is Perfection.
  
• Did God the Father live a "mortal" life? Not in the identical sense that we do; however, I suppose it is possible that he lived a mortal life like Jesus did, but it is highly debatable and is not LDS doctrine.
  
• Do LDS believe in a long line of gods, the products of the previous gods? No. We don't know where God came from or if he even had to come from somewhere. What we know is that he is.
  
• Does believing one way or another have any affect on one's salvation? This is where I think the only focus should be - our salvation. Believing or not believing in these things have zero impact on our salvation. It is a meaningless proposition that is only used to demean, sensationalize, and distort the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Father's Kingdom.
  

[DonBradley]

Let me open my thoughts on the subject by distinguishing between the person mentioned in the OP and the issue he raises.

I know Aaron Shafovaloff and have had several enjoyable conversations with him. He is absolutely committed to his Christian discipleship and believes that as part of this needs to witness his faith to Latter-day Saints. One example of that is his asking Latter-day Saints whether God ever sinned. The question is intended to prick the listener's conscience. The person might say, "Yes, I think God did sin when he was on another world" but they may feel inwardly uncomfortable about this, since, I think, for almost all of us the idea of God sinning seems dissonant.

I talked with Aaron about this question myself several months ago. I agreed with him that it seems jarring to say that God has sinned--it doesn't sit right.

What does this issue this mean for LDS doctrine?

Since that conversation, I've given the question and its implications much more thought, and have a few reflections now that I didn't have then on whether traditional LDS doctrine about the Father requires us to say that "God sinned." On deeper reflection, I have concluded emphatically that it does not. Here are my recent reflections on the question:

First, although it is LDS doctrine that the Father was once a mortal man, and is now an exalted man, it is not LDS doctrine that the mortal man he once was sinned. As another poster pointed out above, Christ never sinned when he was a mortal man. It doesn't follow from the Father having once been a mortal man that he sinned anymore than it follows from Christ having been a man that he sinned.

Second, a family member raised for me the issue of whether the question is a meaningful one in light of the theology of divine grace. This family member opined that making a doctrinal issue of whether God once sinned assumes that grace doesn't matter. If grace can justify and sanctify, leaving the former sinner as if he or she had never sinned, both in the eyes of God and in terms of the character that person now has, then why is the question of whether God ever did wrong in his mortal state so important?

Will it matter when we are with God in heaven that we had once sinned? If so, how? Will we be less holy? Will that imperfect past have ongoing practical effects, or will it be, as it sounds like when evangelicals talk about justification, as if those sins had never happened?

Third and finally, to reason from the LDS doctrine that "as man is, God once was" to the conclusion that "God sinned" misunderstands the doctrine. Even if we assume that the mortal man the Father "once was" sinned, it doesn't mean that God sinned. What the doctrine actually says is that our Father was at one time not yet divine--not yet God. The question of whether a pre-divine mortal man who became an exalted "Man of Holiness" (Moses 6:57; 7:35), the Father, was then morally imperfect is not the same as the question, "Did God sin?" For Latter-day Saints, to be divine just is to be holy, morally perfect, and have a fulness of all other divine attributes (e.g., Alma 45:16; D&C 1:31; Moses 6:57). So, the idea of God (i.e., God as God) sinning is a blatant contradiction.

Ironically, a place we do find the idea of God, as God, sinning is...the traditional text of the Bible. While the Bible is held to be God's inerrant word, the Bible itself oddly characterizes God as errant in the worst of ways--morally errant. The Book of Exodus says the Lord intended to do "evil" to the children of Israel, by annihilating them, until Moses reminded Him He was about to break His promises to Abraham. God therefore relents and "repents" (Exodus 32:9-14). Going far beyond LDS doctrine that the Father had a pre-divine stage in which (for all we know) his mortal self might have sinned, this passage says that God as God needed to be rebuked by one of his own mortal creations and otherwise would have broken His promises, which would have rendered Him a liar. If the supposed implication of LDS doctrine,that God's pre-divine self sinned is "blasphemy," what stronger term of execration must we invent to justly vilify the Bible's overt statement that God as God sinned and was rebuked? (Traditional Christians don't, of course, read the passage to say that God actually formed evil intentions, needed to be reminded to keep His promises, and repented, but that is, nevertheless, what some biblical author or redactor wrote. The doctrine of divine moral perfection is maintained in traditional Christianity, not because of this and similar biblical narratives about God, but in spite of them.)

Here it is LDS scripture that, while rejecting the Bible's inerrancy, upholds God's inerrancy in moral judgment and perfect holiness. The JST of this passage clarifies not once but twice that it was not God who formed evil intentions and stood in need of rebuke by one of his creatures; it was the people who did evil and stood in need of rebuke by God. Where the writings of Moses in the traditional Bible portray God as man's fellow sinner, in need of repentance himself, the writings of Moses in the Latter-day Saint canon teach with crystal clarity that we all need to repent precisely because God is perfectly holy: "all men, everywhere, must repent,or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name" (Moses 6:57).

In sum...

*Nothing in LDS doctrine entails that the Father sinned during any stage of His existence.

*Even if we were to hypothetically postulate that in an earlier stage of existence, the Father's antecedent mortal self transgressed, we would also have to postulate that his exaltation meant that any such transgressions were entirely obliterated from both his character and from divine memory, just as God promises to forget our sins (Isaiah 43:25). Where sin has been divinely justified by grace and forgotten, what man dares remember and condemn it (cf. Romans 8:33-34)? And if such things have no effects and God Himself doesn't remember them, in what meaningful sense could they be known or said to have happened?

*Far from suggesting that God has sinned, LDS scripture and doctrine are emphatic that sin is utterly antithetical to divinity: where the one is, the one cannot be. So even if, entirely ignoring the two doctrinal considerations above, one were to attribute sin to the Father's antecedent pre-divine self, there would still be no point at which it would have been true to say "God is sinning." And if never at any point in the past was it true to say "God is sinning," it cannot possibly be true to say in the present "God has sinned."

It does not matter what we might speculate about the events of the Father's pre-divine mortal existence. The answer to the question of whether God has ever sinned is a simple "No." And nowhere is this clearer than in LDS scripture. Relative to the Bible, LDS scripture provides not only a second witness, but also a better witness, of God's perfect holiness. His holiness is most fittingly proclaimed, not with a trumpet of uncertain sound like the traditional Bible text, but with the loud voice and clear trumpet of that "angel flying in the midst of heaven" who restored the everlasting gospel to Joseph Smith.

[Calm]

Traditional Christians don't, of course, read the passage to say that God actually formed evil intentions, needed to be reminded to keep His promises, and repented, but that is, nevertheless, what some biblical author or redactor wrote.

Did you present this idea to Aaron S.? Or did it not occur to you to afterwards.

He is absolutely committed to his Christian discipleship and believes that as part of this needs to witness his faith to Latter-day Saints.

Why is there the need? Is this not a work? How does this fit into the grace vs. work debater? (this last is off topic feel free to ignore.)

[dougtheavenger]

Did God the Father sin?

Jesus, God the Son, never sinned. That is firm LDS doctrine. If you are going to take the King Follet Discourse as a source, even though none of it ever made its way into D&C then at least be consistent. Joseph Smith indicated that God the Father had a mortal life similar to that of Jesus and that Jesus observed this from heaven. This would mean a sinnless life. Nothing in LDS doctrine suggests that God the Father was ever in a mortal fallen state even if He was once in a mortal state.

[Bikeemikey]

Given that we do not know the mechanics of the atonement or the nature of the law that allows God to remain God the question of God being sinless does not matter.

Here is what we know:

God has done nothing that would compromise his ability to be God.

Christ has done nothing that would compromise his ability to be Christ.

Everything else is up for debate.

Did they sin? do the sin now? will they sin in the future? These questions are all being asked with the idea that a yes to any of them would undermine their divinity and status of God/Christ.

We do not know the principle of law upon which the atonement has it's power, at least not fully. Until we know if Sin (past present or future) is a big deal I dont think the question really matters.

I also don't think there is a "perfection" that exists as a stand alone thing - such an idea would lead to a dissolution of the individual and liberty. Rather, I am inclined to think that the perfection God is making possible is one of character. That is, we will perfectly be willing to always learn and change when needed. One definition of the "Sons of Perdition" suggests they are those who are unwilling to change (belief, action, thoughts) even when shown the overwhelming truth of that which they are rejecting. Why not define god's perfection as the opposite, always willing to change when shown there is something better, or more perfect/true.

I am not even convinced God needs to get it right all the time. He just needs to change when he is getting it wrong.

I don't think God is universally perfect, omnipotent etc. He is simply as perfect as it is possible to be within the confines of the laws and universal physics under which he is operating.

Is he all powerful? No.

Is he the most powerful? Yes.

Is his plan capable of saving us, making us perfect "like he is perfect"? Yes.

The rest is like an ant trying to understand the physics of how sky scrapers stay standing. Irrelevant, yet enjoyable, conjecture.

[altersteve]

In my opinion, no.

[djholmess]

This topic may have run its course but here is a intresting related topic - Where does the standard of sin/good and evil come from? If God could have sinned when he was a man on another planet then obviously he doesn't define good and evil as he himself is measured by that standard - where does the standard come from then?

[Spammer]

Regardless of whether God ever sinned, if the teaching is that he was once a man, then (to djholmess' point) he needed a higher god to turn him into a god. Was that god once a man? Did he have an actualizer of his own? How far back does it go? Is it an infinite regress? Or was there a primeval god who was and is always god? Where is that god? No matter how these questions are answered, the Mormon presumption is that none of these gods transcend time and space. As resurrected, glorified men with physical podies, they all reside within some material cosmos. They occupy a measurable, limited space. They take up a particular volume of space and can only be one place at a time. Within this scheme, there is no eternally transcendent deity. To an Aristotelian like me, this eternal chain of material gods turning their mortal proteges into gods is an absurdity. Without a wholly transcendent ground of being, first cause, and prime mover, nothing material would exist - not even our God and his god ancestors. It follows (from the argument as Aquinas elaborated it), that as the ground of being and first cause, God _is_ good. He doesn't possess goodness; he IS goodness. As John taught, God IS love. That kind of god is incapable of sin and therefore cannot ever have sinned. Of course, whether Aristotle and Aquinas were right is the debatable point. In this sense, Mormons seem to me to be just like the 'new atheists' who take as the ultimate fact that all there is is matter. Mormons only assert that men made of matter can be granted godly powers by an external agent, who is also made of matter and resides within time and space.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Spammer

[Calm]

Regardless of whether God ever sinned, if the teaching is that he was once a man, then (to djholmess' point) he needed a higher god to turn him into a god.

This assumes the process was identical for him as it is for us. This isn't necessary if he has capabilities far beyond ours.

In this sense, Mormons seem to me to be just like the 'new atheists' who take as the ultimate fact that all there is is matter.

Only if one defines God as immaterial.

Of course defining what is "immaterial" first should be necessary. And something that demonstrates it actually could exist, not just by saying it is the opposite of material....because the true opposite of material is nothingness.

And it seems to me that at least Christ is material or are you claiming he is not God because he has a body?

resides within time and space

I don't think you understand LDS doctrine as well as you think you do. Edited July 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Did God ever sin?

IMNTBHO No.

[Spammer]

This assumes the process was identical for him as it is for us. This isn't necessary if he has capabilities far beyond ours.

If God was once a man, was he then born with innate capabilities that gave him the ability to spontaneously transform into a god without a god of his own providing the means? If so, then god didn't need a god to become god. He just needed to live a perfect life and he would naturally evolve into a divine being. Is that what you're suggesting?

Only if one defines God as immaterial.

Of course defining what is "immaterial" first should be necessary. And something that demonstrates it actually could exist, not just by saying it is the opposite of material....because the true opposite of material is nothingness.

And it seems to me that at least Christ is material or are you claiming he is not God because he has a body?

I assume you have Joseph Smith in mind when you identify the opposite of material as nothing. If spirit is matter, only more pure and refined, and all there is is spirit and matter, then without matter there is nothingness. Do I understand you're position correctly? Of course, I believe that spirit is not matter and that spirit transcends matter (and time and space).

I'm not making any claims apart from identifying the a priori need for a first cause and ground of being for anything material to exist (including Joseph Smith's refined, spiritual matter (assuming Aristotle was correct in identifying that ground as something that necessarily transcends time and space). Since spirit is immaterial, empirical tools cannot be used to demonstrate its existence. Other tools must be used, such as philosophy and metaphysics. Or saying a prayer and experiencing good emotions - interpreted to be the workings of the Spirit. I prefer the former method, as the latter is unreliable. Good feelings can have many causes.

I don't think you understand LDS doctrine as well as you think you do.

I understand LDS doctrine very well. It's only my view that many church members don't think through the implications of their view that God is a man like me with a body. At least, I can see no way within the laws of physics how a physical body can exist but not take up any space. God's body is physical, made of flesh and bone, made of matter, but doesn't occupy space somewhere? Is that what you're suggesting? Or is your definition of transcending space or time one that says you simultaneously transcend while occupying a particular spatial coordinate within a particular time? Perhaps what you mean by transcendence is the ability to flit between places and times, but never leaving any particular time and space altogether. If so, that is certainly not my understanding of 'transcendence'. I just want to understand your point of view. Thanks.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Spammer

[Calm]

If God was once a man, was he then born with innate capabilities that gave him the ability to spontaneously transform into a god without a god of his own providing the means? If so, then god didn't need a god to become god. He just needed to live a perfect life and he would naturally evolve into a divine being. Is that what you're suggesting?

It is a possibility, we really don't know what makes God God so how can we define the process by which he got there or if he wasn't always there from the eternity that was in whatever form he existed in (physical, spiritual, intelligence).

[Calm]

Is that what you're suggesting?

No.

Read this link and tell me if you can understand this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/mice.shtml

Then I will decide if this is a conversation worth having....I will be right up front with you and tell you I am very leery of any nonLDS who claims they know LDS doctrine, faith, and/or culture well...even better than LDS know for themselves as you seem to imply by saying "many church members don't think through the implications of their view that God is a man like me with a body" also implying that you have. I generally find that such discussions are a waste of my time as I don't get to discuss much, just get lectured about what I really believe a lot.

[Spammer]

No.

Read this link and tell me if you can understand this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/mice.shtml

Then I will decide if this is a conversation worth having....I will be right up front with you and tell you I am very leery of any nonLDS who claims they know LDS doctrine, faith, and/or culture well...even better than LDS know for themselves as you seem to imply by saying "many church members don't think through the implications of their view that God is a man like me with a body" also implying that you have. I generally find that such discussions are a waste of my time as I don't get to discuss much, just get lectured about what I really believe a lot.

LOL. I'm a sixth generation Mormon on both sides. Polygamous ancestry, born into the church, raised in Utah and Idaho, four year seminary grad (released time during high school), scripture bowl champion, honorable mission, zone leader, baptized 14 people in the bible belt, temple marriage, Gospel Doctrine teacher, Elder's Quorum presidency, Eagle Scout. Do those credentials satisfy your criteria for being a worthy discussant of church teaching? I know what the church teaches now and what it used to teach. Of course, even if we continue, we'll inevitably reach a point of impasse. I wonder if you'll then throw out the old canard of my parents' supposed failure to teach me properly. Or maybe I misunderstood everything I was taught by my leaders and teachers and didn't learn church teachings properly. If there's an inkling of either of those in your mind, held in reserve when I say something you might disagree with, then you're right. There's no point to having this conversation.

Regarding Douglas Adams, that's one of my favs. I know the answer is 42, but still don't know the question. It's interesting you would cite the invention of an avowed atheist to support your view of what God is like. Even so, those mice, though pan-dimensional, are still material and as such, subject to the laws of physics. Even if their fictional (but theorized) physics transcends quantum theory.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Spammer

[Calm]

LOL. I'm a sixth generation Mormon on both sides.

Boy I do need to go to sleep, I saw one post from djholmess and somehow thought his were yours. Better stop now and get some sleep.

It's interesting you would cite the invention of an avowed atheist to support your view of what God is like.

But I didn't. I cited it to see if you were willing to play with ideas. I have a very limited concept of what I believe God is, I am open to a massive amount of possibilities of what he might be.

[Spammer]

Boy I do need to go to sleep, I saw one post from djholmess and somehow thought his were yours. Better stop now and get some sleep.

But I didn't. I cited it to see if you were willing to play with ideas. I have a very limited concept of what I believe God is, I am open to a massive amount of possibilities of what he might be.

I don't want to mislead you. All I said about my background is true, but I'm no longer a believer. I have major philosophical issues with some fundamental church doctrines. In fact, some might call me a wolf in sheep's clothing since I still go to church believing what I believe. I'm definitely an apostate. I got tired of living secretly, pretending to be something I'm not and a few years back went and had some water poured over my head three times in a Catholic church. There's only two Mormons in my life who don't know I did this. My kids. That's how my wife wants it. She insists on it. I comply, but I'm unhappy with my decision. I'm kind of bitter that my wife insists on it, but I understand her fears for our children. But it still makes me feel like crap that I have to pretend to be something I'm not in front of my own children. It's easy for me to come off as confrontational, as a result. I'm working on it.

[djholmess]

Spammer,

Off topic I know (so feel free not to reply) but what made you go with Roman Catholicism?

Anyone else out there got an answer on where absolute good or evil comes from. Is there even a belief in LDS theology for moral absolutes?

[Calm]

I don't want to mislead you. All I said about my background is true, but I'm no longer a believer. I have major philosophical issues with some fundamental church doctrines. In fact, some might call me a wolf in sheep's clothing since I still go to church believing what I believe. I'm definitely an apostate. I got tired of living secretly, pretending to be something I'm not and a few years back went and had some water poured over my head three times in a Catholic church. There's only two Mormons in my life who don't know I did this. My kids. That's how my wife wants it. She insists on it. I comply, but I'm unhappy with my decision. I'm kind of bitter that my wife insists on it, but I understand her fears for our children. But it still makes me feel like crap that I have to pretend to be something I'm not in front of my own children. It's easy for me to come off as confrontational, as a result. I'm working on it.

I am sorry you have to go through this. Perhaps it will be a little comfort to know studies have shown that kids do better when not given multiple religious messages in the home....now I just got to remember where I read this and what "better" is, lol. Hopefully when they are older and ready to talk about such things on their own, your wife will be more open to the idea.

[Spammer]

Spammer,

Off topic I know (so feel free not to reply) but what made you go with Roman Catholicism?

Anyone else out there got an answer on where absolute good or evil comes from. Is there even a belief in LDS theology for moral absolutes?

djholmess,

All anyone can do is go with what seems right based on available information. If I

1) want to be a Christian;

2) don't believe there was an Apostasy (and thus no need for a restoration);

3) don't accept that the "the Holy Ghost and Me" approach to finding truth is valid (IMO it isn't, as it only produces chaos and thousands of churches; bye bye sola scriptura and the Protestant Reformation);

4) and see a need for an authoritative voice in the world to serve as final arbiter;

then there are only two options: Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

That's it in a nutshell. I went with RC since EO was a mystery at the time. I lean EO now. It's even more ancient and has changed less than the RC. It also lacks such negatives as the Crusades and various inquisitions that are used by some to prove an Apostasy occurred. The Orthodox Divine Liturgy is also beautiful. The entire thing is sung. A conversation in song between priest and parishioners for the glory of God. But in my opinion RC and EO are essentially the same church. They used to be until the 11th Century when the Greeks and Latins went their separate ways.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Spammer

[Spammer]

I am sorry you have to go through this. Perhaps it will be a little comfort to know studies have shown that kids do better when not given multiple religious messages in the home....now I just got to remember where I read this and what "better" is, lol. Hopefully when they are older and ready to talk about such things on their own, your wife will be more open to the idea.

Yes, that's exactly what my wife has in mind. Some research she found somewhere and the example of the evangelicals across the street who found religious unity only after their kids became teenagers. None of those kids are churchgoers. I get it, I do. My wife didn't plan on my spiritual crisis. But it happened. It's not like I woke up one morning and said "hey! I want to sin and the church's rules are too hard and I need an easy church that allows me to drink coffee and watch football on Sundays!". No. I just woke up one morning after a loooong period of historical research, reflection, and sadness, trying to figure out why I never felt the spirit ever, and the devastating conclusion "it's not true" was suddenly there in my mind. I became an atheist on the spot. C.S. Lewis, Merton, the Early Church Fathers, and Aquinas brought me back to Christianity fifteen years later. I'm still a lousy Christian, very inconstant and unstable in my faith. This is due to 1) to this day, I have never felt the presence of God, atheist doubts are an albatross around my neck; and 2) I'm easily depressed by the fact that I'm completely alone on my faith journey. My family and I are on different roads.

I don't want this post and my prior post to further hijack this thread (I'm good at that). Let's get back to the thread. I perceive a contradiction between the idea that God exists, was once a man (sinful or not), has a material body of flesh and bones, but is also somehow able to transcend both time and space (i.e., transcend any and all material cosmos). I cannot conceptualize how matter (and the underlying particles), can exist without taking up space, and if God's body takes up space, how can it be said that he transcends? Does he leave his body behind when he does so? If all there is is matter and God resides with Jesus on some material plane (consistent with the idea that they are both embodied), then there is nothing beyond the universe (or universes). That still leaves Aristotle's philosophical views unconsidered. As I said before, I agree with him (and with Aquinas) when he asserts that without a first cause and ground of being holding all things in existence from moment to moment, nothing material can exist. By definition, such a ground cannot be material itself.

If you want to discuss any of that, then I'm game.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Spammer

[Calm]

Hopefully mfb will stop by.

[altersteve]

I perceive a contradiction between the idea that God exists, was once a man (sinful or not), has a material body of flesh and bones, but is also somehow able to transcend both time and space (i.e., transcend any and all material cosmos). I cannot conceptualize how matter (and the underlying particles), can exist without taking up space, and if God's body takes up space, how can it be said that he transcends?

Easy question: by the Spirit and by the Light of Christ. Remember, the Spirit does not have a body.

Edited July 10, 2012 by altersteve

[Spammer]

Easy question: by the Spirit and by the Light of Christ. Remember, the Spirit does not have a body.

So, the Spirit can transcend time and space, but not the Father. The Father sends the Spirit to do his transcending for him. The Father transcends by proxy. Is that what you're saying?

Edited July 10, 2012 by Spammer

[altersteve]

So, the Spirit can transcend time and space, but not the Father. The Father sends the Spirit to do his transcending for him. The Father transcends by proxy. Is that what you're saying?

No, it's not as simplistic as that. My statement that the Spirit does not have a body may have been misleading. First of all, the phrase "transcend time and space" is not part of to LDS doctrine. No Latter-day Saint would describe it that way. The way we would describe is that God is present in all parts of the universe by and through the Light of Christ, which is understood to be the influence of God which permeates His entire creation. It is through this that the Spirit manifests itself and reveals truth to us. The Father and the Holy Spirit are one, just as the Father and the Son are one. I don't like to separate Them like you're doing when it comes to things like this.

In other words, the Father can "transcend time and space," but not in the way you're thinking. We don't believe Him to be literally everywhere all at once, but we do believe He is always present through His creations, power, glory, light, influence, etc.

Edited July 10, 2012 by altersteve