Did God Ever Sin?

[KevinG]

You know nothing about me but called me out on all of my supposed dysfunctional relationships, with me at the center. You are a paragon of charity, that's for sure. Not to mention mind reading.

The Dysfunctional relationship line is an old joke - one with a point mind you. If you find numerous smug Mormons treat you as an ignoramus perhaps it is something in your approach?

[KevinG]

I'm coming to you from the 28 years I spent as an active, sixth-generation Mormon.

That explains a lot.

[Spammer]

The Dysfunctional relationship line is an old joke - one with a point mind you. If you find numerous smug Mormons treat you as an ignoramus perhaps it is something in your approach?

[media=]

Just one or two, not numerous. Most Mormons are very nice and charitable.

[KevinG]

I think I'm minimally qualified to at least be granted the courtesy of not being mocked like I'm some ignoramus. Which is a typical Mormon ploy, in my experience.

Just one or two, not numerous. Most Mormons are very nice and charitable.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. -Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited July 10, 2012 by KevinG

[Spammer]

Uh huh.

My initial comment about smugness referred to a single poster. You invented the rest. But now it refers to two posters. The rest on this board I've encountered are quite nice.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Spammer

[KevinG]

My initial comment about smugness referred to a single poster. You invented the rest. But now it refers to two posters. The rest on this board I've encountered are quite nice.

"Typical Mormon Ploy" (your words not mine) refers to a single poster? (or two now I guess)

Seriously you come across as very harsh against the Mormons and their beliefs and then you demand a level of respect you are not returning. I am not surprised you have difficulties with at least two of us

Enough! Stop badgering. -Ares

Edited July 10, 2012 by Ares

[Spammer]

I'll own up to my part. I struggle with coming across as confrontational. I'm a frustrated person. I'm working on it. Sorry folks.

[rongo]

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.

I think you heard at least one of the two shows I did on Backpack Radio last summer, Valentinus, where this was heavily discussed. I was tempted to email Vocab and remind him about this (we are in contact and have a good relationship ---- he's a great guy. We had a really good conversation after we taped my two shows, and he genuinely admires the level of service personal ministering in the Church [i.e., bishoprics and other ward leaders compared to most of non-Mormon Christianity]. My family even ran into his family at the Mesa temple over Christmas, and talked for a while. He and his family still have a standing invitation to come to dinner).

In both the KFD and the "Sermon in the Grove" (a week before the martyrdom), Joseph Smith indicated that Jesus' Father had been a Savior as well. This leaves ample room for Mormons to believe that a requirement for being "God" (capital G) is to be a Redeemer on an earth. Under this understanding, the rest of us (including me and you) can become "gods," but not in the exact same sense as God is God. This is my personal view ----- although it is not set in stone doctrinally, and Mormons can also believe that God's mortal experience matched ours, and that we can become Gods in the exact same sense as He is.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

When I saw the name of thr thread, I knew I would find Aaron or Russ's name. It is their obcession.

[altersteve]

Spammer,

I've edited my previous post to add some more details and clarifications.

This is quite hard. I'm coming to you from the 28 years I spent as an active, sixth-generation Mormon. What I'm saying about the LDS view of God's nature is not my invention. It's what I was taught by my parents, church leaders and teachers, and the GA's when I was growing up, through my mission and beyond, it's what I taught, what every family member believed and taught, every single active church member in my life - until Gordon B. Hinckley's interview with Mike Wallace back in 1997 began changing things. I understand what you're saying about what it all means to you and other church members today. I'm just struggling in communicating since to me since the ambiguity about God's nature within Mormonism today seems to me to be a radical innovation. My dad, for instance, is one of the old guard. He would be completely confused by this conversation. He would say - "of course I hope to get my own planet and be just like Heavenly Father."

Our understanding of God and His gospel is supposed to grow. Old ideas are replaced with new ones as our knowledge increases. This is true with not only the gospel but with all branches of knowledge, and that was what God intended. I believe He built our minds that way for a reason.

My patriarchal blessing, for pete's sake, tells me that if I'm faithful God himself will tutor me in the creation of worlds. I received that in 1979. How many mormons believe and expect that these days?

I'm certain that God, being the loving Father that He is, will personally tutor all His faithful children in all sorts of things, including the creation of worlds. I believe we will all assist Him in furthering His creations, and for that we'll need all the tutoring we can get. We have a lot to learn.

Yea, there's the rub. I tried the pray and ask God to illumine you approach and it failed miserably. I have zero faith in that approach anymore. I can't even bring myself to utter the words "Dear Heavenly Father" anymore. When I pray, I have to use different words. Weird, huh? But that's the way it is. I so desperately wanted to feel something and failed so utterly that the Mormon approach to prayer was completely burned out of me, total scorched earth. That one's gone forever. When I decided to give Christianity a try again, the only way I could do it was through philosophy. Not prayer or looking for a special spiritual feeling (which is not to say that i still don't catch myself in that mood).

Christ tells us that one becomes His disciple (a Christian) by following Him, and we do that through faith, prayer, good works, etc. -- not through the philosophy of men.

Catholicism considers faith not rooted in reason and the evidence to be a heresy - called fideism. I like that a lot. Yes, Catholicism does that all good testifies of God. But everything needs to be grounded in reason and the evidence or you can be misled by emotion.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches and encourages the same. An oft-quoted passage in the D&C tells us to "study it out in your mind" before praying about something, which I think means we are to use the gifts of logic and reason that our Heavenly Father has blessed us with. He gave us a brain for a reason and He expects us to use it. Why do you think the Church is so strong in its position on education?

In the old days, it used to be that harmonic music was banned since emotions can be manipulated so easily through music. I agree that emotionalism is a danger. That's exactly how I have come to view Mormon spirituality and the emphasis on spiritual feelings when seeking a testimony. But I realize that most Mormons likely don't view it that way.

We do indeed view it a different way. A feeling of peace and joy can and does accompany a spiritual confirmation, but we don't believe any emotion by itself is a reliable thing to use to make a decision. It's not something that can be described, so we use such terms as "feelings" and "burning in the bosom" to do so, but these terms are inadequate. There's more to receiving a testimony than just "feeling good."

Again, every single member of my family and every one of my seminary teachers and mission companions (assuming we're back in the '80s) would be confused by your belief. "But, what about King Follett???"

What about it? I simply acknowledge that there are things about God that we don't understand yet, and I believe it's more important to take from the scriptures lessons about how to be better people and better disciples of Christ than it is to know all about the fine details of where God lives and other things that honestly don't matter that much. But I love the King Follett discourse and I consider it to be an inspired sermon. I don't see how or why any of my beliefs would be confusing to any fellow Church member, since the belief that matters most is the conviction that Jesus is the Christ, to which all other convictions pale in comparison. As long as we share that belief, I don't see why certain differences in personal opinion should matter as much as some people think they do, especially when they're over things which are really quite trivial in comparison to other, more important doctrines like the reality of the Atonement and the importance of loving and serving one another.

That's your perogative, of course, but I can only be persuaded that classical metaphysics is wrong on philosophical grounds - by showing where the chain in the argument breaks down - without recourse to scripture or prayer or testimony. I won't make a good Mormon at all. That's why I went Catholic (which is not to say that's how all Catholics do it. There are plenty of Catholics in my experience who go solely by prayer and whether it feels right).

But it's not about being a "good Mormon" -- it's about striving to be a good disciple of Jesus Christ, worshiping God with all your heart, and always being of service to your fellow man. If you do that, God will bless you abundantly, whether you're a Mormon or not. And besides, any person who does those things will make a great Mormon, regardless of anything else. The rest of what makes a "good Mormon" will come with time as long as those three things are there and sincere effort is put forth to make it happen.

That's an entirely new issue that warrants yet another new thread - what's the difference between the Christian heaven, where all Christians are in heaven with God and each other with all relationships perfected in Christ, and the LDS sphere of exaltation. In both places, I'm standing next to my earthly wife. Will my feelings for her and relationship with her be qualitatively distinct in the two types of heaven? I see it the same as if we were to suddenly discover that through a glitch when we were married in 1990 that we're not really married after all and never have been. Not a single thing would change for me.

You're right, another thread would be better for this discussion.

Edited July 10, 2012 by altersteve

[DJBrown]

Joseph Smith said the following:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens”; 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 that he “worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling.”

^{Joseph said that Christ worked out His kingdom the same way the Father did.}

^{Also in the King Follett Sermon, Joseph said:}

^"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.

^{I think that these statements, along with Christ's statement that He did "that which He say His Father do" enable us to say with confidence that God the Father was never, ever a sinner.}

^{To those who say it doesn't matter either way, I ask you does it matter that we recognize Christ as the Savior?}

^{If it is important for us to recognize the difference between us and Christ, it is just as important to recognize the difference between a God who sinned in the past and one who had a mortal life like Christ had.}

^{I cringe when I hear members of the church entertaining the idea of God the Father having ever sinned. I think it is extremely irresponsible.}

^{Consider the life of Abraham. His offering of Isaac is a similitude of the sacrifice by God of His only Begotten Son. Abraham represents the Father in this similitude. Consider Abraham's previous experience on his own alter. Abraham's sacrifice and obedience is all the more astonishing because he knew personally what it was like to have his father place him on an alter and offer him up to his father's god. I believe this offers compelling additional reason to maintain that God the Father lived a sinless, perfect life, "just like Jesus Christ."}

^{I really hope that as a people we will be thoughtful and not give in to these intellectually enticing but flawed and truly blasphemous concepts.}

[Spammer]

Altersteve, there's only one thing I want to clarify. In your last response, you said:

"Christ tells us that one becomes His disciple (a Christian) by following Him, and we do that through faith, prayer, good works, etc. -- not through the philosophy of men."

I think that sums up everything you've been saying. Correct me if I'm wrong. In response, I want to say that I agree with you completely. Catholics believe the exact same thing. The thing I need to clarify is that philosophy re-opened the door for me for a belief that god might actually exist. The aristotelian-thomist tradition provided a foundation for me on which I could once again try to have faith in Christ. Of course it doesn't replace the gospel. I never said otherwise in any of my posts. But take it away and I'm an atheist once more. The LDS spiritual approach of reading, studying it out in your mind, praying, doing good works, and seeking a witness of the spirit got me nowhere. Trying my best to magnify my callings, pay a full tithe, and keep the commandments also got me nowhere. A life of prayer and good works is not unique to Mormonism. Truth claims for the institution must therefore rest on other grounds. A spiritual witness can be those grounds and is for many - if you actually receive that witness. I never did and that's a problem for someone who really wants a testimony. I never did buy the crap many church members and family members would tell me when I opened up about my problem and they attributed my failure to insincerity or hidden sin. But it sure made me angry whenever I heard such things.

After my bout of atheism, I found other grounds on which to rebuild a foundation for a belief that God might actually exist after all. The desire to live a Christian life came later. But finding that desire naturally resulted from my discovery of orthodox Christianity, as it is that tradition that begins with an appeal to reason in its truth claims. It's not the LDS missionary approach of "read this and pray" but "God exists and there are rational arguments that demonstrate the truth of that proposition". I gave up on the "read this and pray" approach. But when I discovered the other approach, now, all of a sudden, God was back in my life. Those grounds are philosophical and (to me) clearly inconsistent with the notion that god has a body of flesh and bones and was once a man or, to the point of this thread, was ever a sinner. From an orthodox Christian point of view, this is a very blasphemous proposition. That's the reason why I asked for a reference to a Mormon thinker who has dealt with those philosophical arguments, to see whether a different point of view is available, something from within the Mormon tradition that isn't "read this book and pray" in its approach to finding truth. I've only come across one contemporary writer who has sought to meet the aristotelian-thomist approach on its own grounds. Richard Dawkins tried to debunk Aquinas's arguments for God's existence and God's true nature in his book The God Delusion, but the job he did was really bad.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Spammer

[CASteinman]

The LDS spiritual approach of reading, studying it out in your mind, praying, doing good works, and seeking a witness of the spirit got me nowhere.

I believe you entirely. No intent to criticize here, but I would like to suggest an idea to you: This is your challenge and your "thorn in the flesh" so to speak. I am so pleased you found some hook to rest a modicum of faith upon. No one can really do more than that at some level! But we all seemingly have some weakness that annoys us and gets in the way of our spiritual progression.

I want to encourage you to try to become a person for whom prayer and spirit can be helpful and positive things that do work for you. Not because I want you to believe like a prophet (or alternatively like me) but because these things can make you feel, think and be better in ways that will bring joy.

I asked for a reference to a Mormon thinker who has dealt with those philosophical arguments, to see whether a different point of view is available, something from within the Mormon traditions that isn't "read this book and pray" in its approach to finding truth.

I am not entirely sure what you are looking for, but have you looked into the books by Truman Madsen? Seems he has written a few in this vein. You might take a look at his book "Eternal Man". Its been years since I have read it (decades really). It is a very small book but as I recall it touches on how the Gospel -- not just any Gospel but the restored Gospel -- answers important questions from philosophy.

[Spammer]

I believe you entirely. No intent to criticize here, but I would like to suggest an idea to you: This is your challenge and your "thorn in the flesh" so to speak. I am so pleased you found some hook to rest a modicum of faith upon. No one can really do more than that at some level! But we all seemingly have some weakness that annoys us and gets in the way of our spiritual progression.

I want to encourage you to try to become a person for whom prayer and spirit can be helpful and positive things that do work for you. Not because I want you to believe like a prophet (or alternatively like me) but because these things can make you feel, think and be better in ways that will bring joy.

I hear you and thank you. My Catholic friends all say the exact same thing. It's true. But the thorn of still feeling absolutely nothing during prayer at home or at mass is still there in my side. God's utter absence is a huge challenge. My faith is weak. The fact that, spiritually, I'm a daily disappointment to my wife is also a huge challenge. All I have is Aquinas to keep me going. I hope one day to get to that place you mentioned where joy reigns.

I am not entirely sure what you are looking for, but have you looked into the books by Truman Madsen? Seems he has written a few in this vein. You might take a look at his book "Eternal Man". Its been years since I have read it (decades really). It is a very small book but as I recall it touches on how the Gospel -- not just any Gospel but the restored Gospel -- answers important questions from philosophy.

Thanks for the reference! I'll add it to Blake Ostler.

[djholmess]

Spammer,

Check out this link, it may be from different perspective you haven't quite considered yet.

Hope it helps!

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/the-supremacy-of-christ-and-joy-in-a-postmodern-world

[Storm Rider]

Altersteve, there's only one thing I want to clarify. In your last response, you said:

"Christ tells us that one becomes His disciple (a Christian) by following Him, and we do that through faith, prayer, good works, etc. -- not through the philosophy of men."

I think that sums up everything you've been saying. Correct me if I'm wrong. In response, I want to say that I agree with you completely. Catholics believe the exact same thing. The thing I need to clarify is that philosophy re-opened the door for me for a belief that god might actually exist. The aristotelian-thomist tradition provided a foundation for me on which I could once again try to have faith in Christ. Of course it doesn't replace the gospel. I never said otherwise in any of my posts. But take it away and I'm an atheist once more. The LDS spiritual approach of reading, studying it out in your mind, praying, doing good works, and seeking a witness of the spirit got me nowhere. Trying my best to magnify my callings, pay a full tithe, and keep the commandments also got me nowhere. A life of prayer and good works is not unique to Mormonism. Truth claims for the institution must therefore rest on other grounds. A spiritual witness can be those grounds and is for many - if you actually receive that witness. I never did and that's a problem for someone who really wants a testimony. I never did buy the crap many church members and family members would tell me when I opened up about my problem and they attributed my failure to insincerity or hidden sin. But it sure made me angry whenever I heard such things.

After my bout of atheism, I found other grounds on which to rebuild a foundation for a belief that God might actually exist after all. The desire to live a Christian life came later. But finding that desire naturally resulted from my discovery of orthodox Christianity, as it is that tradition that begins with an appeal to reason in its truth claims. It's not the LDS missionary approach of "read this and pray" but "God exists and there are rational arguments that demonstrate the truth of that proposition". I gave up on the "read this and pray" approach. But when I discovered the other approach, now, all of a sudden, God was back in my life. Those grounds are philosophical and (to me) clearly inconsistent with the notion that god has a body of flesh and bones and was once a man or, to the point of this thread, was ever a sinner. From an orthodox Christian point of view, this is a very blasphemous proposition. That's the reason why I asked for a reference to a Mormon thinker who has dealt with those philosophical arguments, to see whether a different point of view is available, something from within the Mormon tradition that isn't "read this book and pray" in its approach to finding truth. I've only come across one contemporary writer who has sought to meet the aristotelian-thomist approach on its own grounds. Richard Dawkins tried to debunk Aquinas's arguments for God's existence and God's true nature in his book The God Delusion, but the job he did was really bad.

One LDS author is Blake Ostler - Exploring Mormon Thought, Volumes 1-3. Another book I would recommend is John Paul II's encyclical, Fides et Ratio. Ostler's books go into a deeper examination of LDS theology and address many of the issues you have brought up here; they bring a great deal of clarity. John Paul II's encyclical is one of the best summaries of why faith and reason are eternal companions and neither can exist without the other; there is a need for both.

Spam, if I have offended you I apologize, but you tend to dish it out pretty heavily. I have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear the same critiques, worded in the same way, from people who I think should know better. Like you, I do not tolerate fools lightly. I tried to make it clear that a lot of what i was saying was tongue-in-cheek or jest. Levity is difficult to understand in the written word. It would have been better had we the opportunity to talk in person; a weakness of the Internet.

[CASteinman]

I hear you and thank you. My Catholic friends all say the exact same thing. It's true. But the thorn of still feeling absolutely nothing during prayer at home or at mass is still there in my side. God's utter absence is a huge challenge. My faith is weak. The fact that, spiritually, I'm a daily disappointment to my wife is also a huge challenge. All I have is Aquinas to keep me going. I hope one day to get to that place you mentioned where joy reigns.

Oh.. so many thoughts come to mind.

Atheism is so dismal. Man does not seem to be made for it. If you feel this, you are not so unfamiliar with the Spirit as you may imagine. Sometimes, people are not actually aware of the Spirit in their lives.

Some people are born blind. Not a consequence of bad parents or their own fault. Its just the way it is. These people have never seen any colors or shapes. Those of us who have sight may tell them about some of the things seen but they can never really know about it. Not really. They can't even know about darkness. But their inability to detect such things does not change reality: There are shapes of things and colors and so on. These things really exist. And perhaps without seeing, they believe us anyway.

So it is for those of us who may have fears and doubts and think too hard about "stuff". We worry away the time and the Spirit. Maybe we look beyond the mark. This is our handicap. Fighting it will not make it go away. Disbelieving it will not make it go away. Envy of others will not make it go away. Succumbing to despair will not change it either. Maybe nothing will change that ... but our reaction to it will change us.

Faith gives us a way to respond. Drink it in! Enjoy it!

We make our lives holy each moment, each day by the way we respond to the challenges found in that life -- and in the process, we imbue a certain holiness to the things and people around us -- or, failing to live to our higher selves, we may imbue them with something less positive.

I commend you on your search. I encourage you. Remember, God has set this up that if you can exercise even a little faith -- you will win!

The Universe did not rise up in the intelligence of man to observe itself and then wink out. There is a God!

[Spammer]

One LDS author is Blake Ostler - Exploring Mormon Thought, Volumes 1-3. Another book I would recommend is John Paul II's encyclical, Fides et Ratio. Ostler's books go into a deeper examination of LDS theology and address many of the issues you have brought up here; they bring a great deal of clarity. John Paul II's encyclical is one of the best summaries of why faith and reason are eternal companions and neither can exist without the other; there is a need for both.

Spam, if I have offended you I apologize, but you tend to dish it out pretty heavily. I have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear the same critiques, worded in the same way, from people who I think should know better. Like you, I do not tolerate fools lightly. I tried to make it clear that a lot of what i was saying was tongue-in-cheek or jest. Levity is difficult to understand in the written word. It would have been better had we the opportunity to talk in person; a weakness of the Internet.

Storm, thanks. I know I can be a royal pain in the backside. I try not to be, but I'm a very conflicted person. It's tough to be calm and reflective when you're conflicted inside. I have a lot of work to do to overcome my anger. When I drive the family to church, i sometimes have to leave the building. The negative emotional reaction to things I hear is sometimes that visceral. Lots and lots of baggage. I'm responsible for my reactions, but if only people would stop talking about why people leave the church as if it's all their fault or their parents fault (you didn't do this!). That would help me out a lot. Unfortunately, I bring my anger at Mormons who talk like that with me wherever I go. You got caught up in it and I'm sorry. As you say, the internet medium is a subpar tool for communication, wink and smile emotes notwithstanding.

Thanks for the references. I know JPII's encyclical very well. It's a classic. I was just looking at Ostler's books online. They look exactly like what I've been looking for - a Mormon response to the orthodox Christian philosophical tradition.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Spammer

[Spammer]

CASteinman, thanks for the words of encouragement. I really appreciate it.

[Calm]

Blake is a good guy and interesting writer...not easy, I bet you will enjoy him. He even rates his own wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Blake_Ostler

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/407/blake-t-ostler

I've seen him post on blogs on occasion, but I don't know of one he posts on regularly as I don't hang out on too many on a regular basis. I try and limit myself to this board, otherwise I'd never be off the computer.

Edited July 11, 2012 by calmoriah