Another question.

Okay, I have kinda studied the mormon religion and one question from me is,
Is it true that our God, to mormon beliefs, was a sinner like us on another planet under another god and when he died, he eventually became the god we know today?
I have seen it in reasearch and would like to hear from fromer or current mormon people if it is true.

No, not true

[quote=BJ Colbert]No, not true
[/quote]

Hey BJ,
It might help altarserver some more if you went into a little detail about how you see God.

[quote=BJ Colbert]No, not true
[/quote]

Is this your opinion or LDS Church teaching? I thought that at least some mainstream LDS members believe that, “what man is God once was and what God is man may become,” or something like that. This is according to Prophet Joseph Smith’s teachings, isn’t it?

And if that’s not true, then where do all the Mormon bashers get the idea about God once living on a planet circling the star Kolob?

I mean no disrespect, just seeking clarification.

Peace,

Good luck finding an answer on that one, as the whole God-man thing is just “speculation”.

From what discussions I have had, there are at least two schools of thought:

1.) God, the Father, was the messiah/Christ, for his “world”, and therefore would have been sinless (ostensably) during that sequence. However this is generally refuted, do to the idea that our Christ’s Atonement is the one and only, eternal, sacrifice which would have been for our world, all the worlds before, and all the worlds after. Those that likethis version are the ones that really go for the endless, eternal progression (as, in order for us to alss become our own Heavenly Father of our own world, we would likewise have to become our own christs/messiahs). The big scriptural reason for this view is when Christ claimed that he did nothing that he did not see the Father do (meaning, he atoned for his world as well). In this scenario, then When God’s Grand father was running the show, then he lived a mortal life like ours, ie full of sin, and it was not until the following “generation” that he would have lead his sinless/messianic life.

2.) (the more naive view, IMHO): As Jesus’ atonement was a singularity, and cannot be repeated, then should we attain exaltation at the judgement, then we (with our spouse(s)) would then get to, rather quickly in the eternal sceme of things, get to be our own Heavenly Fathers & Mothers for our own “generation” of worlds. In this scenario, as we were not sinless prior to ascendance, then drawing the scenario back one “generation”, one could easily see how Heavenly Father would in nowise need to have been sinless during his own mortal incarnation.

Now, as a point, both views take seriously the idea that the progression from one state of being to another theoretically takes place over the course of eons, and so is not so closely structured as I presented, thus is either scenario, God (or us for that matter) can have lived millions of mortal lives on millions of worlds. Why? because the Doctrine promises multiple people each world will attain this “glory”. Even if only .001% of mormons on our world alone attained this (as is promised by the Church if they fulfill their temple obligations), then even if the world was over tomorrow, then we would have produced over 1,000 new gods!

Keep in mind that, according to the D&C (actual scripture, not just the “speculative” Journal of Discourses, or King Follet Discourse) each of us is in actually an uncreated “Intelligence” that existed from the beginning, not a being that was either created by god (they preferr the term “organized”), nor can be destroyed, nor a being that is created in the womb.

Ironically, this scriptural doctrine seems to dis-prove the mormon idea that we each will spawn our own worlds, to be populated by our own “spiritchildren”; or indeed that we are the literal born children of God, as is also commonly asserted by missionaries.

In fin; the great difficulty in researching mormon stuff like this is, they use familliar terms, that do not have the familliar meanings (for a concrete example, Heavenly Father to most Christians means our Creator (made-not begotton), but to a mormon it means our literal spiritual father (begotton of some nameless spirit mother, not made); and that if the belief can’t be explained away, then it is simply labled “speculation”. Someone needs to summon up the ghost of (the prophet, who while not “infallible”, cannot lead the church astray as it is not part of the “plan”-see the Official Declarations regarding polygamy and the canonized explanitory notes) BY, and ask him if the Adam=God=Michael “theory” was just “speculation” .

Sorry, I may have answered more than you were wanting. :frowning:

Oh, and it doesn’t say what world God was a mortal on, but he currently resides on a planet orbiting a star called Kolob, whose daily rotation is equal to 1,000 of our years. See either the Book of Abraham, or Moses, not sure anymore which (having tossed all my copies when I left the church).

King Follet Discourse = One of, if not the, last sermons of Joseph Smith, where he explicitly declaired God to be an exalted man.

Pearl of Great Price = Kolob mentioned as star of planet to which God resides, also see the facsimilies.

D&C = eternal increase promised to those who attain exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.
= Teaching that we are uncreated, eternal, intelligences.
= (IIRC) teaching that Kolob has a 1,000 year day (though maybe in PoGP)

Journal of Discourses = where BY announces that Adam (who was previeously revealed to be Michael, btw) is “the only God with which we have to do”, thus creating the Adam=God “theory”.

Prophet Lorenzo Snow= source of that (in)famous couplet “As Man is, God once was; As God is, man shall become” (or the reverse, never aid it much attention really, other than on BSG)

And one last, clarifying point:

If you think even slightly on what I presented, you will notice a dilemma. According to “why cant we just join the Church in the afterlife, like all our anscestors that we are doing this proxy work for?” answer, we need physical bodies in order to progress fully; thus, if logically coupled with the “eternal progression” it needs be that we have/will live on many worlds (as it is also aknowledged by the thinkers, that we cannot possibly have attained godhood in this life). Unfortunately, this smacks of Reincarnation, which as a rule (meaning every mormon I have ever discussed this with, aside from the singular example of my Father in Law) reject with as much fervancy as any Christian.

So, how is it solved? By ignoring the problem, and say “well, we don’t actually know what was meant by that.” or “That is just the speculation of a man.”

Thank you BJRumph, that is a great explination. That helps me out a lot. WOW that was great. I had to read it a couple of times to get it. But thank you again.

No prob. Sorry if I unloaded too much. I have only recently left the church (in march), and I am starting to realize that I have issues about the whoppers I used to fall for (and defend on other boards).

now I will stand to the side and allow the “faithful” debunk, deny, or obfuscate what I have written…

I suggest you do a search for the documents I mentioned, so you can read them for yourself. There is/was a fundie site that had all of the JoD on their web-page, plus a cd your could buy that had them as well as other documents like the King Follet sermon. The book, Mormon Doctrine, is also a good, if embarrassing, source of Mormon beliefs that, while written by one of the Twelve Apostles, proves to be an endless source of consternation for post-1970’s mormons, who are largely unfamilliar with it, other than to say that it isn’t official doctrine. It is the closest thing that they have to a catechism from the era (though, again, it will be vehemently asserted that since the church did not print it, it is not official, just the “speculation” of a member of the church. No, they don’t have Imprimaturs or Nihil Obs…) Members gobble up every book written by a prophet or apostle, and they have great influence, but its all “speculation” (Oh! How I have come to hate that word!)

Oo… another good one is the Lectures on Faith, written by J Smith, and were originally part of the cannon (it was the “Doctrine” of the Doctrine & Covenants), until removed quietly (ie no vote of the church, as required by canon) in the early 20th century. A great read, nothing too controversial (Modalism aside), until set next to the current teachings of the church.

At any rate, I promise to only tell it as it has been for me these last nine years; the good and bad, without getting too emotional or distortive.

One last thing, you might try the ZLMB board if you are interested in more pro-LDS apologetic discourses that aren’t entirely censored like at some of the church run sites (like FARMS and SHEILDS).

[quote=alterserver_07]Okay, I have kinda studied the mormon religion and one question from me is,
Is it true that our God, to mormon beliefs, was a sinner like us on another planet under another god and when he died, he eventually became the god we know today?
I have seen it in reasearch and would like to hear from fromer or current mormon people if it is true.
[/quote]

I’m not Mormon but here’s a BYU (Mormon) source. “Perfected” implies that he wasn’t always perfect. It’s hard to find specifics from Mormon sources on the web, and Mormons will give you a wide range of responses.

Latter-day Saints believe that God achieved his exalted rank by progressing much as man must progress and that God is a perfected and exalted man.abstracted from K. Codell Carter, “Godhood,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:553–55.

source: ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=178

The Catholic bible and the KJV both say in Genesis 6:6 that God repented.
We believe that God is without sin, and thus would not have to repent. We therefore believe that it is a mis-translation from the Hebrew root which means to be sorry, moved to pity; have compassion. These meanings are a bit different than to repent, which indicates the presence of sin.
BJ
:slight_smile:

[QUOTEIs it true that [color=red]our God, to mormon beliefs, was a sinner like us on another planet under another god and when he died, he eventually became the god we know today?
]

Not our God. Mormons worship an entirely different “concept” of God.

It is still true that God is not a sinner. Whether He is your God or the LDS God, He has not sinned. Just as his son Jesus Christ has never sinned. They are both without sin.

[quote=BJ Colbert]It is still true that God is not a sinner. Whether He is your God or the LDS God, He has not sinned. Just as his son Jesus Christ has never sinned. They are both without sin.
[/quote]

Amen! We agree!

[quote=BJ Colbert]The Catholic bible and the KJV both say in Genesis 6:6 that God repented.
We believe that God is without sin, and thus would not have to repent. We therefore believe that it is a mis-translation from the Hebrew root which means to be sorry, moved to pity; have compassion. These meanings are a bit different than to repent, which indicates the presence of sin.

[/quote]

I did some research on this because it bothered me that the Bible said God repented…
KJV (LDS): "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
NKJV: "And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."
NAB (Catholic): "he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved."
NIV: "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."
NASB: "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."
NLT: “So the LORD was sorry he had ever made them. It broke his heart.”

Which versions of the Bible were you looking at? None of these say that God repented. The closest one would be the KJV which says “it repented the LORD…”

Checked the dictionary for the definition of repent - “1) to feel sorry or self-reproachful for what one has done or failed to do.”

[quote=alterserver_07]Okay, I have kinda studied the mormon religion and one question from me is,
Is it true that our God, to mormon beliefs, was a sinner like us on another planet under another god and when he died, he eventually became the god we know today?
I have seen it in reasearch and would like to hear from fromer or current mormon people if it is true.
[/quote]

It depends who you ask. It was a very common belief a generation ago but now there’s seems to be some backing away from the concept. Many LDS still believe it, but as you can see from some of the posts on this thread, more and more are challenging the belief all of the time.

[quote=tkdnick]I did some research on this because it bothered me that the Bible said God repented…
KJV (LDS): "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
NKJV: "And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."
NAB (Catholic): "he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved."
NIV: "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."
NASB: "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."
NLT: “So the LORD was sorry he had ever made them. It broke his heart.”

Which versions of the Bible were you looking at? None of these say that God repented. The closest one would be the KJV which says “it repented the LORD…”

Checked the dictionary for the definition of repent - “1) to feel sorry or self-reproachful for what one has done or failed to do.”
[/quote]

Hi Tdknick,
This is what I found in the Catholic Scripture…Genesis 6:5-6 And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent on evil at all times,
It repented him that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, He said I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, etc etc.

Now in both the Catholic and the KJV, my copy( I don’t know if the footnotes are in the protestant KJV) there are footnotes stating that since God cannot sin, that in this case it means to declare the enormity of the sins of man, which was so provoking as to determine their creator to destroy these his creatures, whom before he had so much favoured.

That brings up a question, I never thought of before, and that is . Do Catholics believe that God has no passion, or feelings? This foot note in the Catholic bible, says" God is unchangeable, is not capable of repentance, grief, or any other passion." It kind of makes him sound like a huge indescribable mass of intelligence of some kind, but without any feelings of any kind.

That is different than the LDS belief, that he is our Father in Heaven, and loves and feels sorrow for us, even more than our earthly parents feel, just to give an idea of the enormity of his passion and love for us.

The answer to the question on this thread is still, a resounding No God does not and has not sinned.

Which Catholic Bible are you using? It’s not the New American Bible or the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition, because the wording is different in both those versions. (just for FYI purposes the semi-official version of the Bible for Catholics in America is the NAB)

That brings up a question, I never thought of before, and that is . Do Catholics believe that God has no passion, or feelings? This foot note in the Catholic bible, says" God is unchangeable, is not capable of repentance, grief, or any other passion." It kind of makes him sound like a huge indescribable mass of intelligence of some kind, but without any feelings of any kind.

That is different than the LDS belief, that he is our Father in Heaven, and loves and feels sorrow for us, even more than our earthly parents feel, just to give an idea of the enormity of his passion and love for us.

That’s a really good question that I don’t have an answer for. Hopefully someone will have that answer handy, otherwise it’s off to my books to search…

Tkdnick,
Looking at my husband’s Catholic Bible, it says on the front cover
"The Holy Bible" inside same thing with “Douay Rheims Version"
and under those words “revised by Bishop Richard Challoner AD 1749-1752” third page has “Approbation of His Eminence James Cardinal Gibbons archbishop of Baltimore” then a line and “We hereby approve of the publication by Messrs.John Murphy Co. of the Catholic Bible, which is an accurate reprint of the Rheims and Douay edition with Dr. Challoner’s notes.” “The sacred volume is printed in an attractive style” a sign of a square cross J. CARD. Gibbons. Baltimore, Sept 1, 1899.
The fourth page is the title page again and says “translated from the Latin Vulgate” “Diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions in Divers Languages.
“The Old Testament published by the English college at Douay, AD 1609 and the New Testament published by the English college and Rheims, AD 1582” Etc etc etc. " Tan books and Publishers, Inc. Rockford, Ill 61105” I am tired of writing, is that enough to tell which version of the Catholic Bible it is? We bought it in 2001, at the local Catholic Book Store. It is a large size softcover edition.
In the preface, it says that it is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St Jerome(342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. It goes on to tell about St Jerome, and then later tells that this Bible has been read and honored by the Western Church for 1500 years. It was declared by the Council of Trent to be the official Latin version of the canonical scriptures. It says " they took great pains to translate exactly; contrary to what would appear to be the procedure of the modern Bible translators… when a passage seemed strange and unintelligible, they left it alone, even if obscure and let the chips fall as they may.” " But it would appear that the modern Bible translators on the other hand, often look at an obscure passage, decide what they think it means, then translate the passage with words that breing out that meaning. The result is that the English is usually(not always!) easier to understand, but it is not necessarily what the Bible says; rather it is the translators’ interpretation and understanding of what the Bible says."
So it goes on for two full pages and I have a writer’s cramp now, so will stop. Hopefully you can recognize this version of the Catholic Bible. I had no idea there were different versions, so I learned something today about that.
BJ

[quote=BJ Colbert]Tkdnick,
Looking at my husband’s Catholic Bible, it says on the front cover
"The Holy Bible" inside same thing with “Douay Rheims Version"
and under those words “revised by Bishop Richard Challoner AD 1749-1752” third page has “Approbation of His Eminence James Cardinal Gibbons archbishop of Baltimore” then a line and “We hereby approve of the publication by Messrs.John Murphy Co. of the Catholic Bible, which is an accurate reprint of the Rheims and Douay edition with Dr. Challoner’s notes.” “The sacred volume is printed in an attractive style” a sign of a square cross J. CARD. Gibbons. Baltimore, Sept 1, 1899.
The fourth page is the title page again and says “translated from the Latin Vulgate” “Diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions in Divers Languages.
“The Old Testament published by the English college at Douay, AD 1609 and the New Testament published by the English college and Rheims, AD 1582” Etc etc etc. " Tan books and Publishers, Inc. Rockford, Ill 61105” I am tired of writing, is that enough to tell which version of the Catholic Bible it is? We bought it in 2001, at the local Catholic Book Store. It is a large size softcover edition.
In the preface, it says that it is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St Jerome(342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. It goes on to tell about St Jerome, and then later tells that this Bible has been read and honored by the Western Church for 1500 years. It was declared by the Council of Trent to be the official Latin version of the canonical scriptures. It says " they took great pains to translate exactly; contrary to what would appear to be the procedure of the modern Bible translators… when a passage seemed strange and unintelligible, they left it alone, even if obscure and let the chips fall as they may.” " But it would appear that the modern Bible translators on the other hand, often look at an obscure passage, decide what they think it means, then translate the passage with words that breing out that meaning. The result is that the English is usually(not always!) easier to understand, but it is not necessarily what the Bible says; rather it is the translators’ interpretation and understanding of what the Bible says."
So it goes on for two full pages and I have a writer’s cramp now, so will stop. Hopefully you can recognize this version of the Catholic Bible. I had no idea there were different versions, so I learned something today about that.
BJ
[/quote]

I wanted to start another thread and keep this post because it took me so long to copy it, but I don’t know how to transfer it over like some have done. Duh…I’m a dinasaur…BJ

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.