Leaderboard

I am echoing what others have said, but at it's root I think you have a misunderstanding of precisely what God's Glory is, and exactly what it means to increase it. I think part of the issue is the use of "increase" as that word can have 2 different meanings applied here. Firstly though, I will echo what @zil2 said. The verse you quote do not on my reading suggest that God's glory cannot increase. Now I do not believe any verse of scripture is so obvious in it's meaning that there is zero chance of misunderstanding, but I would not have drawn the conclusions you did from these verses. Isaiah 42:8 – “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” - My reading would be that God is making clear that nobody is able to take His place, and idols cannot replace Him. This is to me a testament of the Supremacy of God and not the self sufficiency of His Glory. Isaiah 6:3 – “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” - This to me reads the the Glory of God reaches every part of the world, not making any comment on it's completeness or impossibility to increase. Only that it is inescapable. John 17:5 – “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” - This verse emphasises to my eyes the primacy of the Glory of God. It existed before the world was made. Again no comment on it's sufficiency, increase etc Psalm 115:1-3 – “Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for thy mercy and for thy truth's sake. Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” - These to me speaks of some reason to Glorify God. That he is in heaven and not missing or a false idol. It also seems though, in the first section, that our praise of God in some way gives him glory. From this I feel the rest of your argument fails as I am unconvinced by the first premise. But back to "increase". Even if one were to believe that God is all sufficient etc as described, it would be impossible to deny that as God creates more beings there will inevitably be more beings that worship Him. His Kingdom becomes greater in size and scope as it includes more people and places. If God makes a world then there is another world in His Kingdom. By that logic His Glory is on a practical sense covering more and so much be greater in size. Each added person increases the scope of the Gory of God. By similar tokens, if we become Exalted then our acts of Creation (under our Father) must also increase the scale of His domain and thus in some sense His Glory. But, this is a separate issue to, shall we say, God's "rank" of personal Glory. He is already the Supreme being of our Universe. He cannot scale up or be overtaken. He does not become smarter, more capable, more wise (to our knowledge) or so on. He does not become more perfect and thus in that sense His Glory is unable to be increased. God is not in some sort of contest with other Divine beings so that as His realm increases in scale He gets to be more important than them. God would be perfect in Himself even if He did not create the worlds. But creating Worlds means more beings He can share love with, more places he is God of and so on. So in short, whilst God is Perfect and thus in that sense His Gory does not increase (He is not becoming better) as more is created and His domains increase then the scale of his Glory spreads further and further rendering him, simply, Glorious over more.

Welcome, Fiddle. That is quite a long post. Forgive me if I only address a few items. Is a marraige transactional? It certainly can be. But how can you tell the difference? How many of us would look at a happy couple and determine that their marriage is just a legal transaction wherein shared property is utilized for better economy in the siring of offspring so they can be raised into adulthood to take care of us in our old age? Do I work 50 to 60 hr/wk so my wife will have sex with me and clean my house? That would be transactional. It would be cheaper if I just went around clubbing. Do I sire and raise children and care for them because I'm hoping they will take care of me in my old age? I have an iRA and an HSA. That's a whole lot cheape While we certainly "do" things for each other, marriage is about a relationship. All these things we do in a healthy marraige are motivated by love, cooperation, a sense of teamwork, and a sincere desire to adhere to correct principles. We do this out of a sense of love and a desire to be happy. On the flip side, what can be said of a couple who are always fighting? What about a couple who is ok with simply living together so they can get government benefits for fatherless homes? So, if you think of commandments as "jumping through hoops" you completely misunderstand the purpose of commandments (or ordinances, for that matter). I've been pondering this for a while -- whether I agreed or disagreed. And while I get the point you're "trying" to make (at least I've made an honest effort at it) I disagree with your assessment here. It has some incorrect assumptions. it is not "grace that drives the relationship." We form an initial relationship. And that relationship grows. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: You seem to say that the Restored Gospel tells us that we "earn heaven" by our obedience. No. There is no way we can "earn" our way to heaven. It is not about paying a certain debt. Only Christ can do that. And He has. So, what is left for us? For most of the protestant world, it is just about "believing in Christ." Yes and no. What exactly do we mean by believing in Christ? Or the more common wording I hear from evanglicals "accept Christ into your heart." That sounds great and all. But if you were to try to define that, what does it entail? It is not about jumping through hoops. It is not about checking off the boxes. It is about "becoming." When my children were young, I raised and taught them to do some things "because it's good for you." One cannot teach a 6 year old about vitamins, minerals , polyphenos, flavinoids, etc. You just tell them it's good for you. Only after they've matured sufficient to understand, do I explain the principles behind it all. The idea is that we obey commandments at first because we want to be obedient. We want to be obedient because we love God. And eventually, we understand the principle and internalize it. Then we begin to see the wisdom in the commandments. It was the obedience that changed us. When we obey commandments becuase they are commandments, we eventually become the people who can now understand the reasons for the commandments. And when we understand, we are happy we obeyed our of our love and respect for the Lord. So, the proper sequence is: Hope helps us recognize the goodness and wisdom of God. Faith & Charity provide the motivating force to obey commandments. When we obey, we receive the Holy Ghost and wisdom to understand why commandments are so important. Then we go through another cycle with full understanding. This is called growth. IOW, we become the children the Lord is raising us to be. It is not the act that saves us. We tend to emphasize obedience to commandments because in our childhood we do not obey because of understanding. It is our love of Christ that provides the desire to obey. The thing that most protestants will accuse us of is simply checking the boxes. No. And action without faith is vain. It has no meaning. Faith without works is dead. It's just words with no meaning. Faith-based obedience allows us to grow. Many believe we are a religion that believes works (ordinances) will save us. That's completely antithetical to our core doctrines. Others believe that we receive grace in our ignorance. No. Salvation comes from choosing Christ. And we cannot faithfully choose something we know nothing about. Infinity is a difficult concept. In mathematics: ∞ + 1 = ∞. Also: ∞ + ∞ = ∞. That is a basic law of mathematics. Does it increase? If we said it grows or doesn't grow, we'd be right either way.

I think the clearest one would be the Parable of the Ten Virgins (And I am pretty sure that mention is enough for you to be able to find it)... The coming of the Bridegroom is the Second coming of Christ. The waiting virgins are those that believe and know he is returning and have done at least some prep for his return (aka the church) Then he comes and not all of them make it. Understand there is not some great and horrible sin that makes the different being one of the Wise virgins versus being one of the Foolish. The difference is literally between being wise in your preparations versus being foolish in your preparation. And in a bit of a paradox it seems most likely that those who feel they haven't done enough are going to be the ones that make it because they keep trying.. Its the ones that think they are in good shape so they stop trying that seem the most likely not to make it.

Something I recall being taught was that missionaries should not be afraid to invite people to commit during the first lesson (Served 05 to 07), but it was not mandatory either. To me this is the balance that should be aimed for. Now I have no massive problem with people extending a general invitation such as "if this is indeed true will you be baptised?" on even the first lesson. Because it sets the stage. That said the person does need to know a bit more before baptism happens. But people have their own ideas. I recall one argument I had with a Zone Leader who said they would happily say someone would pass the baptismal interview if they had not heard the full plan of salvation lesson. I was a DL at the time and made my disagreement very clear. I also had other ZLs in the same mission who agreed with me very wholeheartedly. I only conducted 1 interview during my time as a DL but I was very slow, thorough and the whole thing took about 40 minutes. A rush to baptise in order to get more numbers is a bad thing. But encouraging missionaries to not be shy about extending the invitation is also a good thing. It's just hard to balance it right.

Welcome to the forum, these are just some thoughts of mine: As most Non-LDS Christians are trinitarians, I'll make an assumption you probably are too (please correct me if I'm wrong), a God with no passions, no substance, no beginning or end who exists outside of time, outside of the physical reality, there is no way we could possibly comprehend his personal glory. But the glory we 100% can comprehend is the role of God in saving us, and giving us eternal life. In that way I don't think Moses 1:39 is contradictory to a trinitarian world view in any way, because if the trinity is truly so incomprehensible and the father so difficult to understand, in what other ways can we begin to comprehend his glory, than through his influence in our lives? I think likewise with LDS theology, my capacity for eternal life doesn't make Heavenly Father more glorious, his glory comes from the fact that this even possible in the first place. I think if you flip the issue on its head, does the casting out of Satan and the sons of perdition make Heavenly Father 33.3% less glorious because a third of the hosts of heaven were cast out during the grand council, and so will never receive a resurrected body? I think not. The fact he has given us the opportunity, and holds the authority is what makes him glorious. My second thought: I totally and utterly agree. Genesis 1:26, we are made after the likeness of God, in his image, our capacity to receive eternal life, reflects his glory to grant it.

I consider all of the following logic errors: These may seem perfectly logical to you, but I don't see any inherent logic in them. And by the same token, I'm not sure your conclusion about Moses 1:39 follows either: The verse doesn't say this is His increasing glory, nor that it increases or decreases His glory. It just says it is His glory. Does it have to increase? Can this end not already be His glory, and His glory full? You're basing your entire post on your own assumption that by becoming exalted and glorified yourself, you will thereby increase God's glory. But the verse doesn't say that - you infer it. I'm not convinced you're correct. (I'm not convinced it isn't correct, either - I'm just saying that the verse doesn't make this clear either way, and I can't say I've sat and thought about the expandability of God's glory.) And what do you do with this: If God has all glory, how is He glorified by them bearing fruit? And what if they don't bear fruit? Is God less glorified? Cuz, it doesn't say, "Herein is my Father's glory reflected..." It says, "Herein is my Father glorified..." NOTE: If someone can explain to me what exactly "glory" is, I'd be grateful. Please don't cite the dictionary or Bible Dictionary at me - I've read all that. I comprehend the use. But the more I think about it, the less sure I am what "glory" is. And here's the most interesting clue I've found thus far: Suggests the Father is Christ's glory. Also suggests that whoever is to your left is your glory... 🤯 (Or that you are the glory of the person on your right hand.) Or it suggests that I'm reading it all wrong.

Yes, I think this might be my final form. It's from the animated sequence in Mary Poppins with all the farm animals.

This really sounds like you're inviting us to leave the faith. You may want to re-read the site's terms and conditions - they're kinda strict... Am trying to be welcoming and open to discussion, but please re-read that statement of yours. You're basically calling us liars, or ignorant of our own beliefs. Do we think works matter - of course we do: scriptures are overflowing with Jesus Christ commanding His followers to do stuff. If works don't matter, why does He command them? Just because we believe works matter, that does not mean we believe works save us. One can hold both views: Saved by grace and expected to obey. They're not incompatible.

Welcome, @fiddle tenders! Where exactly are these Biblical teachings you summarize, so that I can read the verses myself? I expect this will boil down to different interpretations of scripture. FWIW, I'm in my 50s, have been an active member of the Church my entire life, and what you describe is not quite what I believe (more like a somewhat misunderstood version of it). Anywho, if we're going to discuss this, you're going to need to cite the Bible verses so we can go to the source, not to your interpretation or summation of the source.

Is it possible to believe in the LDS teaching of becoming a god without compromising the biblical teaching that God’s glory cannot be added to? As a former member of the LDS Church, I’ve come to realize how the doctrine of exaltation—becoming a god one day—shaped how I viewed my relationship with God. I once believed that if I lived faithfully, I could be exalted: creating spirit children with my eternal companion and joining a hierarchy of divine beings. God would always remain supreme, and I would become a god under Him. The LDS scripture in Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20 states: “[Then] shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting… they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things… then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” This led me to view my relationship with God as mutually beneficial—even transactional. He creates us and offers exaltation, and in return, His glory grows as more gods emerge to carry on His work. “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39).” From this, I felt it was reasonable to conclude the following: • God’s glory is tied to the success of His children. • As more people are exalted (become gods), His glory increases. • God is seen as a being who progresses in glory through the eternal increase of His offspring and the continuation of His work across “worlds without number (Moses 1:33).” This left me needing to reconcile these LDS scriptures with a foundational biblical truth: We can add nothing to God’s glory. If God is truly perfect, self-sufficient, and lacking in nothing, how could my progression—my eventual godhood—possibly contribute to His glory? Wouldn’t that suggest that God benefits from me in a way that contradicts the biblical picture of His nature? I began to internalize the disconnect. My takeaway was that LDS theology presents God’s glory as something that increases through our exaltation. But biblical theology presents God as already glorious—eternally, completely, unchangeably so. And yet He still chooses to love us, pursue us, and invite us into relationship, not because He needs us, but because He desires us. This matters. If God’s glory can increase through us, then our relationship with Him becomes something we must uphold or earn. And if our exaltation benefits Him, we’re left carrying a heavy burden to perform—because then it’s not grace that drives the relationship, but our merit. But God’s grace is not about obedience first. It’s about relationship first—a relationship that naturally leads to obedience through the power of His Spirit (John 15:5). When we flip that order, we fall into a works-based mindset that God never intended for us to carry. We try to perform. We strive to prove. And we miss the very grace that was meant to free us. That’s why I now believe that LDS exaltation theology is inherently works-based, even if the Church claims otherwise. Over the years, I’ve heard LDS apologetics argue that it’s a faith-first system—but what a system claims and what it practically teaches can be two different things. In reality, the LDS plan of salvation places a heavy emphasis on worthiness, temple work, covenants, and personal righteousness—all of which are seen as necessary for exaltation. If we believe that anything we do increases God’s glory, then grace becomes something we must earn rather than receive. The Bible makes it clear: God doesn’t need anything from us. He created us not to profit from us, but to reflect His glory through relationship with Him. He sacrificed His Son not to extract something from us, but to give something to us: eternal life, peace, and grace that transforms us from the inside out. His glory is complete, and His love is a gift—not a transaction. Maybe I’m the only former LDS member who’s wrestled with this tension. But if you’ve felt it too, know that it’s worth exploring. Because once you see that God’s love is truly unearned, and His glory is not dependent on your performance, you’ll begin to rest in the freedom of grace—and experience the joy of simply being His. I’m not sharing this from a place of judgment, but from personal experience. If no one else relates to these thoughts, that’s okay. I’m passionate about my faith in God and committed to sharing my journey—across all areas of life—in hopes of growing personally and connecting with others who might be facing similar struggles. I want to be clear: I am not suggesting that Latter-day Saints are excluded from God’s grace. I know and love many individuals in the LDS Church who I believe have sincere, saving relationships with Jesus Christ and walk in His grace daily. My intent here is not to question anyone’s personal faith or standing before God. What I’m addressing is a broader theological tension that I believe stems from the system and teachings of the institution—not from the hearts of individual members. Our relationships with God the Father and Jesus Christ are deeply personal, and only God can truly judge the condition of our hearts and the reality of our salvation.

Hilbert’s Hotel is a fascinating way to stretch our thinking around the concept of infinity. It’s definitely one of those mind-bending ideas that helps us see how counterintuitive infinity can be. I see what you’re getting at: that just as the hotel can always accommodate more guests without technically increasing in size, an all-glorious God could, in theory, “receive more glory” without implying a lack or deficiency. I appreciate that insight — it’s a helpful way to express the idea that God’s relationship with His creation can dynamically reflect and respond to love, obedience, and worship, without threatening His nature. That said, I think the key difference in how I’m approaching this has less to do with whether God can relate dynamically with His creation, and more to do with what kind of glory we’re talking about. The biblical view I’ve come to embrace draws a distinction between God’s intrinsic glory — His unchanging essence and perfection — and the glory that is displayed or reflected in the world. So yes, God can receive praise, be glorified through His people, and delight in righteousness — but that glorification doesn’t imply an expansion of His essential being. In the same way the sun doesn’t shine more brightly because more mirrors are angled toward it, God doesn’t become more glorious as more of His creatures recognize and reflect Him. His glory is the eternal starting point — not a growing result of our actions. So I’m not dismissing the analogy at all — I think it can help explain how an infinite being relates to finite expressions of love, worship, or even covenant. I just still hold that, from a biblical standpoint, God’s essential glory is not additive — it is infinite, whole, and eternally complete. Thanks for prompting such a deep and worthwhile reflection.

You’ll get them here. Welcome 🙂

Thank you! I appreciate the warm welcome and the opportunity to engage with everyone here. I’m glad to contribute thoughtfully and respectfully, and I definitely enjoy these kinds of meaningful discussions.

It's nice to have visitors stop by and share their understanding of Deity. And when it comes to testifying to us weird marminz, you're doing it in a way that appears charitable and civil, taking care to not run afoul of the site rules, to which you agreed in order to post here. Hope you enjoy the discussion.

You're most welcome, thank you for responding. I get my thoughts muddled, so sometimes when I make a post the point I'm trying to make isn't a clear as it seems in my head! I don't think we do differ all that much, I don't believe his glory is increased by exaltation as your post implies and I don't really think LDS theology makes a case for this position either, which I tried to demonstrate with the story of a third of the host of heaven being cast out. If according to LDS theology, Gods glory was tied to the exaltation of his children, then it would mean that due to events surrounding the grand council in heaven, even if every soul who came to earth was exalted, God would only ever achieve 2/3rds of his potential glory - which I think is a bit of a silly proposition to consider. When Christ reaffirmed the lords prayer on the American continent in 3 Nephi 19, he said "For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever. Amen" (something we also read in the bible too!) I think this makes the connection clear, that Gods Glory is found in his authority. So when in Moses it says it is Gods purpose and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, I don't think this is saying "My purpose is to give you eternal life, and my glory is contingent on that." I think it is actually communicating something more along the lines that his will is to grant eternal life, his authority is sufficient to grant it, and what a glorious truth that is. I don't believe you were mislead by believing you were contributing to Gods work. If I recall correctly from protestant days, the concept of kingdom theology describes the process of Gods Kingdom colonising the earth. So by engaging in this very forum you are participating in the work of God. But this doesn't increase his glory and splendour. I think a useful distinction would be between God and his organisation (The church) on the earth. Our work can elevate the kingdom, but not God himself. I think your issue is the age old classic, of struggling to reconcile something you've read in the bible with the rest of LDS Cannon, but I don't really think this is a hit, as I think the core of your issue is your own personal theories and assumptions not reconciling with scripture, as I don't believe that the idea of or exaltation adding to Gods Glory, is a widely believed or taught concept. That said, most people who leave the Church End up becoming hard core atheists, so I think it's valuable that you continue to strive for a relationship with Christ, which doesn't seem to be the trend against Ex-Mormons.

I’m a bit confused by your logic. What do you think is God’s fullness of Glory. That He is a paragon of light, knowledge and power. As LDS we believe that God’s true glory lies in more than just power and knowledge. His glory is love, mercy, justice, family, and the bounties of life. All good things that bring joy to life and existence. Without spouse, children and family we believe that you cannot experience a fullness of joy. When Jesus and we follow God and become more like Him, His glory is added upon, and the universe becomes more ordered. Also, his children create wonderful things like soy sauce, rocky road ice cream, sushi, beautiful architecture, Star Wars, inspiring music etc.

I feel like there's nothing in the restored gospel that would prevent you from making this change in understanding. But I can see that, especially 2+ decades ago, some members tended to focus more on our duties in the gospel and less on Christ's gifts within the gospel. The difference between "to-do list" to "Christlike life" wasn't always clear to everyone, and thus some will have drawn conclusions like yours related to earning eternal reward. (Though you're the first person I've encountered to suggest that our doctrine claims God needs us for something, let alone His own completeness.) For my entire life, we have been moving from a task-oriented instruction style toward a rely-on-Christ instruction style. This is a good thing. The Church is maturing and we are teaching differently (just as one would teach a child differently from an adult). I don't know how long it's been since you were in the Church, but if it's been decades, you might find it a different place - even though it's the same place1. 1Some accuse us of having changed doctrine. They do not understand the difference between teaching style, policy, and doctrine. Our doctrine has not changed one whit. If anyone reading this thread doesn't understand the relationship between grace and works (which seems to be an underlying theme of this thread), I would recommend Brother Brad Wilcox's BYU Devotional, "His Grace Is Sufficient" - it's wonderful. If you can't bring yourself to watch a 30-minute talk, ask yourself this question: “Have you been changed by grace?”

I like it! Can't help but smile when I see it.

No, they don't. They say nothing about God's capacity for glory, whether it's presently at 100%, whether it can increase, or whether the immortality and eternal life of man has any impact whatsoever on God's glory. (NOTE: I'm not trying to make any claims regarding God's glory, His capacity for glory, or whether it can increase. I'm simply pointing out that these verses don't do what you claim they do.) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach that the exaltation of man increases God's glory. This is strictly your own conclusion, and if it contributed to your disbelief in our doctrine, I'd say it did so falsely because it's not our doctrine. In fact, if we toss in D&C 93:36: I would say we teach the opposite: that God is omniscient, the source of all light and truth - Elder Maxwell gave some great talks on that subject. But at the end of the day, this is kind of a moot point because you're trying to contend against a belief that we don't have (though some individuals in the Church, like yourself, may have drawn their own personal conclusions on the question). I don't know of anything in our teachings which claim contrary to the following:

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. I genuinely appreciate how you’re approaching this—not dismissively, but with a desire to dig deep, even if we land in different places. That’s rare and valuable. You’re right to point out that Moses 1:39 doesn’t explicitly say that God’s glory increases. My observation wasn’t based on a single verse but on a cumulative interpretation that developed over years within LDS teaching and culture—especially when paired with scriptures like D&C 132, which describe people becoming gods and continuing God’s work across “worlds without number.” That framework, at least how I understood it as a Latter-day Saint, led me to believe God’s glory was something dynamic, growing alongside the success of His exalted children. You’re asking exactly the right question though: Does glory increase? Or is it already full? And you’re also pointing out a crucial passage in John 15:8: “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. That’s such an important verse. I don’t read it as saying God gains something He was previously lacking, but that our lives, when surrendered to Him, manifest or reflect His glory. Like a well-tuned instrument playing a composer’s masterpiece, the music doesn’t make the composer more talented—it simply expresses his brilliance more clearly. In that sense, our fruit-bearing doesn’t increase God’s intrinsic glory; it reveals it in the world. I think the key difference in perspective may come down to this: Is God’s glory something intrinsic and unchanging (eternal, perfect, complete)? Or is it something that can expand through others (like us) achieving godhood or glorification themselves? Biblically, verses like Isaiah 42:8, Acts 17:25, and Romans 11:36 point to God’s glory as eternal and self-contained—meaning we can’t increase it, though we can glorify Him by living lives that reflect who He is. I also love that you’re digging into the mystery of what “glory” even is. You’re absolutely right—it’s not easily defined. It seems to encompass weightiness, majesty, honor, radiant presence, and divine nature—all at once. Paul even calls it “eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4:17), which is poetic and mysterious. I don’t think we can nail it down in a dictionary definition—and maybe we’re not meant to fully. It’s more like beauty: you know it when you see it, but you can’t box it in. Your comment on D&C 49:6 and the “right hand of His glory” is also fascinating. I hadn’t thought of it in terms of spatial symbolism (i.e., being someone’s glory if you’re on their left). I’d probably interpret that differently from a biblical standpoint, but I love that you’re noticing connections that spark curiosity rather than shutting the conversation down. At the end of the day, I don’t claim to have perfect understanding. My goal in writing that post was to share how my understanding of God changed over time—from someone who needed my participation to grow His kingdom, to someone who is eternally complete but invites me in out of love, not necessity. That shift brought me deep rest, and I wanted to share that journey for anyone else wrestling with similar questions. Thanks again for continuing the dialogue with grace and depth. I’m enjoying the conversation and learning from it too.

I’m genuinely glad to hear that your experience within the Church has emphasized reliance on Christ and not a task-based approach to salvation. That’s encouraging, and I know that many members today are being taught with a far greater emphasis on grace than what I personally grew up hearing. As you noted, teaching styles have evolved, and that does make a difference in how people internalize doctrine. That said, I think it’s precisely because I was deeply immersed in the Church for over three decades that I felt such tension. Even though the doctrine may not have changed “one whit,” as you said, the emphasis I experienced—especially around eternal progression, exaltation, and participation in God’s work—led me to believe (and often hear implied) that God’s purposes depended on us. Maybe that wasn’t the official teaching, but it was certainly how I came to understand it. So when I say my view of God changed, I don’t mean that I think every Latter-day Saint believes God is somehow incomplete without us—I know that’s not a common way of phrasing it. But for me, when I laid the idea of eternal progression and divine parenthood alongside the biblical portrait of a God who is eternally all-sufficient, it raised real questions. That’s what I was trying to articulate: a shift from seeing God as in any way needing me to fulfill something, to a God who lacks nothing yet graciously invites me to know Him. That change brought peace I didn’t even realize I was missing. I respect that you haven’t encountered others who framed it this way—I realize my experience may not be universal. But it was real and formative for me, and sharing it isn’t meant as a critique of others’ faith, but as an honest reflection on my own journey. Thanks for the video recommendation. I watched it about a month ago. A friend of mine recommended it to me. I found it to be a compelling talk.