The perfectness of God

[jerome1232]

This is mainly me just musing but I was wondering if I could get some opinions.

To me there is more than one way to interpret perfect.

Perfect - As in Toast is golden brown every time, you can't make an error.

Perfect - As in without sin

Perfect - As in complete, whole.

Is God perfect as in toast is golden brown every time or is he perfect as in without sin?

I am beginning to think He is perfect as in without sin, with a vast amount of knowledge and wisdom.

[Guest gopecon]

I think that God fits all three of your definitions. I will add the caveat that many of His creations (children) don't turn out perfectly - but we are not inanimate objects like the toast. We have free will and can choose to obey or to rebel. Before we were organized as spirit children, we were intelligences with varying degrees of potential, so I don't think that you can look at His offspring as a measure of His perfection.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This is mainly me just musing but I was wondering if I could get some opinions.

To me there is more than one way to interpret perfect.

Perfect - As in Toast is golden brown every time, you can't make an error.

Perfect - As in without sin

Perfect - As in complete, whole.

Is God perfect as in toast is golden brown every time or is he perfect as in without sin?

I am beginning to think He is perfect as in without sin, with a vast amount of knowledge and wisdom.

I think it is all those (without really understanding what you mean by the toast thing). One other way to think about perfect is that God would act the same way in any given situation, every time. I don't think there is any randomness to His actions. With the exception of what was mentioned, the process of procreation of spirits. That may be a law of the spirit world that cannot be altered. Who knows. His creations on this world were perfect, though; all the things in the Garden of Eden. The Fall and everything that goes with it "created" all the flaws and corruption, not God.

[phi39]

To be perfect has the idea of being complete and flawless. In God's case it whole also mean His holiness: a perfect moral character, w/o any moral flaw, perfectly righteous and loving.

there would be no incompleteness or flaw in his being, knowledge, power... the list goes on. Being perfect, he needs nothing and gives freely.

[Justice]

he needs nothing and gives freely.

I like your entire definition, phi39. It shows thought and understanding. I especially like the last part (quoted).

[Traveler]

I believe that perfect means to be complete. Once we understand the full extent of being complete we realize that such includes all other thoughts. However, there is a possible flaw in this thinking. For example to be without sin does not mean that one has never sinned. What being without sin means is; that any sin committed has been redeemed.

In my mind I can understand and believe that someone could sin and through repentance be rid of that sin forever. In order to redeem the sins of mankind Jesus had to live through mortality without committing sin - but that does not mean that in all of Jesus’ existence that he never sinned. I am not trying to speculate that Jesus once sinned in the pre-existence. If you are thinking that - you misunderstand the most important point.

We can be free of and without sin even though we have sinned in our past. This is the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the good news of salvation. My only point in this thinking is that if we can repent and be free of sin in eternity - so can G-d. To, in any way indicate that G-d does not have power and capability that we have is a gross misunderstanding of G-d and being perfect (Matt 5:48).

Thus it is in my mind a matter of understanding the eternal principle of repentance. It is an eternal lie and an evil concept that if one ever sins they cannot ever be perfect or without sin. I do not believe there is any difference between someone that has sinned and repented and been redeemed and someone that has never sinned. There is no reason, in my mind, to think there is some way to define or imagine any even possible difference. To speculate even a difference - I believe to be flawed and therefore not “perfect”.

The Traveler

[james12]

I believe that perfect means to be complete. Once we understand the full extent of being complete we realize that such includes all other thoughts. However, there is a possible flaw in this thinking. For example to be without sin does not mean that one has never sinned. What being without sin means is; that any sin committed has been redeemed.

In my mind I can understand and believe that someone could sin and through repentance be rid of that sin forever. In order to redeem the sins of mankind Jesus had to live through mortality without committing sin - but that does not mean that in all of Jesus’ existence that he never sinned. I am not trying to speculate that Jesus once sinned in the pre-existence. If you are thinking that - you misunderstand the most important point.

We can be free of and without sin even though we have sinned in our past. This is the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the good news of salvation. My only point in this thinking is that if we can repent and be free of sin in eternity - so can G-d. To, in any way indicate that G-d does not have power and capability that we have is a gross misunderstanding of G-d and being perfect (Matt 5:48).

Thus it is in my mind a matter of understanding the eternal principle of repentance. It is an eternal lie and an evil concept that if one ever sins they cannot ever be perfect or without sin. I do not believe there is any difference between someone that has sinned and repented and been redeemed and someone that has never sinned. There is no reason, in my mind, to think there is some way to define or imagine any even possible difference. To speculate even a difference - I believe to be flawed and therefore not “perfect”.

The Traveler

Traveler,

Very good thought. Such is the marvelous power of repentance and the atonement. It is not simply the removal of the punishment (justification) but the cleansing of the stain of sin (sanctification). Rameumptum had a very good post on another thread which I think relates very well to this topic http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/42539-god-once-14.html#post631452.

I agree with you that even one who has sinned can, if he will, ultimately be perfect. On the macro level and in the long term you are, and must be, correct. Of course this does not mean that before redemption sinning then repenting is the same as never committing the sin. President Kimball said, "That man who resists temptation and lives without sin is far better off than the man who has fallen, no matter how repentant the latter may be." (God Will Forgive, Ensign Mar 1982) Righteousness is, and always will be, the most direct, happiest, and easiest path to perfection. Elder Christofferson said in the last General Conference, "It would mock the Savior’s suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross for us to expect that He should transform us into angelic beings with no real effort on our part. Rather, we seek His grace to complement and reward our most diligent efforts (see 2 Nephi 25:23)." (The Devine Gift of Repentance, Oct. 2011). So true.

[Soninme]

To be perfect has the idea of being complete and flawless. In God's case it whole also mean His holiness: a perfect moral character, w/o any moral flaw, perfectly righteous and loving.

there would be no incompleteness or flaw in his being, knowledge, power... the list goes on. Being perfect, he needs nothing and gives freely.

phi39,

Well said.

[cwald]

To be perfect has the idea of being complete and flawless. In God's case it whole also mean His holiness: a perfect moral character, w/o any moral flaw, perfectly righteous and loving.

there would be no incompleteness or flaw in his being, knowledge, power... the list goes on. Being perfect, he needs nothing and gives freely.

I like that, but I think flawless might be a stretch. When I teach this concept, I say that we should strive to be perfect like god, which means we need to be COMPLETE and WHOLE.

We can become complete and whole. I doubt any of us will ever be flawless.

[cwald]

I just got done reading the Gospels of Thomas I and II as well as the Gospel of Mary which deal with Jesus early years. These books were quoted regularly unto about 320 AD. It's quite clear to me that the NT apostles did not believe Jesus was perfect. In fact, I can see why the modern church labeled them Apocrypha. They are quite disturbing really - show a whole new side of Jesus.

[bytebear]

I can think of two ways in which Jesus grew toward perfection. 1. He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, and 2) he was resurrected with a perfect immortal body. Prior to that, although he was "God" in the Trinitarian/Godhead sense, he was not equal to the Father. So, although he was without sin, he was not complete. I believe his perfected completeness was revealed at the mount of Transfiguration (and later to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove).

Edited November 4, 2011 by bytebear

[Seminarysnoozer]

To be perfect has the idea of being complete and flawless. In God's case it whole also mean His holiness: a perfect moral character, w/o any moral flaw, perfectly righteous and loving.

there would be no incompleteness or flaw in his being, knowledge, power... the list goes on. Being perfect, he needs nothing and gives freely.

Can you explain what you mean by "needs nothing". I think this can be taken in two ways of a spectrum between 1. He is lacking nothing, to 2. He can exist by Himself.

Unfortunately, I think many people interpret "needs nothing" to mean that He can somehow exist by himself.

I believe, He is lacking nothing but He does need His past, He needs a family, He needs glory which is based in serving and helping others, etc. to maintain the status of Eternal glory and happiness. His God glory is based in being an Heavenly Father. One cannot be a Father by themselves.

[phi39]

Can you explain what you mean by "needs nothing". I think this can be taken in two ways of a spectrum between 1. He is lacking nothing, to 2. He can exist by Himself.

Unfortunately, I think many people interpret "needs nothing" to mean that He can somehow exist by himself.

I believe, He is lacking nothing but He does need His past, He needs a family, He needs glory which is based in serving and helping others, etc. to maintain the status of Eternal glory and happiness. His God glory is based in being an Heavenly Father. One cannot be a Father by themselves.

I would say both 1 and 2 are true actually. In the first sense He flat does not need anyone because He always had fellowship in the Trinity. He didn't get lonely and then create, but created us out of and for His love, joy and glory. If I have a God who actually needs me, for any reason, then our relationship has a somewhat obligatory element to it. It is no longer pure love and grace.

As for existing by Himself: if you were ask Him what His name was, He would say "I am." And remember Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God-" He was already there to do the beginning. If you still think that the idea of something (or someone) being eternally existent sounds silly, remember that you as well need something to be "existing by itself" namely: chaotic matter and unorganized intelligences (I recently read a very good book that fleshes this out).

[Blackmarch]

This is mainly me just musing but I was wondering if I could get some opinions.

To me there is more than one way to interpret perfect.

Perfect - As in Toast is golden brown every time, you can't make an error.

Perfect - As in without sin

Perfect - As in complete, whole.

Is God perfect as in toast is golden brown every time or is he perfect as in without sin?

I am beginning to think He is perfect as in without sin, with a vast amount of knowledge and wisdom.

I'll choose D) all the above.

But I agree there is certainly more than one way to take perfect. (as well as infinite)

[Seminarysnoozer]

I would say both 1 and 2 are true actually. In the first sense He flat does not need anyone because He always had fellowship in the Trinity. He didn't get lonely and then create, but created us out of and for His love, joy and glory. If I have a God who actually needs me, for any reason, then our relationship has a somewhat obligatory element to it. It is no longer pure love and grace.

As for existing by Himself: if you were ask Him what His name was, He would say "I am." And remember Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God-" He was already there to do the beginning. If you still think that the idea of something (or someone) being eternally existent sounds silly, remember that you as well need something to be "existing by itself" namely: chaotic matter and unorganized intelligences (I recently read a very good book that fleshes this out).

You seem to easily separate love and grace from the recipient of the love and grace. If God is God because of His love and grace then He "needs" someone to give it to.

[Justice]

He didn't get lonely and then create, but created us out of and for His love, joy and glory.

Isn't it interesting that the God of the Trinity existed for an eternity, without anything else, then created a universe out of and for His love, joy, and glory? Didn't God know LONG before he created the universe that it would be better with the universe?

This is my major complaint about the Trinity, that "In the beginning" in the Bible refers to the ultimate beginning of all things. If God knew creating a physical universe and man was the best way to express His love and acheive joy, He would have already done it an infinite number of times.

If I have a God who actually needs me, for any reason, then our relationship has a somewhat obligatory element to it. It is no longer pure love and grace.

If your God is the God of the Trinity, then yes. But, if God needs a wife to have a family then everything changes. The entire paradigm of your comment becomes baseless and pointless. Family relationships are, to a certain degree, obligatory, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I love my wife with all my heart AND I needed her in order to have children.

So many people go wrong in their thinking about God when they think things have to be one or the other, like your comment, "It is no longer pure love and grace." When in actuality the answer most often is both... just like faith and works, and like I demonstrated with my example of my mine and my wife's relationship.

[phi39]

You seem to easily separate love and grace from the recipient of the love and grace. If God is God because of His love and grace then He "needs" someone to give it to.

You are right. Love, especially that agape love which disregards itself for the the loved one, cannot exist without the one to love. Enter the Trinity: if God is a community of 3 then love can exist--then God can be Love.

[phi39]

Isn't it interesting that the God of the Trinity existed for an eternity, without anything else, then created a universe out of and for His love, joy, and glory? Didn't God know LONG before he created the universe that it would be better with the universe?

This is my major complaint about the Trinity, that "In the beginning" in the Bible refers to the ultimate beginning of all things. If God knew creating a physical universe and man was the best way to express His love and acheive joy, He would have already done it an infinite number of times.

If your God is the God of the Trinity, then yes. But, if God needs a wife to have a family then everything changes. The entire paradigm of your comment becomes baseless and pointless. Family relationships are, to a certain degree, obligatory, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I love my wife with all my heart AND I needed her in order to have children.

So many people go wrong in their thinking about God when they think things have to be one or the other, like your comment, "It is no longer pure love and grace." When in actuality the answer most often is both... just like faith and works, and like I demonstrated with my example of my mine and my wife's relationship.

Don't get me wrong, there is love and grace in the family relationships between husband/wife, parent/child, and yes the partly "obligatory" nature of it is good. Those picture in part what we may have with God.

But would it be good, or "as good" for someone to "need" a child to be happy and fulfilled? True, we are made to "be fruitful and multiply" (whoohoo!), but if someone thinks they "need" to have children it is usually not healthy or it is for the wrong reasons. Isn't it better when a couple wants to start a family simply because they see it as a joy to do so? Now, I don't even have kids, but I've seen both cases.

So if God "needs" me in any sense as means to be happier or to gain more glory, then what was pure grace when He adopted me is not so any longer. In fact, wouldn't I then be in a place to make certain demands on him, or have certain expectations for Him to fulfill towards me? If we say God needs anything, then we go down some strange paths.

P.S. If time actually started "in the beginning" then there was not a long boring time before where God was getting bored. Also, who is anyone to say that God should do anything an infinite number of times?

[Justice]

P.S. If time actually started "in the beginning" then there was not a long boring time before where God was getting bored.

C'mon now, you don't expect me to believe that since you believe there was a period before time began that that explains how God existed for an eternity but did not create time or a universe? That's like saying since I've never been to Russia that means it doesn't exist. God existed, whether in time or eternity (doesn't make any difference), and you believe He existed alone because He had to be before all things, and that He existed for an eternity before He created man.

Also, who is anyone to say that God should do anything an infinite number of times?

Again, I don't see what this adds to the conversation. I never said God had to do anything. I'm just making a logic based argument that if God knows all, then He would have known to create time, space, a universe, and man long before this time, space, universe, or us. Throughout all eternity He would have been able to do this an infinite number of times. It's a pure logic argument and it points out a flaw in the belief of the Trinity.

If we say God needs anything, then we go down some strange paths.

Only if you believe God is a mystical triune being with no family.

[jerome1232]

Is this really turning into a trinity thing? I originally wasn't sure how I felt about a perfect being creating imperfect creations, and therefore God must be perfect as in without sin only. Some of the posters brought up good points however that I find myself nodding my head to, and I thank them for those posts. It mostly reconciled the issue for me.

[Justice]

My point is "perfect" can change drastically if God existed before all things, and created all things, including law and even matter itself. This would mean that whatever God does is perfect, no matter the consequences.

However, if God is co-eternal with law and matter, and God is following eternal law instead of dictating eternal law, then as the Book of Mormon says, if God is not perfect in following and abiding in law then He would cease to be God.

It makes for a dramatic shift in the thought process for determining if God is perfect, and how God is perfect.

Under the Trinity view, where God "created" all things with perfect foreknowledge then your original point becomes very valid, that God made everything the way it is, and He created imperfect things and deemed that they suffer for eternity for it unless He Himself chose to intercede on their behalf. He becomes the Savior of something He caused. Also, it means He set the terms and conditions on how man is redeemed, requiring Him to send part of Himself to suffer for mankind's sins that are merely part of what He created, and we are but doing what we were created to do, natually and instinctively. Somehow, we are evil for it.

But, if God is an eternal Parent and we are offspring, then He cannot prevent us from sinning if we are to progress, because we are like Him. All He can do is provide a method of redemption according to eternal justice and mercy. This earth then becomes a test to see if we will keep His commandments, because He cannot force us to obey, since we are children with minds and wills of our own.

The fundamental premise of "perfect" changes between the two beliefs. So, the discussion will be very different depending on your belief about who God is, and who we are.

Sorry about that, it wasn't my intent to derail, just to make this disctinction. As some made comments that seemed different, I just wanted to establish a base for the difference.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Justice

[phi39]

It's probably way too late for this reply but here goes:

C'mon now, you don't expect me to believe that since you believe there was a period before time began that that explains how God existed for an eternity but did not create time or a universe? That's like saying since I've never been to Russia that means it doesn't exist. God existed, whether in time or eternity (doesn't make any difference), and you believe He existed alone because He had to be before all things, and that He existed for an eternity before He created man.

Justice, you are misunderstanding me because you do not use the word "eternal" properly. When you say "an eternity" you mean a really long time. And when you say "throughout all eternity" you mean a really long time that never ends. And that is natural, because we usually use the word that way. But eternal means timeless, without beginning or end. So no, there was no "period" before time. There is a difference between time and eternity and it does matter.

We both believe that timeless/eternal things exist. I believe it is God himself. LDS (as far as I understand it) believe matter/intelligences are eternal.

... I never said God had to do anything. I'm just making a logic based argument that if God knows all, then He would have known to create time, space, a universe, and man long before this time, space, universe, or us. Throughout all eternity He would have been able to do this an infinite number of times. It's a pure logic argument and it points out a flaw in the belief of the Trinity.

I did not mean to say that you are ordering God around, but that your argument does not actually follow. Just because God can create infinite universes, does not mean that he must or that he would want to, or that doing so would actually be the best way to show his glory.

[Justice]

Justice, you are misunderstanding me because you do not use the word "eternal" properly. When you say "an eternity" you mean a really long time.

Here's the dilemma. I do see eternity as a very long time. But, when I use it I intend it as others mean it, forever. For GOd to have "always existed" it must stretch in both directions.

God has always existed... is the Trinity belief, and for those comments I had my Trinity hat on.

But eternal means timeless, without beginning or end. So no, there was no "period" before time. There is a difference between time and eternity and it does matter.

You've lost me. According to your belief, God had always existed before He created the universe and time. This means God existed for eternity before He decided to create the universe, when He always had the knowledge to do so. He could have created an infinite number of universes and times. I'm baffled how the Bible can be speaking of the ultimate beginning of all things, and not just the beginning of this heaven and earth.

I did not mean to say that you are ordering God around, but that your argument does not actually follow. Just because God can create infinite universes, does not mean that he must or that he would want to, or that doing so would actually be the best way to show his glory.

Hmmm interesting. I'm going to have to chew on that for a while.

Creating man is God's way to show greater love.

God is love.

God chose to wait an eternity before He showed His love, even though this is what He is.

I'm trying to get where you get, or why you can't understand my logic here.

I don't understand or comprehend eternity. It boggles my mind. I can only see it as an incredibly long period of time, longer than I can imagine. That's enough "time" to create nearly an endless amount of men to increase His love.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Justice

[Vort]

Justice, you are misunderstanding me because you do not use the word "eternal" properly. When you say "an eternity" you mean a really long time. And when you say "throughout all eternity" you mean a really long time that never ends. And that is natural, because we usually use the word that way. But eternal means timeless, without beginning or end.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is baloney. God exists independent of what any of us think of him. The realities of God are, well, real -- independent of what any of us think about them. Our conception of God and things Godly changes their nature not one iota.

The things of God are outside our mortal experience. For this reason, God speaks to us in language we can understand, thus giving us some approximation of truth.

But to believe that the words we have and the limited language we use is sufficient to describe either God or Godly things is tremendously naive. When God calls something or someone "eternal", that means exactly what God intends it to mean. It may OR MAY NOT mean exactly what we think it means.

So how do you know what God's teachings mean? If our language is not sufficient to define his word, how can we know anything?

Answer: By the Spirit. There is a reason the very first gift we are given upon entering the kingdom of God is the most important gift we will receive, one that leads us to the ultimate gift of eternal life: the Holy Ghost. Through the revelations of the Holy Ghost, and ONLY through his revelations, we can learn what God means by his words, rather than depending on our own imperfect understanding or the musings of others.

[Justice]

Yes, Vort, I admit I try hard to understand. I also have to admit that by myself, there's no way I could. Sometimes I get confused just trying to explain what I believe.

It's also helpful to have the words of prophets.