The perfectness of God

[estradling75]

Thanks, I appreciate your answer. How does one differentiate, then, a question from speculation or even ponderings from speculation? How does opinion differ from speculation? Are we not allowed to give our opinion whatsoever on areas that are not revealed doctrine?

I apologize then. For me, the process of proposing thoughts and ideas has been very educational. With responses, I further ponder my beliefs and have learned a lot in that process. I am saddened by the idea that I can't express opinion on this forum. From now on then, I suppose I will just cut and paste scripture and GA quotes (even though there is a web site that all that can be googled already) ... if there is no "speculation" or personal pondering allowed.

Oh please... you are jumping from one extreme to another... and the true path is in the middle...

You made the claim

The Forum is for speculation

and you got corrected on your mistaken assumption. Now you are swinging the other way.

There are alot of things that happen on this forum that are not what forum is for, but they are allowed if they don't interfere with it.

For those of you who might have missed what the forums purpose is you can find it here About Us » LDS Social Network

[Seminarysnoozer]

God is perfect from all eternity to all eternity.

Well then, I think this is where you misjudged. I have said nothing against this idea. Because I believe (and I will make this perfectly clear so there is no repercussions for possibly misinterpreting my comments to be official doctrine of the church or anything like that - THIS IS MY OPINION) that the atonement of Christ makes perfect from all eternity to all eternity. I have said nothing against that doctrine and I certainly wasn't attempting to mislead anybody away from that doctrine. I will admit that I was speculating about how that could be possible and I will refrain from pondering such things 'out loud' anymore as that is what the moderators wish. I would suggest (again, MY OPINION, not official church doctrine) that to say that God in no way could have been the recipient of the redemptive power of an atonement would be called speculation as well, so you can't say that it could not be possible. All I said is that it was possible, not that it happened (again, this is my personal opinion that it could be possible within my personal understanding of the gospel which admittedly is not official doctrine or authoritative in any fashion). To discuss why I think it could possible cannot be done on this forum apparently, so even if you wanted to judge me about it and try to change my views (which I would otherwise humbly welcome such discussion), you couldn't, that is not allowed.

[Vort]

Well then, I think this is where you misjudged. I have said nothing against this idea. Because I believe (and I will make this perfectly clear so there is no repercussions for possibly misinterpreting my comments to be official doctrine of the church or anything like that - THIS IS MY OPINION) that the atonement of Christ makes perfect from all eternity to all eternity. I have said nothing against that doctrine and I certainly wasn't attempting to mislead anybody away from that doctrine.

Neither I nor anyone else that I saw accused you of "attempting to mislead anybody" by preaching false doctrine. I understand that you were simply offering your insights and opinions as possibilities. I also understand that, in your own mind, you were not doing violence to the doctrine of God's perfection.

You seem to be missing what I tried so hard to say, though. I objected to the general tenor of the conversation because it seemed to be trifling with sacred things, offering no concrete benefits but risking that readers might take the ideas as LDS teachings (or something close to it).

While I admit to getting irritated at such (as I see it) naive and credulous speculation, I can simply ignore threads that bother me. My objection was not founded primarily on my irritation. Rather, I objected on two points, taken together:

• The ideas being presented were wildly speculative, nothing like mainstream LDS doctrine; and,
• The ideas being presented had, in my judgment, a high probability of being taken as an offensive denigration of God's might, power, or majesty.

For those reasons, I thought to raise a voice of caution and try to give a word to the wise. You have clearly taken deep offense at this, which baffles me but for which I am sorry. That is, I am sorry, not that I raised the voice of warning, but that I could not find a less confrontational way to do it.

[Dove]

Greetings Dove,

You are an interesting person and I enjoy your insights. I would, however, point you in perhaps a different direction. One of my favorite persons in scripture is Enos. Perhaps his story touches me because I see much in parallel in my life. But moving forward – one of the aspects about “salvation” and “being perfect” I personally find concerning and out of character is the quest to gain such things for self. This is a little hard to explain but concepts leading being perfect almost become a hand book of instructions of acquisition.

The problem I see is the selfish or prideful desire to gain for one’s self. Or as Jesus said in essence only by losing ourselves do we find ourselves. Therefore, I believe in discussion of salvation and being perfect we focus far too much on our need and our qualifications. As important as personal discipline is – I think that such focus misses the mark and leaves us incomplete. As long as it is our sins to which we suffer we are disconnected from perfection, holiness and being one with Christ.

What impresses me about Enos is that he was not content or satisfied in his salvation but having been cleansed his focus completely shifted in a dramatic pyridine shift as his soul ached and desired (suffered) for (not just others but) his enemies. Many will argue about resurrected bodies and about power and glory as necessary for perfection – but I think such focus and arguments are hollow and empty speculations trying to compensate for something, not quite understood, that is missing. I believe that when the spirit directs us beyond our personal needs and desires to, as Enos saw, others to suffer with them – then at that moment – we are perfect. All the other stuff are just distractions.

The Traveler

Hello, and thank you, Traveler.

This is the third time I have started a response to your post and have somehow erased it before I was through. I don't know quite what to do as it seems that what I had to say isn't meant to be said at this time.

Before I totally give up, I would like to offer some scriptural passages for you to look at in context to what you wrote;

Matt 16:27-29 (JST).

Alma 1:26

Doctrine and Covenants 50:13-23

and of course, Moroni 7:47-48.

I hope you enjoy reading these verses when you can...

Dove

[jayanna]

About in which way God is perfect, I think it is all three. I think that Jesus was perfect once he had resurrected and received His perfect body...in the way that He was fully developed. We also need not only the atonement washing away our sins, and our ordinances to develop us, but also that perfect resurrected body that is like our Father's before we can even come close to considering ourselves 'perfect' in any way. I think it has to be a comination of spirit and body.

An example of what I'm talking about:

"As Latter-day Saints we are taught that the soul, our real self, consists of both the body and the spirit. (See D&C 88:15.) Neither part can be exalted without the other; both are necessary. Joseph Smith also taught that Satan’s punishment for his rebellion is that “he shall not have a tabernacle.” Without a tabernacle, or a body, our spirits cannot progress.

later in the same talk; Latter-day Saints are taught that both the body and the spirit are immortal and that the resurrection is a literal reuniting of body and spirit. We will then be like God in nature, for “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.” (D&C 130:22.)

Ten years before section 130 was recorded, the Prophet received another revelation which speaks of the nature of beings: “Man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

“And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.” (D&C 93:33–34.)

The Body: A Burden or a Blessing? - Ensign Feb. 1985 - ensign

[Seminarysnoozer]

Neither I nor anyone else that I saw accused you of "attempting to mislead anybody" by preaching false doctrine. I understand that you were simply offering your insights and opinions as possibilities. I also understand that, in your own mind, you were not doing violence to the doctrine of God's perfection.

You seem to be missing what I tried so hard to say, though. I objected to the general tenor of the conversation because it seemed to be trifling with sacred things, offering no concrete benefits but risking that readers might take the ideas as LDS teachings (or something close to it).

While I admit to getting irritated at such (as I see it) naive and credulous speculation, I can simply ignore threads that bother me. My objection was not founded primarily on my irritation. Rather, I objected on two points, taken together:

• The ideas being presented were wildly speculative, nothing like mainstream LDS doctrine; and,
• The ideas being presented had, in my judgment, a high probability of being taken as an offensive denigration of God's might, power, or majesty.

For those reasons, I thought to raise a voice of caution and try to give a word to the wise. You have clearly taken deep offense at this, which baffles me but for which I am sorry. That is, I am sorry, not that I raised the voice of warning, but that I could not find a less confrontational way to do it.

I appreciate your comments and concern, I have taken them to heart. Thank you.

I think there requires a bit of understanding of intention to differentiate between speculation and pondering. I am honest in saying that my intention was to enlighten as to the might, power and majesty of Christ's atonement which is not to take away from God's might, power and majesty. Even though, I realize that I often hover on the cliff of speculation and sometimes slip down that slippery slope, I based those comments on scripture and testimony and not on imagination. I will try to be more careful with my words, it can be tricky.

I have a strong testimony of D&C 58:42 "Behold, he who has arepented of his bsins, the same is cforgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more."

And Jeremiah 31:34 "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

As it pertains to the records of eternity, I believe these scriptures and I believe in the power of our Savior that it is certainly possible to have no sin remembered. To me, this is mainstream LDS doctrine. To say the opposite, which would be to say that it is impossible for God to have ever sinned, to me, would be discounting and going against these fundamental beliefs. I agree with this being speculation as to whether God did or didn't, this is why I thought I was being careful about saying it was possible without knowing or not. And I apologize for presenting it in a way that would seem like it is a statement of belief. In the same light, it is speculative to say that He didn't, to say that we "know" He didn't. He may or may not. As to the redeeming power of Christ, it can be full, complete, and eternal, from eternity to eternity (which cuts out the "time" in between).

Our fundamental belief also is that we are sons and daughters of God and as such have noble potential to be like our Heavenly parents. A speculation that God could never be like us would go against that fundamental belief. All of us sin, so to make such a strong statement as to say that is impossible would cut out completely any chance that we are indeed His children with a potential to fully inherit all that God has. I admit that it is speculation to try to pin down the specifics of what it means to inherit all and to be "like" Him and to receive of His glory. But until it is specifically revealed I don't see how we can accept doctrine that would make that impossible. Any doctrine that makes it impossible for His children to receive all that He has would, to me, seem to be against fundamental LDS beliefs. Maybe I am wrong on this, but this is how I currently see it. I am wanting and willing to be corrected about such beliefs if they are false. I believe I am a daughter of God and not just a student of His and Christ's teachings.

I appreciate your willingness to interact with me and I apologize for my defensive words. I will try to be more careful with speculative speech as I am still learning where that line is between contemplation, pondering, searching and speculation.

[Traveler]

Here is a thought - what do we know of G-d? One of the tenets of LDS doctrine is that G-d's purpose is eternally connected to the salvation and perfectness of mankind. So much so that I cannot identify even a single thing that G-d has done or will do for himself. All that G-d does is for others.

It is not effort for self that makes G-d perfect, complete, whole or holy. Truman Madsen once said that the main thing in life is keeping the main thing the main thing. If we are to be one with G-d we must join him in unselfish purpose for the betterment of others.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

One of the tenets of LDS doctrine is that G-d's purpose is eternally connected to the salvation and perfectness of mankind.

I agree, and the reverse, I believe to be true too, that our purpose is to one day be connected to the eternal perfectness of God, to inherit all that God has and in that way it is possible to be perfect without beginning or end. I think the idea of shared glory, in other words, being "one" with God and Christ has its roots in the same concept that you are saying is one of the main tenets of LDS doctrine.

As President Hinckley said; "Put on thy beautiful garments, O daughters of Zion. Live up to the great and magnificent inheritance which the Lord God, your Father in Heaven, has provided for you. Rise above the dust of the world. Know that you are daughters of God, children with a divine birthright. Walk in the sun with your heads high, knowing that you are loved and honored, that you are a part of his kingdom, and that there is for you a great work to be done which cannot be left to others."

I believe having an eye single to His glory also includes His Kingdom and His work, thus, it includes all those that are part of this "divine birthright". The divine birthright is not one that is divided and wasted, as was the concern of the prodigal son. If we repent and live righteously then all will be offered and no inheritance is lost. I believe that concept to be a part of the eternal round, cycle, and that we are not necessarily the first round. It has happened before ... souls that have lost their inheritance, repented and then gained it all back as if it was never lost in the first place.