Who is God?

[Seminarysnoozer]

God (the Father) possesses the pain of seeing his Son endure the incarnation--especially that whole week we call the passion. Jesus, of course, possesses the direct experiences of the incarnation.

As for us, one obvious reason why traditionalists believe that we can never become what God is would be that we were created at a finite point in time. So, even though we may have an eternal future, but we came into existance at a specific moment.

And you believe that Jesus cannot possess the experience of the Father? Can God possess the experience of Jesus in the Garden, or does He not have a complete idea, as if He was there, knowledge of what Jesus felt in the Garden?

If God can know what we feel as if He is there (I don't know, maybe you don't believe that is possible) then why would it not be in Jesus' power as well, at this point, to know what God experiences and has experienced as if He was there? We don't understand how that power works, but I think both you and I believe that God and Jesus can vicariously know the feelings of our heart, to completely understand our thought process and experience. We cannot hide anything from God. If we cannot hide anything from God, then what of the Father's is hidden from Christ? You really think that the experience He had of what it is like to see His son suffer is hidden from Christ?

[Seminarysnoozer]

I agree. But why do you think that is?

I absolutely agree that we can not become someone else, but why can't we be in proximity to him? We can visit the White House; could we not eventually visit heaven or at least knock on the door, or will God physically hide it from us? And how do we know this?

Also agreed. But Godliness is a state of being that we can have right now and in which we can continually improve. Godliness is not the personage of God, but rather an attribute of him which we can emulate.

Why? I'm very serious about this. Why? And what is meant by "religious truth" and how does it differ from "non-religious truth". I assume that you just meant "truth". D&C 93:34 says, "And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." Another way of saying this is that truth is knowledge of reality. Unless we want to debate what "reality" is, we should agree that something is real if it can be not only agreed upon, but demonstrated. It doesn't mean that it has been demonstrated, but that it conceptually could be. We expect that EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. At that time, we will all be in agreement. But at this time, many are not. At this time, some say that if I wear a suicide vest and kill infidels, that I'll get 70 virgins, and then EVERYONE will know that Allah is God. As of now, that's not real, not demonstrable.

It seems like there is no other way to search for truth other than a naturalistic scientific way. Isn't anything else just shared imagination?

Help ye mine unbelief!

Do you have an understanding of faith and the value of faith?

Even when you study any field of science, you are putting faith in someone else work. Even us using the language we are using at this moment was based on the work of someone else. The computer was invented by someone else. I don't have to know much about computer science and electronics and how to mold plastic etc. to use a computer. It is all based in faith and trust of the work of someone else. If all of us had to start from scratch in terms of our "technology" from the moment we are born in this life then we would all still be living in the stone age or worse. "Technology" even is based in having a trusting faith for all the previous work that was done. If we are able to deliver that knowledge to the next generation (i.e. - education) then they can build upon that and advance. So, in a round about way, even technology itself is a faith based process.

To obtain all that God has and to live in an ever increasing environment requires people who are 100% faithful to His teaching. Doubters, murmurers, distrust, complaining, faithless etc. slows down the learning process and puts a limit on what can be learned. The ceiling of technological growth will always be limited by doubt and disbelief.

Faith is not just an item from which there is a test. It is a very useful process in which knowledge and intelligence can be passed without requiring each individual to go through the same exact steps to get there on their own. God, the all-knowing has mastered that kind of faith and all that was before and all into the future is His because of it.

This life is a test of faith, not knowledge. We all passed the test of knowledge before this life, that is called the first estate test.

[prisonchaplain]

And you believe that Jesus cannot possess the experience of the Father? Can God possess the experience of Jesus in the Garden, or does He not have a complete idea, as if He was there, knowledge of what Jesus felt in the Garden?

If God can know what we feel as if He is there (I don't know, maybe you don't believe that is possible) then why would it not be in Jesus' power as well, at this point, to know what God experiences and has experienced as if He was there? We don't understand how that power works, but I think both you and I believe that God and Jesus can vicariously know the feelings of our heart, to completely understand our thought process and experience. We cannot hide anything from God. If we cannot hide anything from God, then what of the Father's is hidden from Christ? You really think that the experience He had of what it is like to see His son suffer is hidden from Christ?

The Father knows what the Son went through. The Son knows that the Father was anguished by his Son's experience. However, I take the teaching that the Father and Son are distinct persons to mean that, for example, it was Jesus who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, and who instead made himself 'a little lower than the angels.' (Philippians) Jesus did that, not the Father. Likewise, it was the Father who sent Jesus. It is the Father who feels the heartache of sending his Son to face such suffering. Jesus knows that He feels this. Perhaps He knows his Father in ways we cannot communicate with each other. However, they do experience life as individuals, inspite of their being one Godhead.

[Christyba75]

...

Edited February 21, 2013 by Christyba75

[Vort]

It sounds like you're saying that no truth exists unless God communicates it to us.

No, truth is self-existent. I am saying we do not know truth until God reveals it. God is the unique source of truth.

Does that mean that gravity is not real? Does that mean that it is not true that DNA exists? Should we not consider these truths?

Do you distinguish between "fact" and "truth"?

We can. God invites us -- practically begs us -- to come unto him, know him, and gain proximity to him. But we must do it on his terms, and those terms do not include building a spaceship.

Your answer may be "because.", but my question is why not and how do we know that?

Why not what? Why doesn't coming to know God include building a spaceship? Because that is not how we come to know God, any more than building a ship or a chariot or a Lego horse is how we come to know God.

Again, we can't discover anything true without it being sent though revelation?

Correct. All truth that brings us to God is revealed to us.

I guess we're just having a disagreement on what is meant by "truth". You say that it's only what is revealed by God, and I agree that much of what is revealed by God is not disprovable. But you must agree that by using your definition of truth, truth is also not provable.

No, I don't agree with this. Alma 32 gives careful instructions on how to prove truth. It is not falsifiable, but it is verifiable.

Truth then becomes is whatever you say God says it is. And what if someone else claims that God tells them that "truth" is something else? Whose truth is true?

God's truth is true.

[Christyba75]

I fear that we're starting to speak two different languages, and that we're fast approaching a linguistic wall.

we do not know truth until God reveals it.

May I ask how you know this? From where did you get this?

[Seminarysnoozer]

The Father knows what the Son went through. The Son knows that the Father was anguished by his Son's experience. However, I take the teaching that the Father and Son are distinct persons to mean that, for example, it was Jesus who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, and who instead made himself 'a little lower than the angels.' (Philippians) Jesus did that, not the Father. Likewise, it was the Father who sent Jesus. It is the Father who feels the heartache of sending his Son to face such suffering. Jesus knows that He feels this. Perhaps He knows his Father in ways we cannot communicate with each other. However, they do experience life as individuals, inspite of their being one Godhead.

I was never arguing the point that they are separate beings or that they do certain things.

I was asking you ponder the idea that God knows all and nothing is hidden from him, including Christ' experience. How is that possible? We don't know. But we do know it is possible. If this is possible, to feel the experience of another as surely Christ even did while paying for our sins in the Garden, then what is it that God could keep separate from Christ after His ascension?

I am also not arguing that they gather the experience separately but that all that God has Christ has now.

This is important to understand, I think, because in answering the question of this thread, who is God? we have to take into consideration this ability, the ability to see the full experience of others. I am not saying that I know how this works but with that ability, Christ would also be able to take on all that was done before Him as if it was His own experience.

Just like when I pull out a text book (but of course at a very primitive level) I take on the experience of all those whose works are put into the book. I didn't have to do all the things that went into the collecting of the knowledge of the text book. I can read it and gather that information vicariously. I can also look at your writings without having done it myself.

If "all" is not known, such as what it felt like or the feeling of enlightenment etc, then there are things hidden from God. Either there are things hidden from God or there are not. I am assuming that Jesus also gains that ability after his mission which required being like man for a time (being made lower than the angels - Hebrews) but only for a short time, until He overcame the bonds of death. As it is explained in Hebrews; "16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make a reconciliation for the sins of the people."

[volgadon]

Wonderful! I can conceive of the same thing, (that's what "believe" means, right?) If humanity were allowed to exist long enough and expand beyond this planet, and if we're allowed to advance science, then could we eventually arrive at where God is (i.e. Kolob), or would he obstruct us?

I don't think we'd ever even approximate God through technological advancement.

Does technology make one more moral?

Here are some thoughts from Woland in Bulgakov's Master and Margarita.

The entry of the magician with his tall assistant and his cat, who trotted on stage on his hind legs, pleased the audience greatly. 'Armchair, please,' said Woland quietly and instantly an armchair appeared on stage from nowhere. The magician sat down. 'Tell me, my dear Faggot,' Woland enquired of the check-clad buffoon, who apparently had another name besides 'Koroviev,': 'do you find the people of Moscow much changed?' The magician nodded towards the audience, still silent with astonishment at seeing an armchair materialise from nowhere.

'I do, messire,' replied Faggot-Koroviev in a low voice.

'You are right. The Muscovites have changed considerably... outwardly, I mean... as, too, has the city itself... Not just the clothes, but now they have all these... what d'you call 'em... tramways, cars...'

'Buses,' prompted Faggot respectfully.

...

'Well, now,' replied the magician reflectively. 'They're people like any others. They're over-fond of money, but then they always were... Humankind loves money, no matter if it's made of leather, paper, bronze or gold. They're thoughtless, of course... but then they sometimes feel compassion too... they're ordinary people, in fact they remind me very much of their predecessors, except that the housing shortage has soured them...'

[prisonchaplain]

It's an interesting thought line. We say that the Father and Son are co-equal, and that they are all-knowing, everywhere, and all-powerful. Do they, because they are distinct personalities--or especially if they are distinct personages--perceive things from even a slightly different point of view? They are perfect. Does this suggest absolute identicalness.

Do any LDS speculate that exaltation might mean eventually merging with the Godhead?

[Vort]

I fear that we're starting to speak two different languages, and that we're fast approaching a linguistic wall.

we do not know truth until God reveals it.

May I ask how you know this? From where did you get this?

It seems obvious and self-evident to me.

Can you provide me with an example of an unchanging, eternal, indisputable "truth" that science provides us?

[Seminarysnoozer]

It's an interesting thought line. We say that the Father and Son are co-equal, and that they are all-knowing, everywhere, and all-powerful. Do they, because they are distinct personalities--or especially if they are distinct personages--perceive things from even a slightly different point of view? They are perfect. Does this suggest absolute identicalness.

Do any LDS speculate that exaltation might mean eventually merging with the Godhead?

How can 100% look different from 100%?

[prisonchaplain]

How can 100% look different from 100%?

I would describe how as Trinity. Perhaps you'd call it the Godhead? If the identicalness of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is absolute, then why are there three persons or personages? If they are absolute in their sameness then aren't the Modalists right? They argue that God is absolutely one, and that God simply manifests himself in different modes or roles, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

To be clear, I disagree. The three persons are distinct. If so, despite their co-equality and perfection, they must be ...well, distinct.

[Finrock]

Good morning Christyba75. I hope this week has been a great week for you! :)

I'm aware that I'm asking odd questions. I would never do so in church. There, I speak like everyone else. I hope it's safe to ask such bizarre questions here. I'm sincere in my quest. I'm just trying to find answers to all the weird little things that I thought as a child, that I ignored during my mission and early marriage, and am now back to questioning. I'm really trying to understand if God is real in the sense that he's tangible or if he's real like the feelings of the mind. I have always been taught that he is present in the universe (or outside it -- whatever that could possible mean), but that as LDS, more than other religions, we believe that God is an individual with a body. I like that concept, and I hope that it's correct. But to say that "I know that God exists because of an emotion" then makes us question what it means to "know" something. "Know" then takes on a very different meaning than to say that I know that if I drop a ball it will fall. That is known because of testing a hypothesis. We still don't know 100.000% that the ball will fall every time, but we're 99.9999999% sure that every time I drop a ball whose density is greater than the surrounding atmosphere on earth that it will accelerate toward the center of the planet, and we call that 99.9999999% confidence "knowledge". When we say that we "know" God lives, aren't we saying that we can conceive of it, it may make reasonable sense in our understanding of everything (even though we must admit that there are other possibilities), we want it to be correct, our emotions make us feel good about that concept, and maybe we've even seen a cloud formation in the shape of a sheep? (I've actually heard that in a Fast & Testimony meeting).

Now, this post is a little bit different than your OP. The sense that I get from this post is that you are questioning revealed truth. It is one thing to speculate about things we do not know about, but the path to exaltation is clearly spelled out. We need not speculate about how we are saved.

You cannot begin to doubt that God is real or that the atonement is real because you are unable to describe, in a naturalistic way, how God is God or how the atonement can absolve us of guilt. The universe is full of mystery and, in my opinion, the more we learn about the universe through science the more we recognize how little we actually know and how little we actually understand. So, there are aspects of reality that we cannot even begin to comprehend at this point and it is possible that given our current sphere of existence we are simply incapable of ever seeing or observing everything that makes up reality.

My point is: So what if we can't fit a gospel phenomenon in to known scientific models? When we get to parts of the gospel that don't make sense from a scientific perspective or that are hard to fit in to models of reality that we know and are familiar with, then the right way to handle these situations really is that cliche answer which is that we simply exercise faith, looking forward to the day when all things will be revealed to us. We can question and we can speculate but we always have to speculate and question with an eye of faith. To me an "eye of faith" means that we don't allow our speculations or questions to overrule revealed truth or our testimonies.

Regards,

Finrock

[Seminarysnoozer]

I would describe how as Trinity. Perhaps you'd call it the Godhead? If the identicalness of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is absolute, then why are there three persons or personages? If they are absolute in their sameness then aren't the Modalists right? They argue that God is absolutely one, and that God simply manifests himself in different modes or roles, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

To be clear, I disagree. The three persons are distinct. If so, despite their co-equality and perfection, they must be ...well, distinct.

When my son gets an A in school I feel great for him, it is a success that I feel even though I didn't get the A. But the success is shared. I don't have that same connection with one of his classmates who also might get an A. Why not?

Sharing everything does not preclude them having different roles or being different personages. It is the sharing all that is misunderstood. Just like the prodigal son who came back has all the father had like the son who stayed. They both have all. Is there anything that the father of the prodigal son has that was not available or shared with the son?

We don't understand what it is like to share everything. We get glimpses of it when we have families and we share in their success. But to have eternal joy is a process of sharing "all", including all that came before and all into the future. The greatest commandment of loving our God and loving our neighbor is a requisite to sharing all, like the love I have for my children and my parents. In a small way their successes are mine and it will be to a full extent in the life to come if we are fortunate enough to merit that status.

It is not required to be the same being or to do the same things to share everything. What is required, though, is to want it. If you don't want it then fine you wont get it. But that is up to you.

[mordorbund]

It's an interesting thought line. We say that the Father and Son are co-equal, and that they are all-knowing, everywhere, and all-powerful. Do they, because they are distinct personalities--or especially if they are distinct personages--perceive things from even a slightly different point of view? They are perfect. Does this suggest absolute identicalness.

Do any LDS speculate that exaltation might mean eventually merging with the Godhead?

John Taylor had such thoughts. He shares some of the following in Mediation and Atonement (starting on the last line of page 140 (146 in the link), but you should probably read the full chapter (XIX) to get a fuller perspective).

It is for the exaltation of man to this state of superior intelligence and Godhead that the mediation and atonement of Jesus Christ is instituted....

As a man [the individual,] through the powers of his body he could attain to the dignities and completeness of manhood, but he could go no further; ... but through the essence of the Godhead, which is in him, ... he is capable of rising to the dignity of a God.... But this transition from his manhood to the Godhead can alone be made through a power superior to man--an infinite power, an eternal power, even the power of the Godhead.

[Christyba75]

In response to my question: "how do we do not know truth until God reveals it", Vort's response was: "It seems obvious and self-evident to me." This brief exchange sums up the challenge of faith that I'm having. It seems that to be a believer, one must accept some basic tenets even if they may not appear logical or even if they have no deeper support. These tenets must just be accepted as "obvious" and "self-evident". My problem is that I am now like that little child that asks, "why does 'A' happen . . ," and the father says, "Because of 'B' . .. ," and I ask why, "why does 'B' happen . . .,". Eventually the father runs out of answers and must say either "it's self-evident" or "I don't know." I believe that it's best and honest to say, "I don't know" rather than saying "God wants it that way," because then I'll just ask, "Why would God want it that way?" Ultimately, we all get to "I don't know." And I'm content with not knowing. Are you? Can't we settle for not knowing rather than making up answers? Religionists use God as the answer to mysteries (which really isn't an answer--just a place-holder); scientists allow for unknowns and continue to apply the scientific principle to see if a rational answer can be discovered. If not, then the unknown continues. Is there anything wrong with not knowing? Why must we know? Are we too uncomfortable with not knowing that we have to fill in the gap with God?

Now, this post is a little bit different than your OP. The sense that I get from this post is that you are questioning revealed truth. It is one thing to speculate about things we do not know about, but the path to exaltation is clearly spelled out. We need not speculate about how we are saved.

You are correct. I am questioning. Not in a rude, hostile way. I understand that I NEED not speculate and that knowing answers to my questions won't change the way to salvation, but I hope that I'm not forbidden from speculating. I hope that the brethren would never say, "don't ask that question." I hope I'm allowed to ask the question even if the answer is "We don't know."

You cannot begin to doubt that God is real or that the atonement is real because you are unable to describe, in a naturalistic way, how God is God or how the atonement can absolve us of guilt.

This is the exact reason why tons of people doubt that God is real. But I chose to hope despite its irrationality.

The universe is full of mystery and, in my opinion, the more we learn about the universe through science the more we recognize how little we actually know and how little we actually understand. So, there are aspects of reality that we cannot even begin to comprehend at this point and it is possible that given our current sphere of existence we are simply incapable of ever seeing or observing everything that makes up reality.

I, all the religionists, and all the atheists, agree with this.

My point is: So what if we can't fit a gospel phenomenon in to known scientific models? When we get to parts of the gospel that don't make sense from a scientific perspective or that are hard to fit in to models of reality that we know and are familiar with, then the right way to handle these situations really is that cliche answer which is that we simply exercise faith, looking forward to the day when all things will be revealed to us. We can question and we can speculate but we always have to speculate and question with an eye of faith. To me an "eye of faith" means that we don't allow our speculations or questions to overrule revealed truth or our testimonies.

I enjoyed all of this statement, but I do wonder about part: "we don't allow our speculations or questions to overrule revealed truth". I do wonder what is meant by "revealed truth". It sounds like a wonderful concept: absolute statements that are never wrong, never changing, and can never be disproved. As of yet, I have not discovered such truth in the church or in any belief system.

[Traveler]

It is not a new idea it is just that I am being more specific. For example, your last sentence I would add an element of specificity; We can understand desires as an element of the carnal self versus the spirit self and when we indulge in the carnal self and it's associated selfish desires we take the first step to bondage - but when we can sacrifice carnal self and it's selfish desires by discipline we take the first step to spiritual freedom.

The misconception comes from the under appreciation of the role of the dual being and the temporary nature of carnal self. Can we change our temporary self (the combined carnal body and spirit)? Absolutely! That is the test we face, the given circumstances and then a measure of how much we change in this setting. Like the worker given 5 talents, what is he going to do with it, change it or hide it and lose it?

Not sure I agree - Lucifer had no carnal nature and turned down a road to bondage and captivity as a completely spiritual individual - as did a one third prat of the society of heaven.

I do not think we need to limit selfishness to carnal selfishness and in contrast it appears that there are advantages in disciplining the carnal nature that are superior to just disciplining the spiritual nature.

In fact this seems to distinguish the LDS from Trinitarians that seem to believe G-d's core essence is spiritual and not carnal or physical. Whereas LDS teach that the discipline of the carnal and the spiritual is the road to eternal life.

Consider the possibility that carnal desires are an essential element of a divine nature that must be controlled (kept with in the bounds as taught by G-d). Thus we control our desires rather than our desires controlling us. But you suggestion that we are controlled by the desires of our hearts - appears to me to be a path or excuse for failure and being taken into bondage - even if (especially if) it is a bondage we desire - or should I say we desire spiritually? As did Satan.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I realize we are discussing teachings that are somewhat speculative, and call for the kind of thinking that goes beyond what is practical or required. On the other hand, God is pleased when we meditate on his nature. We want to know him more. I've gained much to think about from this string. Many thanks!

[Seminarysnoozer]

Not sure I agree - Lucifer had no carnal nature and turned down a road to bondage and captivity as a completely spiritual individual - as did a one third prat of the society of heaven.

I do not think we need to limit selfishness to carnal selfishness and in contrast it appears that there are advantages in disciplining the carnal nature that are superior to just disciplining the spiritual nature.

In fact this seems to distinguish the LDS from Trinitarians that seem to believe G-d's core essence is spiritual and not carnal or physical. Whereas LDS teach that the discipline of the carnal and the spiritual is the road to eternal life.

Consider the possibility that carnal desires are an essential element of a divine nature that must be controlled (kept with in the bounds as taught by G-d). Thus we control our desires rather than our desires controlling us. But you suggestion that we are controlled by the desires of our hearts - appears to me to be a path or excuse for failure and being taken into bondage - even if (especially if) it is a bondage we desire - or should I say we desire spiritually? As did Satan.

The Traveler

When a soul comes unto God's rest what is she resting from? When a person leaves this world and enters into the peace of Paradise, what is the peace from?

There is nothing in the gospel that says once a person enters into the Celestial Kingdom that there will be ongoing internal strife, even if it is always overcome by righteous desires. Our battle is here. Those that did not pass the first estate test did not pass for a reason, they were not worthy enough to even take on such a battle. They would have surely lost. There was no chance for them to overcome the battle against carnality. We (as in "we" from the sentence you created and I commented on, I was assuming did not include all those souls that followed Lucifer and Lucifer him self - I guess I would not call that "we"), on the other hand have a fighting chance and in the end will win out with the saving grace of Christ to earn a body in which there is peace from such a battle.

We believe in a Savior that overcomes this world and everything in it. Because of that salvation we no longer have to face those challenges once passing through it. We know, for example, that children that die before the age of accountability and those that die with diseases that affect their ability to be accountable, such as Down's, will never know sin. If they never know sin, what is it that they are "controlling" as you suggest in the next life? What are they keeping in "bounds"?

The fight is won by Christ. We win the fight too if we accept His victory. We cannot overcome or keep in bounds the carnality of this world by ourselves. That is the reason and job of the Savior. I cannot understand why you would want to reject the gift of the Savior and suggest that we will have to learn how to be our own Savior. The way to keep the carnality in "bounds" is by following Christ. Then at the end of this probationary (temporary) state Christ overcomes it all. He does not leave some of it behind for us to battle latter. If there is any battle then it is our own spiritual nature that we have adopted but predicated on the limits in which we accept Christ' saving grace. And that measure will be the measure of which Kingdom we end up in. Those that fully accept Christ will not end up in the Celestial Kingdom will not have any carnality left to "keep in bounds". There is no unclean thing that will be in His presence.

If one is so attached to the idea of carnality, then I am sure it will remain as it was probably becomes a part of their spirit self after leaving this world. We hope that doesn't happen. We hope we can leave carnality behind, never to have to deal with it again.

Upon resurrection, our dual being status changes from what it was here. We are no longer "dual beings" with two different natures, a carnal one and a spiritual one. We become a dual being of both body and spirit no longer at odds with each other, of one nature. The body provided, of course, matching our spirit self at that time.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[volgadon]

Christyba, the other thread was closed before you had a chance to respond to my question. What I don't see in your hyper-evolved alien theory is how sin and atonement fit into it all. Would you mind expanding on that in relation to your theory?

[Christyba75]

Christyba, the other thread was closed before you had a chance to respond to my question. What I don't see in your hyper-evolved alien theory is how sin and atonement fit into it all. Would you mind expanding on that in relation to your theory?

I had written a nice long answer to these questions and when I tried to post it on the other thread, it was locked, so my proposed post was lost. Something I'm doing here is irritating the moderators, so I need to tread more lightly lest I lock this thread too.

I think sin and atonement fit just the way that the traditional LDS teachings tell us they do. I see no conflicts.

[volgadon]

I had written a nice long answer to these questions and when I tried to post it on the other thread, it was locked, so my proposed post was lost. Something I'm doing here is irritating the moderators, so I need to tread more lightly lest I lock this thread too.

I think sin and atonement fit just the way that the traditional LDS teachings tell us they do. I see no conflicts.

So, are you saying that the ability to cleanse from sin comes as part of the evolutionary and technological process?

[Christyba75]

So, are you saying that the ability to cleanse from sin comes as part of the evolutionary and technological process?

Lets reconsider what is meant by "cleansed from sin". Doesn't it mean that God will permit us to enter his presence despite us having committed sin? It means that he no longer will make us accountable for those sins. We won't need to pay for them because of our acceptance of Christ. Forgiveness of sins is something we can all grant on another. I can forgive my husband for things just as God can forgive sins.

[pam]

Forgiveness of sins is something we can all grant on another. I can forgive my husband for things just as God can forgive sins.

You're right, we can forgive others for things done against us. However, what if my husband (hypothetical husband) had committed adultery? Yes I could forgive him but what if he never went through the proper channels of repentance?

[volgadon]

Lets reconsider what is meant by "cleansed from sin". Doesn't it mean that God will permit us to enter his presence despite us having committed sin? It means that he no longer will make us accountable for those sins. We won't need to pay for them because of our acceptance of Christ.

And what does accepting Christ have to do with anything? Oh, right, the atonement, where he took our sins upon himself. Are you still saying that the ability to do this comes as part of the evolutionary and technological process?

Forgiveness of sins is something we can all grant on another. I can forgive my husband for things just as God can forgive sins.

No, forgiveness of sins is not something we can grant anyone. We can forgive someone for what they've done to us, but only God can forgive them of their sins. So, in other words, even if I forgive the whole day long, the sin doesn't go away unless God forgives it.