Random Thought about becoming perfect and the atonement


sgedster
 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay, so Jesus was a god before coming to earth but he had to perform the atonement in order to be perfect. If we understand the difference between Matt 5:48 and 3 Nephi 12: 48  Is the last stage in becoming perfect performing a atonement if we are to become perfect? and if so how do we reconcile this D&C 19 16-17?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moroni 10:32 tells us that in order for us to be perfected, we must "come unto Christ..." and that "by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ;"

 

I have always understood it was not the Atonement that perfected Christ, but his resurrection. Having a resurrected body, and having fulfilled His mission (not my mission), He was then perfected. According to Moroni, the only way I can be perfected is to come unto Christ, and love God with all my might, mind and strength, and accept God's power, otherwise known as the grace of God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so Jesus was a god before coming to earth but he had to perform the atonement in order to be perfect. If we understand the difference between Matt 5:48 and 3 Nephi 12: 48  Is the last stage in becoming perfect performing a atonement if we are to become perfect? and if so how do we reconcile this D&C 19 16-17?

 

I do not know how to be perfect.  The best I can do is speculate.  But I do think we must perform sort of a mini atonement to become perfect - that is a willingness to suffer because of the evil deeds of others and not desire any revenge or metering back of justice to those that caused our suffering.  We must be willing to forgive those that cause our suffering and sometimes that is ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so Jesus was a god before coming to earth but he had to perform the atonement in order to be perfect. If we understand the difference between Matt 5:48 and 3 Nephi 12: 48  Is the last stage in becoming perfect performing a atonement if we are to become perfect? and if so how do we reconcile this D&C 19 16-17?

 

I am not sure I can agree with the premise in your first statement (that Jesus had to perform the Atonement in order to be perfect.) And I'm thinking about the difference between the first two scriptures you cited. In terms of doctrine, isn't it true that the latter clarifies the former as far as the extent to which the Bible is "translated correctly" or not? Or does the difference simply allude to the difference between Jesus before and after the Atoning Sacrifice--personally I don't currently believe that it does.  Perhaps discussion of the matter hinges on what we ought to understand by the word "perfect" as it applies to mortals being told to be perfect even as God is in the first place.

 

I think that there is no such thing as a last stage in becoming perfect by performing an Atonement.  Nor do I find anything that needs to be reconciled in this context with D&C 19:16-17 because I don't think the verses are meant to address the issue of the Lord's perfection. (I think they are meant to impress upon us the importance of taking the Atonement seriously and taking advantage of the opportunities to repent so that we don't have to suffer what the Atonement was meant to take care of.)  I am interested in knowing your additional thoughts on your topic and in seeing whether we can reconcile whatever differences there may be in our respective viewpoints.  

Edited by UT.starscoper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science geek note: Perfection in stages only makes sense from our perspective where time matters. If time is taken out of the equation we will see perfection in a different way. It may make it easier to understand why Jesus called himself the great I AM or HE WHO IS in one rendered translation.

 

In other words, if God is the same yesterday, today, and forever then perfection is more of an eternal state than an accomplishment.

 

My weird 2 cents if it helps.

Edited by clwnuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Christ performed the Atonement so that we would have a way back to Heavenly Father and our pre existant state, except we would have bodies like Heavenly Father. There would be no reason for us to complete or participate in any kind of an atonement. In my opinion the only way we would get remotely close to it is by coming unto Christ. Just as Christ came unto the Father throughout His life, we would walk and act in the same similitude as Christ did to the Father in our life.

Again in D&C 19:15-19 we read "15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men."

To me, this passage of scripture is defined as being a loving but stern guidance from Christ that we need to come unto Him. He wants us to repent and follow Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably need to explain in more depth Jesus glorified God by taking upon him the sins of the world and being the first fruits of the resurrection he was the first person to receive all that the father hath in it's fullness his is the father of our resurrected bodies and we are the children of Christ  Mosiah:5 and Heaavenly father  is the father of our spirits.Jesus is perfect and at one with the father in all things.

So when we become like Heavenly father and begin to have spirit children of our own and create worlds and so forth who will perform an atonement for those children? or Is there just one atonement and are future children to receive bodies and not experience an earthly education? 

 

Or will we play a role in providing a future atonement so that these are provided the same experiences as us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe that asking any question is wrong if it comes from an earnest desire to know. If something is important for you to understand and serves a purpose in your own spiritual development then it is important to god .although he may not give you the answer he will lead you along the path that will eventually help you find it. 

My initial thoughts that let to me considering the question about the atonement  stems through a desire to understand my own Identity and place within gods family i interpret the creation drama In which Moses in clothed in god's glory so that he can see all of god's creations in reference to this world as teaching a principle. That all things have a place and order, their relationship to God their duties and what they can become through following Jesus Christ.

When a person understands who he is and what he is to do he can move forward a lot quicker and with greater determination.

Alma teaches us to experiment with the word experiments require a hypothesis - a way of proving or disproving - the collection of data - results and a conclusion from this perspective we can better understand the nature of the question that lead to us considering the initial hypothesis and how it can impact of individual nature.

Edited by sgedster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure I can agree with the premise in your first statement (that Jesus had to perform the Atonement in order to be perfect.) And I'm thinking about the difference between the first two scriptures you cited. In terms of doctrine, isn't it true that the latter clarifies the former as far as the extent to which the Bible is "translated correctly" or not? Or does the difference simply allude to the difference between Jesus before and after the Atoning Sacrifice--personally I don't currently believe that it does.  Perhaps discussion of the matter hinges on what we ought to understand by the word "perfect" as it applies to mortals being told to be perfect even as God is in the first place.

 

I think that there is no such thing as a last stage in becoming perfect by performing an Atonement.  Nor do I find anything that needs to be reconciled in this context with D&C 19:16-17 because I don't think the verses are meant to address the issue of the Lord's perfection. (I think they are meant to impress upon us the importance of taking the Atonement seriously and taking advantage of the opportunities to repent so that we don't have to suffer what the Atonement was meant to take care of.)  I am interested in knowing your additional thoughts on your topic and in seeing whether we can reconcile whatever differences there may be in our respective viewpoints.  

 Elder Bednar has written a book "Power to become" in which he quotes Brigham Young about being perfect in our sphere which is a good read. I think our sphere and the Jesus expected sphere are completely different though because he faced challenges that no mortal could bear. and in working out the atonement he gained knowledge wisdom and love that possibility he didn't have before and left him amazed.

I think there must be a last stage in becoming perfect else we have to say that god is imperfect because he is sill progressing and growing as apposed to have glory added upon him forever and ever the glory of god is intelligence IE us in our most basic to advanced form.

Reconciling D&C 19 is a wrong term because you are right it is out of context It is about suffering for our own transgression and sins and not for anothers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always understood that the perfection of man is not meant to in the modern meaning of the word "perfect", but to mean more complete.  Jesus was always morally perfect, but his mission was not complete until after the atonement and after the resurrection.  He had do become perfect (complete).  And, we know he did not begin his life with a pefect knowledge or even a perfect desire (desiring that the cup be taken from him), but he did have a pefect will. 

 

I like the notion that we are all "gods" until we are not, because the definition of "god" is one who continues forever.  And we, right now are continuing.  Perfection and exhaultation comes when our continuation is assured forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and in working out the atonement he gained knowledge wisdom and love that possibility he didn't have before and left him amazed.

 

I think there must be a last stage in becoming perfect else we have to say that god is imperfect because he is sill progressing and growing as apposed to have glory added upon him forever and ever the glory of god is intelligence IE us in our most basic to advanced form.

...

 

I don't see how denying the existence of a last stage in becoming perfect requires us to say that God is imperfect.  Perhaps we must first re-examine the meaning of progressing and growing.  I wonder if you are using those words in the context of the tradition of "eternal progression" which by the way has been criticized at times by various Church General Authorities as being misused by members.  My own understanding is that God is omniscient for example.  He knows all.  He doesn't learn that which he didn't know previously.

 

Or, am I talking about different things that you are talking about?  I don't wish to place words in your mouth so to speak, nor do I wish to reframe your topic in ways that you don't want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always understood that the perfection of man is not meant to in the modern meaning of the word "perfect", but to mean more complete.  ...

 

I'm not sure I'm following everything you wrote above, but when you mentioned the modern meaning of the word "perfect" I sort of sat up in interest. What else do you personally understand about the meaning of the word? I ask this because I can't see how, "...be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in Heaven..." should be understood (without contradicting the apparent meaning of scripture such as Romans 3:10) to mean that I'm expected to literally attain perfection at a proscribed point in time or even in this life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm not sure I'm following everything you wrote above, but when you mentioned the modern meaning of the word "perfect" I sort of sat up in interest. What else do you personally understand about the meaning of the word? I ask this because I can't see how, "...be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in Heaven..." should be understood (without contradicting the apparent meaning of scripture such as Romans 3:10) to mean that I'm expected to literally attain perfection at a proscribed point in time or even in this life.

 

The idea of being without flaw is contrary to the very doctrine of repentance.   There are several ancient terms that are synonymous - they are terms you have heard many times but in modern language are rather ambitious.  The terms are holy, complete, perfect, pure and whole.  In addition we also deal with words like sacred and salvation.

 

Sometimes these terms are thrown around or adopted in various manners to justify our particular rational of religion.  I have often heard the concept that in the per-existence that we reached a level of perfection but could not progress without coming to mortality and receiving a body.  Though the thought may have truth - I believe such expressions and use of terms will sadly confuse the understanding of other principles from scripture that use the same terms.

 

It appears to me that often individuals will use terms common in religion in inconsistent ways.  Let me give an example.  Has anyone ever heard the question - Is it necessary for salvation?  Why not ask the question - Is it helpful for perfection?  or even better can it be discarded or ignored in an effort to be complete or to be perfect?  Why would we think salvation or perfection are two very different things.  And to mitigate such inconsistencies we will try to break down differences between salvation and exaltation. 

 

I have also observed debates concerning repentance where the question is asked - is it better to have sinned and repented or is it better to have not sinned and not needed to repent.  I am convinced that in such discussions the concept of repentance is lost.  My understanding of repentance transcends sin as a means of becoming holy, pure, perfect and complete.  It is the means of putting off what we were to become something better - or as Paul implied - when we are a child we thought as a child and acted as a child but when we became a man we put away childish things.  We do not have to think in terms of children as a state of sin and manhood a state of not sinning but rather seeing and realizing something better (more noble) and embracing it.

 

In religious circles many have a spiritual experience and are converted to a level of spirituality because of it.  They are tempted and succumb to the temptation to be happy and satisfied with lessor light and truth when they could have so much more.  This is my understanding of perfect - that rather than an obtained destination or state it is a method path or way to transcend to greater understanding and light.  I do not see the Celestial Kingdom so much as a place but more of a gate or door that opens to much more light, truth and understanding that cannot be realized in our current kingdom.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a wonderful conversation with a friend of mine on this topic recently.

Our conclusion: Atonement is 100% necessary for apotheosis. That is exactly why we are commanded to "Bear one another's burdens" and to "Mourn with those that mourn."

 

I'm somewhat amused that the conversation has turned towards defining perfection when I think we ought to be focusing on defining atonement. There is a difference between "atonement" and "The Atonement" - the former is two individuals coming to agreement, the latter is Christ's infinite and eternal sacrifice that helps us accomplish the former with our Heavenly Father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Okay, so Jesus was a god before coming to earth but he had to perform the atonement in order to be perfect. If we understand the difference between Matt 5:48 and 3 Nephi 12: 48  Is the last stage in becoming perfect performing a atonement if we are to become perfect? and if so how do we reconcile this D&C 19 16-17?

Atonement means to become one with... so in effect the process of becoming perfect is part of an atonement, christ took care of the parts we literally could not be able to do or overcome ourselves. Not only was christ one with God, but brought us all to be one with God, should we accept him and follow him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People struggle with the words, but words are just feeble proxies for thoughts, used to convey mental images.

 

Another way to look at the thought associated with "perfect" is through the word "holy." Holy comes from the same Germanic word spelled in English, whole, or could be spelled wholy.

 

To be Holy is to have your whole mind focused on virtue. Jesus was "perfect" because his mind was rivited upon everything he saw his Father do. Jesus was perfect at every stage of his journey.

 

And another thought,

 

Before time immorial the word "atonement" was cooked up by the Catholic Church to assist them in the presentation of the eucharist and did not mean what we in the church use it for today. The word atonement originally meant, "that magical thing that happens at the "tone" or ringing of the bell, behind the rood screan, by a monk, when the priest turns the crackers and wine into the flesh and blood of our lord." The people sitting in the congregation while the priest is doing his incantation, and the monk is ringing the bell, wonder what it is that the priest is saying. As he says his incantation. They hear him say something in Latin that sounds like "hocus pocus" at that magical moment when that priest serves up the flesh and blood of God.

 

The point is focus on the true meaning of the words, and not the words themselves.

 

God Bless,

Darren

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have some misconceptions informing your question.

Christ didn't accomplish the atonement so that He could become perfect but so that we might become perfect.

And Christ was God before He had a perfected and glorified physical body, even before He had an imperfect and mortal body. We use the word "perfect" indiscriminately and imprecisely. Christ lived a perfect life even while in an imperfect body. Little children are perfect in that they have no sin but theirs is not the same perfection as our Heavenly Father.

And I saved the most important point for last. The atonement provided for us by Jesus is real and complete. It is all that was necessary. The idea that each of us must someday accomplish a "mini-atonement" is false and suggests that we don't understand the sacrifice that Jesus made for us. Without it we would be destroyed, victims of our own sins. With it we have the opportunity to become clean and return to the presence of our Father. That's the gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfection

...and the third day I shall be perfected. (Jesus to the Pharisees, Luke 13:32)

 

Obtaining a Resurrection

Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 346-347)

I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Phil 3:10-11)

 

Saviors

Every world has had an Adam and an Eve, named so simply because the first man is always called Adam and the first woman, Eve. And the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed and called to be the heir of the family if he does not rebel against the Father, and he is the Savior of the family. Every world that has been created has been created upon the same principle. They may vary in their varieties, yet the eternity is one: it is one eternal round. (Brigham Young, "For This Is Life Eternal," in Brigham Young Addresses, 2:230)

President Young said there never was any world created & peopled nor never would be but what would be redeemed by the shedding of the blood of the savior of that world. (Journal of Wilford Woodruff; 12 May 1867)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need a clarification on what you're looking for. I didn't see anything that needed reconciling.  It took me a long time, but I think you are concerned that "God" wasn't "perfect" prior to his mortal life? That's all I'm getting out of it.  You misunderstand the words.

 

I'll play with some of the words here and see if you can follow.

 

Look at the footnotes for "perfect" in the LDS version of the Bible.  It says the Greek translation means "complete" or "fully-developed".  Without his Eternal body, he was not complete.  Yet he was completely powerful since The Father granted him all his power.  During his earthly life, he was perfectly obedient to all of Father's commandments.  After his resurrection, he was complete and fully developed having a perfectly obedient and loving spirit with an Eternal body.

 

He was still "The greatest of all" in his pre-earth life (for obvious reasons) and in earthly life because only his soul could have withstood the torment that caused suffering both body and spirit.  And the fact that he could go through it of his own free will shows just how perfectly obedient and loving he was.  For him to suffer in the body meant he had to possess a mortal body that could feel pain.

 

And in Eternity he will be the greatest of all our Father's children -- I hope this is obvious as well.

 

There is nothing to be reconciled between these verses.  There is no contradiction.  Just don't read anything into it that isn't really there.  And look at it with a complete understanding of the context, the audience, the subject at hand, and the various meanings of the words that may seem the same or related, but really refer to different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share