Perfectionism and works

[The Nehor]

On 7/2/2024 at 7:51 AM, teddyaware said:

He’s simply saying that throughout human history there have been few societies that have understood or acknowledged that man is endowed by his Creator with the unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence. During the reign of judges the Nephites were among the very rare societal exceptions the standard, “if there are to be any individual rights at all, they are granted as special favors by imperfect human sovereigns who can take those privileges away on a whim.” It’s the Founding Father’s revelatory understanding that the rights of man come from God, not man, that testify to the fact that they were inspired by God to establish the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States as essential legally enshrined forerunners to the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. Those who minimize or belittle these sacred truths are at variance with the word of God.

They aren’t inalienable if they were taken away. I think Jefferson was being hyperbolic about this and meaning they shouldn’t be taken away. Calling them “God given” instead compounds the error. You can argue that God wants us to have these rights but saying God gave them to us makes God really weak and impotent since so few humans throughout history have had them. I worry that too often this kind of verbiage is used to bolster nationalism masquerading as piety.

[The Nehor]

On 7/1/2024 at 11:53 PM, Calm said:

A right that can be taken away does not seem that inalienable or God given to me.  If my life can be taken from me even if I don’t want it to be taken, how can it be inalienable?  Same with liberty…if it is a right, why would we have to fight for it?  If government is needed to secure something, how is it an alienable right?

The thought first occurred to me on my first visit to Russia that perhaps America would be better off if we didn’t view our “rights” as rights, but blessings, gifts…and not only from God, but also from our fellowmen (or only from the community if an atheist).  Perhaps being grateful to each other for such rather than feeling entitled to freedoms would cause us to treasure them more and work harder for them and others to benefit from.

That would make more sense. It recognizes that you can lose them and that if these rights are only arbitrarily given to some and denied to others that they are tentative for everyone.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

. I worry that too often this kind of verbiage is used to bolster nationalism masquerading as piety.

This…

[MustardSeed]

Interesting.  I wish I had seen this before I gave my talk last Sunday in which I discussed piously our inalienable hid given right to freedom.🤨 

[teddyaware]

On 7/3/2024 at 9:33 PM, The Nehor said:

They aren’t inalienable if they were taken away. I think Jefferson was being hyperbolic about this and meaning they shouldn’t be taken away. Calling them “God given” instead compounds the error. You can argue that God wants us to have these rights but saying God gave them to us makes God really weak and impotent since so few humans throughout history have had them. I worry that too often this kind of verbiage is used to bolster nationalism masquerading as piety.

They are indeed unalienable God-given rights bestow upon men through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the infinite and eternal sacrifice through which all good things and all blessings flow. And I must say your reasoning here is incredibly simplistic and faulty. If one man happens to murder another totally innocent man, thus depriving the innocent victim of his life, does this most egregious act of injustice mean that the murdered man didn’t have a right to life? And does it also mean that the perpetrator won’t inevitably have to face the law of justice because he has the right to deprive men of their lives any time he feels the impulse to do so? Of course not! Most ironically, in order for your seeming notion of unalienable rights to be able to work men would first have to be deprived of their God-given agency, which just happens to be one of the unalienable rights of man.

The prophets testify that when men deprive others of their God-given rights that those who commit these injustices will face inevitable punishment , either in this world of the world to come. Additionally, those who are victimized by the deprivation of their unalienable God-given rights will receive a full restoration of all they lost through the immutable law of divine restitution. For example, all those who were murdered during the holocaust will one day receive their lives and bodies back again, only then the quality the lives they receive and the health, vigor and viability of their bodies will be infinitely enhanced. By this means the unalienable rights of man are eternally upheld and remain everlastingly inviolate. And just in case you miss the point, this is what the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about - the law of justice and the law of mercy ultimately coming into perfect balance and harmony through Jesus Christ.

As to your last point, it’s the Lord Jesus Christ himself who testifies in the Doctrine and Covenants that the Founding Fathers were inspired by him to produce the Constitution of the United States and that the divine principle of the God-given unalienable rights of man belong to all men throughout the world, not just just to those who happen to live within the borders United States. If you want to ascribe unrighteousness to these sacred principles you have the choice to do so.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, BELONGS TO ALL MANKIND, and is justifiable before me. (as a faithful Latter-Day Saint, am I supposed to just ignore the fact that the Lord here testifies that the sacred principles contained in the Constitution belong to all mankind just to make the ‘sophisticates’ who disparage the Founding Fathers happy?)

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, WHATSOEVER IS MORE OR LESS THAN THIS COMETH OF EVIL.  (Doctrine and Covenants 98)

 

Edited July 5, 2024 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

And I must say your reasoning here is incredibly simplistic and faulty. If one man happens to murder another totally innocent man, thus depriving the innocent victim of his life, does this most egregious act of injustice mean that the murdered man didn’t have a right to life?

Um, he had a right to life and was alienated from it. So obviously his right to life was not inalienable. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

They are indeed unalienable God-given rights bestow upon men through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the infinite and eternal sacrifice through which all good things and all blessings flow. And I must say your reasoning here is incredibly simplistic and faulty. If one man happens to murder another totally innocent man, thus depriving the innocent victim of his life, does this most egregious act of injustice mean that the murdered man didn’t have a right to life? And does it also mean that the perpetrator won’t inevitably have to face the law of justice because he has the right to deprive men of their lives any time he feels the impulse to do so? Of course not! Most ironically, in order for your seeming notion of unalienable rights to be able to work men would first have to be deprived of their God-given agency, which just happens to be one of the unalienable rights of man.

The prophets testify that when men deprive others of their God-given rights that those who commit these injustices will face inevitable punishment , either in this world of the world to come. Additionally, those who are victimized by the deprivation of their unalienable God-given rights will receive a full restoration of all they lost through the immutable law of divine restitution. For example, all those who were murdered during the holocaust will one day receive their lives and bodies back again, only then the quality the lives they receive and the health, vigor and viability of their bodies will be infinitely enhanced. By this means the unalienable rights of man are eternally upheld and remain everlastingly inviolate. And just in case you miss the point, this is what the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about - the law of justice and the law of mercy ultimately coming into perfect balance and harmony through Jesus Christ.

As to your last point, it’s the Lord Jesus Christ himself who testifies in the Doctrine and Covenants that the Founding Fathers were inspired by him to produce the Constitution of the United States and that the divine principle of the God-given unalienable rights of man belong to all men throughout the world, not just just to those who happen to live within the borders United States. If you want to ascribe unrighteousness to these sacred principles you have the choice to do so.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, BELONGS TO ALL MANKIND, and is justifiable before me. (as a faithful Latter-Day Saint, am I supposed to just ignore the fact that the Lord here testifies that the sacred principles contained in the Constitution belong to all mankind just to make the ‘sophisticates’ who disparage the Founding Fathers happy?)

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, WHATSOEVER IS MORE OR LESS THAN THIS COMETH OF EVIL.  (Doctrine and Covenants 98)

It is “inalienable” not “unalienable” and this isn’t even a debate. Inalienable means something that CANNOT be taken away or given away by the possessor.

It doesn’t mean that if you take it away you will be punished immediately or later. Or that God will fix it later. That may happen but it shows the right isn’t inalienable.

Also the “inalienable rights” line is not even in the Constitution that God is praising. God did not endorse the Declaration of Independence. The individual equality and freedom idealism of the Declaration of Independence didn’t really make it into the text of the Constitution. What there is in it is mostly in the Bill of Rights.

I like the idealism of the Declaration of Independence. I find this hyperbole about rights belonging to humanity to be flawed. A lot of it comes from John Locke who had an idealistic take on how governments form with the governed and those who govern basically making a deal between them. From what we know of history government was almost always imposed. States formed primarily to increase the ability to inflict violence. To inflict violence externally to take or defend and to inflict violence internally to maintain power. The idea that it was some kind of mutual pact is a rare exception if it happened at all.

Liberalism (in the classical sense) is the idea that some individual rights should be immune to communal coercion. This didn’t come about primarily due to some kind of higher belief in human rights. It cropped up because it was practical. As the states in Europe grew and centralized they also became more diverse. Then came the Protestant reformation. The pre-modern wars of Europe over religion exhausted Europe and it became impossible for many governments to enforce the religion of their subjects. So toleration was required but still dominated politics. So the solution in many cases was to weaken the influence politics would have.

You can see the First amendment of the Constitution as a big old sign saying “NO 30 YEARS WAR!” If you can’t politically control what people say or do or worship but the government has the power to dictate to those things the result is conflict. A lot of it. Especially in large diverse populations. So the Constitution brilliantly pulled those out of the political sphere setting up a big sign telling the government not to play in this sandbox.

Liberalism works and it keeps working. In the Civil War the liberalism of the North bashed the illiberalism of the South. In World War I the autocratic powers thought they could best the more liberal powers. By the end Germany was bested, Russia’s autocracy was overthrown (with another one sadly on the way), Austria-Hungary was broken up, and the Ottoman Empire was sliced into pieces. Then the next round of ‘strong men’ showed up talking about the weakness of liberal democracies and got beaten down and had liberal democracies imposed on them. Liberal democracies work and they tend to survive. Those ‘strong men’ are not just historical cautionary tales. So the next time some strong man comes along telling everyone about how weak and decadent liberal democracies are laugh at them.

I think the Constitution is a net good for humanity. I don’t buy that the rights in it are God-given or pulled out of some Christian heritage or even yanked out of the past of “western civilization”. They came about because humanity needed them. They were useful. While Locke and others suggested they were pulling these ideas from the past they weren’t. They were projecting these ideals on a mythical past. Athens and many of the Greek city states were illiberal democracies. We have some of these today like Hungary. Rome did a better job but since citizenship was so limited the liberal aspects mostly only benefitted the aristocracy. Some European states started working in a little of this liberalism into the way they governed but the United States was the first to enshrine the ideals of liberalism into their founding. It also reveals how only a democracy can preserve these values. Enlightened despots almost always fail. Liberalism needs democracy to thrive but democracies can exist without liberalism.

Basically I love the constitution but God in that section of the D&C isn’t talking about “inalienable rights” belonging to all of humanity since the “inalienable rights” stuff isn’t in the Constitution. If you want to talk about how wonderful the Constitution is at least learn what is and is not actually in it.

[Bernard Gui]

In 3 Nephi 12, Jesus changed the wording of Mark5:48…

Quote

48 Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

Perhaps we err because we apply a modern sense to the words “perfect/perfected?”

“Perfected” in Webster’s Dictionary 1828:

Quote

Perfect

1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.

Perfected

Finished; completed.

If we substitute “finished/completed” for “perfect/perfected,” then here’s what Moroni had to say about perfection…

Quote

Moroni 10

30 And again I would exhort you that ye would come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift, and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing.

31 And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled.

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be finished/completed in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be finished/completed in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are finished/completed in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are finished/completed in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

This is the process of deification. As sinners we may choose to come unto Christ. We decide to shun evil and cleave to good. Through repentance and covenants we rise from the dust and put on beautiful new garments. Then as we come to Christ he finishes/completes us. He enables us to deny ourselves of all ungodliness so we can completely love and serve God. His grace then is sufficient to sanctify us and make us holy and spotless. We are finished and complete. We are made perfect - perfected, becoming even as He, or the Father, is. This is His work.

Edited July 6, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[why me]

To be perfect is impossible. And perfectionism and works is a losing game. I remember learning that only Jesus was perfect. And if that is the case, why try to be perfect? Just accept the imperfections and if possible try to improve in a healthy way and if not, just don't be too concerned about it. Life is very short, 

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In 3 Nephi 12, Jesus changed the wording of Mark5:48…

Perhaps we err because we apply a modern sense to the words “perfect/perfected?”

“Perfected” in Webster’s Dictionary 1828:

If we substitute “finished/completed” for “perfect/perfected,” then here’s what Moroni had to say about perfection…

This is the process of deification. As sinners we may choose to come unto Christ. We decide to shun evil and cleave to good. Through repentance and covenants we rise from the dust and put on beautiful new garments. Then as we come to Christ he finishes/completes us. He enables us to deny ourselves of all ungodliness so we can completely love and serve God. His grace then is sufficient to sanctify us and make us holy and spotless. We are finished and complete. We are made perfect - perfected, becoming even as He, or the Father, is. This is His work.

Is there any actual difference between finished and perfect in this case?

My husband is an electrical engineer and designs computer chips. Before he starts out he works with the customer what the specs are. The components will take this much room, will work in these temps, will need this much power etc.  When it meets the specs they are done/finished, but it it is in no way perfect.  In fact they may work on the chip while knowing another group of engineers in the company is working on phase 2 with the customer that can do more than phase 1 can. 

So are you saying that God is not perfect? That humans work on phase 1, but he is working on phase 2?

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Is there any actual difference between finished and perfect in this case?

My husband is an electrical engineer and designs computer chips. Before he starts out he works with the customer what the specs are. The components will take this much room, will work in these temps, will need this much power etc.  When it meets the specs they are done/finished, but it it is in no way perfect.  In fact they may work on the chip while knowing another group of engineers in the company is working on phase 2 with the customer that can do more than phase 1 can. 

So are you saying that God is not perfect? That humans work on phase 1, but he is working on phase 2?

I read it as saying finished in the ultimate sense—complete. Like “finishing a jigsaw puzzle” kind of complete. 

Edited July 6, 2024 by bluebell

[Rain]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I read it as saying finished in the ultimate sense—complete. Like “finishing a jigsaw puzzle” kind of complete. 

Yes, but is complete for God any less than perfect in church teachings?  

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes, but is complete for God any less than perfect in church teachings?  

Good question. I think the idea is that it’s more than the typical definition of perfection.  I think a lot people think of being perfect as not sinning, but Christ (who was sinless at the time) did not include Himself as having already achieved perfection in Matthew 5.

Perhaps perfection is a commandment to become complete rather than a commandment to be without sin?  In that sense it would be a commandment to follow God’s plan of salvation (which produces completion) and not a commandment to be without sin and weakness. 

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Good question. I think the idea is that it’s more than the typical definition of perfection.  I think a lot people think of being perfect as not sinning, but Christ (who was sinless at the time) did not include Himself as having already achieved perfection in Matthew 5.

Perhaps perfection is a commandment to become complete rather than a commandment to be without sin?  In that sense it would be a commandment to follow God’s plan of salvation (which produces completion) and not a commandment to be without sin and weakness. 

Doesn't that just up the stakes though? If Christ was sinless, but not complete then that means it is even tougher to get to that state.  And it's not like you can do away without the sinless part and be complete, because the whole doctrine evolves around the baptism/atonement/etc which washes makes one sinless through washing the sins away. So it steps it up to being sinless plus some thing with elevated Christ to complete.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Perhaps perfection is a commandment to become complete rather than a commandment to be without sin?

Complete could be balanced as well in this sense.   If you are balanced, you will not be unduly influenced but still open to new ideas and experiences.  You will be able to move forward at the right pace for yourself. 

Maybe complete/perfect means being who you are right now now in all your ways, not suppressing part of yourself for whatever reason or inflating another aspect. Allowing all your voices to speak in a way that connects with each other so that the sum is greater than the parts.

There are many things that are considered more beautiful, more perfect for their purpose because of their imperfections/asymmetry.  Too much perfection in symmetry or form may make something soulless….like a musical piece played technically perfect by a machine. 

Edited July 7, 2024 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

Is there any actual difference between finished and perfect in this case?

My husband is an electrical engineer and designs computer chips. Before he starts out he works with the customer what the specs are. The components will take this much room, will work in these temps, will need this much power etc.  When it meets the specs they are done/finished, but it it is in no way perfect.  In fact they may work on the chip while knowing another group of engineers in the company is working on phase 2 with the customer that can do more than phase 1 can. 

So are you saying that God is not perfect? That humans work on phase 1, but he is working on phase 2?

I don’t understand phase 1 and 2. Seems to me that it is one eternal round. How can God not be perfect?  We are not yet perfect, but when God has /finished/completed His work with us we will be like Him. IMO, finished/completed implies an intentional and directed process that has a conclusion - in this case the perfection of God’s children. The Atonement is the refining process. Godhood is the completion. “This is my work and my glory…to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” This will take time. 
 

Quote

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.
Joseph F. Smith
John R. Winder Anthon H. Lund

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints November 1909

 

Edited July 7, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, why me said:

To be perfect is impossible. And perfectionism and works is a losing game. I remember learning that only Jesus was perfect. And if that is the case, why try to be perfect? Just accept the imperfections and if possible try to improve in a healthy way and if not, just don't be too concerned about it. Life is very short, 

I don’t believe it is impossible. Moroni explained the way it is achieved. Life is eternal.  Plenty of time to get things right…if there is such a thing as time in eternity.

Edited July 7, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Good question. I think the idea is that it’s more than the typical definition of perfection.  I think a lot people think of being perfect as not sinning, but Christ (who was sinless at the time) did not include Himself as having already achieved perfection in Matthew 5.

Perhaps perfection is a commandment to become complete rather than a commandment to be without sin?  In that sense it would be a commandment to follow God’s plan of salvation (which produces completion) and not a commandment to be without sin and weakness. 

You said it better than I did.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Doesn't that just up the stakes though? If Christ was sinless, but not complete then that means it is even tougher to get to that state.  And it's not like you can do away without the sinless part and be complete, because the whole doctrine evolves around the baptism/atonement/etc which washes makes one sinless through washing the sins away. So it steps it up to being sinless plus some thing with elevated Christ to complete.

In my view the something we need is the Grace of Christ.

Christ was complete after He was resurrected and in the presence of God again. We can achieve that same state with His help.  

So we do need something else but that need doesn’t up the stakes.  It lowers them to within our reach. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Complete could be balanced as well in this sense.   If you are balanced, you will not be unduly influenced but still open to new ideas and experiences.  You will be able to move forward at the right pace for yourself. 

Maybe complete/perfect means being who you are right now now in all your ways, not suppressing part of yourself for whatever reason or inflating another aspect. Allowing all your voices to speak in a way that connects with each other so that the sum is greater than the parts.

There are many things that are considered more beautiful, more perfect for their purpose because of their imperfections/asymmetry.  Too much perfection in symmetry or form may make something soulless….like a musical piece played technically perfect by a machine. 

 

[manol]

On 6/21/2024 at 10:31 AM, JVW said:

A few years ago when I was talking with my wife about one of my addictions, God touched my heart and told me "I don't hate you, and I don't want you to hate yourself." With those words He removed my feelings of shame. I have been given a gift to be fully intentional in my life without being swayed by feelings of inadequacy. I mention this to let you know that this is a gift God can give you. He wants you to live a life being honest with him about your desires, intents, and actions.

@JVW, this is magnificent.  Thank you for sharing this with us. 

"I don't hate you, and I don't want you to hate yourself."  - God

What a wonderful message! 

You mentioned that the LDS Church is a tool which provides many tools to aid you on your quest to be one with God.  I agree.  Ime there are other tools, or other toolboxes, out there, but I have no idea which one(s) would aid you on your quest to be one with God.

Imo the fact that you are deliberately and consciously on a quest to be one with God makes your end result certain even if neither your exact path nor the timing is yet known:  You are a seeker, and so you will find. 

Edited October 26, 2024 by manol