The idea of God is quite different in the two theologies. Trinitarians worship a God who is all-powerful, everywhere present, and who is all-knowing. He is unfathomable. We embrace the mystery, and find comfort in a God who is so completely awesome. He alone is eternal, and while He may grant us an exaltation, we can never imagine to be other than his loyal creation, grateful to serve our Creator.
I think that's awesome. I completely understand your humility and devotion.
The LDS Godhead, while very very powerful, very very knowing, and, I suppose in a sense, omnipresent, is less distinct. After all, do you not rejoice that you are his literal offspring? And, while not technically Scripture, would you deny Lorenzo Snow's famous line: As God once was, man is. As God is, man shall become. Addition, the teaching that we have an eternal premortal existence also diminishes the distinction between God and man.
So, to be over simple, and share my impression, the LDS version seems to exalt man and humble God. God progresses. He changes. He is simply further along than we are. It could even be suggested that God is simply more advanced in his evolution than we are.
Is that God God? Well, He is certainly distinguished for the Trinitarian God.
Thanks for your point of view. It appears that the "idea of God" is indeed quite different in your own mind, as far as these attributes are concerned. In your view, God the Father (in LDS theology) is NOT omnipresent, omniscient, nor omnipotent. And this is where I believe that you do not understand fully my faith, for I do believe that He most certainly is those things. In that respect, I make
no distinction whatever between the God in Trinity and the God of my faith. Interesting.
Your view that the LDS God (the Father) changes is also interesting. You see, I do not understand that He changes. He is God. He does not change. His laws will not change. His attirbutes will not change. His mercy will not change. His justice will not change. Nothing about
Him will change. And the "progression" spoken of is not that of increasing in intelligence, for He knows all. It is not increasing in power, for He has all power. It is nothing more than the adding to Himself of glory upon glory eternally, through the exaltation of his creation (man). I don't see how that could possibly be construed as man exalting himself at the expense of God. God exalts man because it is His will to do so, by which He adds glory to Himself.
There will never be a diminishing of Him in any way. So, I ask now, how is He truly less than God (or less than the God in Trinity?) They are each omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, from the point of view of their respective worshipers. The only difference I see here is that, in spite of the fact that I understand the two ideas of God to be different, I believe that the God in Trinity is equal to the God of my faith in all those attributes, whereas you see "my" God as powerful, yet lacking.
And yes, I believe the words of Lorenzo Snow, and of Joseph Smith, who actually taught the concept prior to Pres. Snow. The idea that God the Father was not always God the Father in no way alters the fact that He
is God the Father. How could it? How does that lessen what He
IS. I am a full-grown man. I used to be a child. My childhood cannot possibly take away my manhood. I will never, from here on out, ever be anything but a full-grown man. It is not possible. So am I not truly a man because I was once a child? Is my intelligence or capacity somehow lessened because of that past? Please don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to get you to believe this or accept it. I'm trying to help you see that WE don't believe God to be something less than you believe God to be, on the basis of our differing understanding of his substance.
Every believer must certainly use the discernment God has granted, and seek added insight from the Holy Spirit. I would not begrudge you that.
I would not expect you to.
Well it does create distance, doesn't it.
Only if we choose to make it so. My guess is that, barring a few obvious distinctions, you could take a sincere Mormon and a sincere Trinitarian, view their lives from a distance, and see mostly great similarities in their works and devotions. Their fruits would indicate that they were both disciples of Christ. And yet perhaps far too much effort is devoted, by the adherents of all Christian faiths, toward diminishing the goodness of the others, magnifying their supposed errors, maligning their chosen leadership, and estranging their common God.
Here, we discuss the LDS Godhead in the Unorthodox Theologies section. Over at LDS.net, the Trinity is being discussed in the "Christian Beliefs" section--as distinguished from "LDS Gospel Discussion." I won't refuse godly conversation within any God-seeker. So theological differences do not have to cause a break in fellowship. I rather like the phrase that Robert Millet and Greg Johnson came up with--"Convicted conversation." It's certainly possible to disagree vigorously, and yet remain civil, measured, and even compassionate. Intentionality is key.
Of course. I engage in these discussions because I believe that all Christians are my brothers in Christ. I understand why men classify and categorize. I do it as well. But I don't do it for the sake of classification, but rather, like you, for distinction. For "he that is not against us is on our part."
Blessings to you.
