A Different God?

[Steve Noel]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I believe there is only one God that hears and answers prayers regardless if it is an Evangelical, a Mormon, a Catholic, or any other Christian praying.  I would say that if there is a God answering anyone's prayer, regardless of religion, it is God.  There are no other gods answering prayers.  (I am excluding the concept of the devil deceiving people at this point)  

This concept of Creator - creature does not fit well within LDS theology.  On the other hand, simply stating that we are the same species requires clarification.  God has taken us and formed a spirit body for us.  Without him we could not have a spirit body.  Further, God created this world upon which we live and formed our bodies, and placed our spirits into the our bodies.  In this context, one may recognize a high degree of complimentary ideas with the Creator - creature teaching.  

We also believe that we may become joint heirs with Jesus Christ through his Atonement.  In doing so, Jesus will make us like him.  The Early Church Fathers of Catholicism taught a similar concept you have heard of I suspect called Theosis or Divinization.  These are similar concepts, but LDS theology goes further.  Through Christ we become like him, like God.  At this point we part ways with Theosis and other similar concepts of mainstream Christianity.  When we say that we are the same species this is what we are talking about.  

It is similar to a baby child that grows up to be like his parents.  However, where the human child will naturally grow to adulthood, we may only become "adults", or like God, through the grace of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for the clarification. I am in agreement that there is only one God that hears and answers prayers. I think the difficult question to answer here is at what point do we cross the line and are no longer talking about the same being? Let me illustrate. If I describe the President of the United States as a 6' 1" married African-American man, and you describe him as a 5' 4" single Caucasian man, are we talking about the same man? There is only one President, but our descriptions of him are so different that it is difficult to see how we are talking about the same man. At what point do we cross that line with God? At what point must we conclude that the other's description of God is so off that they cannot be talking about the true God?

[Steve Noel]

10 hours ago, Freedom said:

To ask if we are all worshiping the same god is like asking if, when we see someone on the horizon and we shout to them if we are all shouting out to the same person. There is only one God so it is not possible to worship anyone but Him. No matter who someone imagines in their prayers, there is only one God listening, even if they are worshiping a cow, or a stick. 

If this is the case, then why does God continually condemn idolatry? Why does God begin the "10 Commandments" with "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3, "before me" here means in front of me or in my presence)? If someone is worshiping a cow or a stick they are not worshiping God. 

[Steve Noel]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You may wish to read two authoritative declarations by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles on these issues before you make further comments...

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

Thank you for sharing these links.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

I'm no[t] so sure that this would imply that there is more than one God. Since the Bible teaches that there is one God, wouldn't the implication be that either the LDS or traditional Christians believe in a false god? A god that does not exist? 

The Bible does imply there is only one Most High El, yet it calls Jesus Elohim in Hebrews 1:8 and Psalms, and although it says there is one Lord, it tells us in Gen 3:22 that YHWH Elohim is "us." So how can this be? Are Jesus and God one YHWH? If they are one like in John 17, can we be one with them?

When Jesus shall be called the Father per Isa 9:6 is the Most High "making another" God? I would say these are questions Evangelicals ignore.  

[Steve Noel]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think the divide is very wide at all.

That being said, Evangelicals seem to attach a great deal of importance to being so completely different from God the Father that imagining any kind of real relationship with Him is quite difficult for them.  But the very scriptures that the Evangelicals so treasure make their position completely untenable.  It's a question of believing what the scriptures actually say.

One scripture that seems to support the Evangelical position is Isaiah 55:8,9:

His ways and thoughts are clearly higher than ours, but why?  Because we are fallen beings -- but if we are fallen, this means that we must have fallen from some status that is higher than what we are now.  Indeed, the two verses before 8 and 9 above say this:

It should be clear to anyone with a brain, then, that the only thing that separates us from our Eternal Parent (and why else would He ask us to call Him "Father"), is our mortality and our sins?

He will abundantly pardon because He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for our sins, (upon condition of faith, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost), and to resurrect us into immortality, thus removing the impediments that separate us from Him.

When you read Romans chapter 8 you discover what our true status once was, and can be again (Romans 8:16-19):

The important point is, of course, "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ".  How could be possibly be another species from God if we stand to inherit all that the Father has?  There is no other species upon planet earth which can claim the kind of kinship that enables inheritance!  

The contrary position, that of claiming that we are of a different species from God, denies that we could possibly inherit anything, because we are not really His children.  And in denying that relationship, the truth of the scriptures are likewise denied.  

And this seems an odd position, coming from so many denominations who with their mouths proclaim that they believe in the scriptures.  

When Joseph Smith experienced what we refer to as the First Vision, he reported that when he asked the Lord what he should do (he had intended to find out which church he should join, and had not expected a vision), he got an answer:

The key phrase here is in the last two clauses: "...having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

And what power do they deny?  Well, I'm sure the Lord was referring to many kinds of denials, but the one most pertinent to the matter you bring to our attention is this one: the power to raise us up!

Another place where we are compared, as to kind, with God, is 1 John 3:1,2:

I don't know how to say this more clearly that this: if we weren't of the same species, how could God possibly require that we refer to Him as FATHER? 

Stargazer,

There is a lot of eisegesis of the text of Scripture here. I may respond in more detail later, but I did not intend this thread to be a debate/argument on which view is correct?

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Thank you for the clarification. I am in agreement that there is only one God that hears and answers prayers. I think the difficult question to answer here is at what point do we cross the line and are no longer talking about the same being? Let me illustrate. If I describe the President of the United States as a 6' 1" married African-American man, and you describe him as a 5' 4" single Caucasian man, are we talking about the same man? There is only one President, but our descriptions of him are so different that it is difficult to see how we are talking about the same man. At what point do we cross that line with God? At what point must we conclude that the other's description of God is so off that they cannot be talking about the true God?

Steve, you pose a good question and I don't know the answer.  When I think of God I have to believe that in many ways it is a personal visualization.  I may join in a communal worship of God, sing praises to him, but to actually describe him in any meaningful way remains personal.  I expect that we may all come close in sharing similar characteristics, but our actual knowledge of God remains personal.

If we take an eternal perspective, does your description of God or my description of God provide save us?  This conversation makes me think of quote from J. Kenneth Grider, a Nazarene theologian, that I read years ago:  "All theologians bring certain doctrinal presuppositions and biases to Scripture as they seek to construct from Scripture their theologies. The true Wesleyan admits this and does not make correct doctrine a condition for salvation. We understand that if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death, we will be taken to heaven, even if our theology is off base a thousand miles. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. He is able to do this only because of the death and resurrection of the virgin-born God-man, Jesus Christ. But we do not need to believe in any given theory of the Incarnation or the Atonement in order to be forgiven through Christ." 

When we pose the question about do we worship the same God there is the obvious assumption that salvation is only open to (s)he who worships the true God.  I reject the premise because I don't believe my understanding of God saves me; my personal relationship, my knowing God and knowing the Savior saves me.  Does that make sense?  

[Steve Noel]

19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Steve, you pose a good question and I don't know the answer.  When I think of God I have to believe that in many ways it is a personal visualization.  I may join in a communal worship of God, sing praises to him, but to actually describe him in any meaningful way remains personal.  I expect that we may all come close in sharing similar characteristics, but our actual knowledge of God remains personal.

If we take an eternal perspective, does your description of God or my description of God provide save us?  This conversation makes me think of quote from J. Kenneth Grider, a Nazarene theologian, that I read years ago:  "All theologians bring certain doctrinal presuppositions and biases to Scripture as they seek to construct from Scripture their theologies. The true Wesleyan admits this and does not make correct doctrine a condition for salvation. We understand that if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death, we will be taken to heaven, even if our theology is off base a thousand miles. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. He is able to do this only because of the death and resurrection of the virgin-born God-man, Jesus Christ. But we do not need to believe in any given theory of the Incarnation or the Atonement in order to be forgiven through Christ." 

When we pose the question about do we worship the same God there is the obvious assumption that salvation is only open to (s)he who worships the true God.  I reject the premise because I don't believe my understanding of God saves me; my personal relationship, my knowing God and knowing the Savior saves me.  Does that make sense?  

This is well said. I appreciate the quote from Grider. I concur that correct doctrine is not a condition of salvation. If this was the case, then no one would be saved. For, no doubt, we all hold to some things that are incorrect. When I came to Christ I knew virtually no doctrine at all. That being said, the Bible does indicate that certain heresies can lead to apostasy (Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Jn. 4:1-3; 2 Jn. 7-11; Jude 3-19). 

[Storm Rider]

1 minute ago, Steve Noel said:

This is well said. I appreciate the quote from Grider. I concur that correct doctrine is not a condition of salvation. If this was the case, then no one would be saved. For, no doubt, we all hold to some things that are incorrect. When I came to Christ I knew virtually no doctrine at all. That being said, the Bible does indicate that certain heresies can lead to apostasy (Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Jn. 4:1-3; 2 Jn. 7-11; Jude 3-19). 

Yes, but isn't that the challenge of each disciple of Christ - to know God and to grow in that knowledge.  A disciple of Jesus Christ is a disciple of truth; all truth wherever it is found. We absolutely must constantly be in pursuit of truth and refining the knowledge we have down to its eternal truth.  It is a process of learning and relearning.  

The end result of apostasy is to move away from righteousness and holiness; in effect to lose our relationship with Jesus Christ and God the Father to such a degree that we are no longer interested in following his teachings.  We abandon God.  

Correct doctrine is what we pursue in order to strengthen us as saints, but we understand that correct doctrine or knowledge does not save us. 

[Steve Noel]

11 hours ago, danielwoods said:

For the Evangelical the divide is infinite. The difference between an infinite being (of which there is only one) and a finite being, is an infinite difference. This is why Emmanuel, God with us, is so significant. That the infinite creator God clothed himself with flesh to dwell among us, and further to dwell inside us is the greatest of all miracles in our lives. The denial of this infinite difference is seen by Evangelicals as an attempt by man to raise himself up to God's level.

Daniel, 

Thank you for adding to the discussion. I think the difficulty here is that many LDS see this as a minor or secondary issue (see Stephen Robinson's comments in How Wide the Divide?, 18-19), while many Evangelicals see this as a major or primary issue. 

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Daniel, 

Thank you for adding to the discussion. I think the difficulty here is that many LDS see this as a minor or secondary issue (see Stephen Robinson's comments in How Wide the Divide?, 18-19), while many Evangelicals see this as a major or primary issue. 

I would rather put it this way - that many LDS accept that we may not fully understand God and His oracles. While many Evangelicals like to think they do when for example as I see it, they have only gotten to 1st base, and do not understand the oracles at all. I believe the issue is important, but that does not mean that God has revealed everything about it. Rendering opinions about it as the primary issue wont change what God has revealed about Himself to date. What do Evangelicals have to offer that they have the right interpretations about God, after the Roman State Church, the Catholics and the early Protestants say other things?

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

Yes on some of the more fundamental levels, and no on some of the details. Where do you see agreement?

[Steve Noel]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I prefer getting my theology from God's word about Himself - not man. Men have a way of getting God wrong.

I provided this quote from Erickson for comparison/contrast with the quote from Stephen Robinson in the OP. I did preface these comments by Erickson by saying that prior to them he briefly makes his case for this belief from the Bible. So the theology he presents here is based on the Bible. 
 

Quote

"There will always be a difference between God and humans." Hmm. Was/is Jesus human? What gulf will there be between the Most High El, and Yahoshua when Jesus inherits all the Father has, and is called the Father per Isa 9:6?

We believe that in the incarnation Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Traditional Christians hold that these two natures were united in the one person of Christ, but that they were not mixed. 

Quote

BTW even Athanasius said the goal of a Christian was to become God - if you don't believe me, look it up in the Catholic catechism. I thought Jesus was preparing a place for us in the Father's house?

This quote from Athanasius can be misleading if not understood in context of his times and writings (See HERE). The doctrine of theosis or deification in the church fathers is not the same thing as what the LDS church usually means by this. As Storm Rider mentioned earlier, the LDS concept goes further than the view held by the fathers.

One note of interest. I have noticed that many Latter-day Saints refer to the early church fathers' teaching on theosis in support of their teaching on this.  Yet, at the same time, this period is said to be a time of Great Apostasy. Isn't this inconsistent?

This stood out to me as I read these 2 articles back-to-back the other day:

Apostasy
Becoming Like God

Edited April 1, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Storm Rider]

16 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I provided this quote from Erickson for comparison/contrast with the quote from Stephen Robinson in the OP. I did preface these comments by Erickson by saying that prior to them he briefly makes his case for this belief from the Bible. So the theology he presents here is based on the Bible. 
 

We believe that in the incarnation Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Traditional Christians hold that these two natures were united in the one person of Christ, but that they were not mixed. 

This quote from Athanasius can be misleading if not understood in context of his times and writings (See HERE). The doctrine of theosis or deification in the church fathers is not the same thing as what the LDS church usually means by this. As Storm Rider mentioned earlier, the LDS concept goes further than the view held by the fathers.

One note of interest. I have noticed that many Latter-day Saints refer to the early church fathers' teaching on theosis in support of their teaching on this.  Yet, at the same time, this period is said to be a time of Great Apostasy. Isn't this inconsistent?

This stood out to me as I read these 2 articles back-to-back the other day:

Apostasy
Becoming Like God

I think the period of the Apostasy is a fascinating period.  Some view the apostasy as a complete break with truth and the priesthood or authority of God.  (I don't want to get away from the topic and will ignore the concept of the priesthood of the believer).   I reject this; many truths - the greatest truth that Jesus was crucified and was resurrected obviously remained.  Many of the Church Fathers spoke many truths, but that does not mean they spoke all truth.  When I read them I am amazed at their wisdom and desire to serve God, but I still feel the need to be cautious, to ponder, and think on their words without accepting them blindly.  I do that will everyone.

I don't feel a conflict in reading them; quite the contrary.

I enjoy your thought process and questions.  

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). 

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

Same God, radically different paradigms.

The alleged "Christian" God is based on pagan Greek philosophy.

Ours is based on the bible and other revelations.  But that is my opinion.  I do not and cannot understand the alleged "Christian" god.

I think God is smart enough to explain himself to his children in a way that his silly stupid children could understand, not as an ineffable immaterial "substance" containing three "persons".

It is amazing to me that the EV God is based in Catholic theology from the Nicene Creed.  Pure Greek philosophy. "The Reformation" did not go far enough- that is why we needed a "restoration".  Luther was not a prophet.

"Sin boldly!"?  That is not a prophet.  Show me one other that said anything similar!

Edited April 1, 2016 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I provided this quote from Erickson for comparison/contrast with the quote from Stephen Robinson in the OP. I did preface these comments by Erickson by saying that prior to them he briefly makes his case for this belief from the Bible. So the theology he presents here is based on the Bible. 
 

We believe that in the incarnation Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Traditional Christians hold that these two natures were united in the one person of Christ, but that they were not mixed. 

I would say his theology is based upon his interpretation of the Bible. Over several thousand years, this can and did add up to a lot of interpretation. I like to always keep the ultimate source in mind, because like I have said, men have a tendency to get God wrong. I believe God left some things "open" on purpose, and that is wasn't for a minority of church bishops sitting in front of a Roman pontiff to determine for the rest of Christianity. 

Let us take your statement on "the two natures" of Christ. Perhaps you will recall that basically the whole eastern church was excommunicated by the Roman state church for maintaining Christ only has one nature - forbid!! This was not just the church in Syria - where Christians were first called Christians and the bishops should know a thing or two about Christianity, but all the Church in Persia as well which is not spoken of because they were in a different country and not part of the "state church." Do I believe Christ had a divine nature and a human nature? I believe that was an artificial distinction thought up by theologians. I believe Christ has one nature. That is a spiritual nature to follow His Father. All the other is unscriptural jargon imho made up by theologians to explain inconsistencies their theology caused. 

Quote

This quote from Athanasius can be misleading if not understood in context of his times and writings (See HERE). The doctrine of theosis or deification in the church fathers is not the same thing as what the LDS church usually means by this. As Storm Rider mentioned earlier, the LDS concept goes further than the view held by the fathers.

One note of interest. I have noticed that many Latter-day Saints refer to the early church fathers' teaching on theosis in support of their teaching on this.  Yet, at the same time, this period is said to be a time of Great Apostasy. Isn't this inconsistent?

This stood out to me as I read these 2 articles back-to-back the other day:

Apostasy
Becoming Like God

It wasn't just Athanasius, but a lot of early Church leaders who said things like this. I believe Jesus came to show the way to the holiest of all, but that Athanasianism began to hide that way, and still does because Christians busily tell themselves they cannot be like God, and indeed it is wrong of them to think so, when scripture says they should. Who exactly is the godly seed that He looks for? Why is He an El of elohim? Who exactly are those Elohim? see Ps 82 and John 

As for the apostasy, I do not place it at the time the apostles died. I believe it basically started with the rise of Athanasius' state church when he went running to Constantine to decide a theological issue, and it was definitely under full swing when the state church received a mandate to read all the creeds in the churches so that anyone who vocally disagreed could be kicked out. By the time the office of Pontifex Maximus switched over to the Roman bishop, the apostasy had become fact and revelation was being fulfilled, but this was sometime later. Anyway I don't view the teachings of the early church leaders on theosis as an apostate teaching. Nor most of the church teachings at that time as apostate. I think there is always some apostasy in the church. IMHO the "great apostasy" began with the rise of the state church.  

[Steve Noel]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Same God, radically different paradigms.

The alleged "Christian" God is based on pagan Greek philosophy.

Ours is based on the bible and other revelations.  But that is my opinion.  I do not and cannot understand the alleged "Christian" god.

I think God is smart enough to explain himself to his children in a way that his silly stupid children could understand, not as an ineffable immaterial "substance" containing three "persons".

It is amazing to me that the EV God is based in Catholic theology from the Nicene Creed.  Pure Greek philosophy. "The Reformation" did not go far enough- that is why we needed a "restoration".  Luther was not a prophet.

"Sin boldly!"?  That is not a prophet.  Show me one other that said anything similar!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. It is interesting that you have very strong convictions about where Evangelicals are wrong in their perspective on God and yet you do not believe they worship a different God. 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I would rather put it this way - that many LDS accept that we may not fully understand God and His oracles. While many Evangelicals like to think they do when for example as I see it, they have only gotten to 1st base, and do not understand the oracles at all. I believe the issue is important, but that does not mean that God has revealed everything about it. Rendering opinions about it as the primary issue wont change what God has revealed about Himself to date. What do Evangelicals have to offer that they have the right interpretations about God, after the Roman State Church, the Catholics and the early Protestants say other things?

The primary / secondary distinction with regards to the nature of God comes from LDS scholar Stephen Robinson. Evangelicals would actually agree with you that we may not fully understand God and His oracles. THIS article from Reformed Evangelical scholar R.C. Sproul will give you a better understanding of where we stand on this.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes on some of the more fundamental levels, and no on some of the details. Where do you see agreement?

This is a good question. I am not sure where I see agreement at this time. I am still working on getting an accurate grasp of the LDS viewpoint. Much of the language is the same when Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals speak about God, but we often understand the meaning of the language differently. In his "Introduction" LDS scholar Stephen Robinson makes this point:

"Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals generally employ the same theological terms, but we usually define them differently, and this quite often makes communication more difficult than if we spoke different religious languages entirely" (How Wide the Divide?, 13).

[snowflake]

16 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). 

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

Different Gods.

LDS: Many gods, Body of flesh and bones, god was once a man, matter is eternal not crated by God.

Christians: One God, God is spirit, God has always ben God. Time, space and matter created by God.

Not sure how we can possibly be calling them the same.  

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Different Gods.

LDS: Many gods, Body of flesh and bones, god was once a man, matter is eternal not crated by God.

Christians: One God, God is spirit, God has always ben God. Time, space and matter created by God.

Not sure how we can possibly be calling them the same.

Because the attributes you list are attributed to the same being.

Still one God, even if LDS or traditional Christians get a couple of attributes wrong.
LDS - God is like a glorified man  / Christians - God is an incomprehensible spirit
Still talking about the same being.

Edited April 1, 2016 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

This is a good question. I am not sure where I see agreement at this time. I am still working on getting an accurate grasp of the LDS viewpoint. Much of the language is the same when Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals speak about God, but we often understand the meaning of the language differently. In his "Introduction" LDS scholar Stephen Robinson makes this point:

"Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals generally employ the same theological terms, but we usually define them differently, and this quite often makes communication more difficult than if we spoke different religious languages entirely" (How Wide the Divide?, 13).

When I ask, "Where do you see agreement?", I'm asking about your current personal experience. It could take forever to get an "accurate grasp" of any viewpoint!

I think John 3:16 is a good example of agreement: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The same God loves everyone, gave His Son for everyone, etc.

[RevTestament]

52 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

The primary / secondary distinction with regards to the nature of God comes from LDS scholar Stephen Robinson. Evangelicals would actually agree with you that we may not fully understand God and His oracles. THIS article from Reformed Evangelical scholar R.C. Sproul will give you a better understanding of where we stand on this.

TBH I have not read Robinson, but my guess is what he is saying is that we do not have to understand everything about God to be saved. That what is primarily important is that we are saved, and choose to follow God as best we can - according to our best understanding. I have no issue with that.

Thanks for the link. I rather disagree with the concept tho. What he seems to be really saying is that we believe this about God, and yeah it is incomprehensible, and that is the way it is....

I don't believe that. Rather, I believe things like:

 Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

When one is at the milk stage, they do not understand nor see the oracles of God. See Heb 5. I don't believe God is incomprehensible as your link suggests. I believe He revealed Himself in His Son, our Savior, and that as the Jews looked upon Him, they were seeing what the Father would do were He here. When you think about that, it is actually quite profound. It was Jesus who opened the meaning of the Word to man. I suggest man has yet to quite grasp that. I believe when one understands Jesus, His atonement, etc, one will understand the Father fairly well, and that He is not incomprehensible - but that always seems to sound good to claim that God is incomprehensible. Despite God telling man that man did not understand Him, He is not incomprehensible IMHO

Edited April 1, 2016 by RevTestament

[Ahab]

The answer is both yes and no, I think, depending upon an individual "evangelical" vs individual "lds" perspective of who and what God is. 

I was once considered to be evangelical, for example, before I joined the COJCOLDS, and I did come to believe some things as a "Mormon" that I did not believe as an evangelical.  That God (the Father) is literally our Father, for one thing, rather than just in some sort of symbolic sense. And that he as our Father created our spirits as his children rather than as some kind of being other than the kind he is.  As an evangelical I had not believed that so literally and it would have been considered wrong in evangelical circles to think of him as the same kind of being we are.  Even with qualifiers to describe him as more perfect than we are now.

So, yes, for me at least,  it was as if I was learning about some other kind of God when I became a "Mormon", even though many of the ideas I had as an evangelical still applied.  I still believed Jesus was pretty much as I had come to believe in him. The first born of our Father in the spirit, and the only begotten son in the (mortal) flesh, through Mary.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. It is interesting that you have very strong convictions about where Evangelicals are wrong in their perspective on God and yet you do not believe they worship a different God. 

Perhaps you do not understand what I mean by "paradigm". 

Yes it is a different God if you want to see it that way.  All we have to communicate with are words and descriptions.  A different description makes one thing a "sofa" and another a "couch".  A table is a table until you use it as a desk then, then it is a desk.  A pyramid from the side is a triangle, from the bottom, it is a square.  Are squares and triangles the "same thing"?  Yet a pyramid can be both seen from different perspectives.  Of course you know the parable of the blind men and the elephant, I presume 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Is Quantum physics a "different physics" than Newtonian physics?  Same phenomenon, different descriptions, different ways of seeing the world.

But that is the correspondence theory for you.  Correspondence by definition tells us that there is a world out there no one can experience.  But words do not "correspond" to reality, they ARE reality for all we can speak of.  All we have is words, nothing more.

Try to a describe the wordless world with words.  That is what would be required for "correspondence" to be true.

I have had direct experience of God and I know he is not out there in a world which cannot be experienced.  I talk to him and he talks to me.  Words cannot possibly "correspond" to "God".

If it makes you feel better to say Mormons worship a different God, go ahead.  I can go with that if you like.  I do not like being called a "christian" since the word has been co-opted.  Take your pick- both are right, neither is right.  False dichotomy. Apples and oranges. 

Edited April 1, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Because the attributes you list are attributed to the same being.

Still one God, even if LDS or traditional Christians get a couple of attributes wrong.
LDS - God is like a glorified man  / Christians - God is an incomprehensible spirit
Still talking about the same being.

LOL

Oh gosh I had not seen this!

Glad to know we are agreed on this.  But not surprising