All Activity

That’s a great question—and honestly, it hits at the heart of what matters most: Who is God, and do I trust Him enough to follow Him even when things unfold differently than I expected? Like you, I’ve experienced the Spirit’s voice and the work of Christ’s atonement in my life—and that’s something I can’t deny. At the same time, your approach reminds me of something I’ve wrestled with for a while now. I’ve noticed that where I felt spiritually stuck or burdened within the LDS framework—especially around the doctrine of exaltation—some of my LDS friends have thrived. That contrast really stands out to me. My experience led to a kind of transactional view of God where I constantly felt like I had to perform to contribute to His glory, and grace always seemed just out of reach. But I’ve watched others live with genuine joy, trust, and grace—even within the same doctrinal system. It’s made me wonder: Was I taking things too literally? Were others interpreting them more symbolically or flexibly? And if so, why didn’t that happen for me? And how many others in the LDS Church are more in the camp I was in? Your perspective reflects that kind of freedom—of recognizing what matters most and not getting wrapped up in the rest. And while my own journey has taken me into a different theological understanding—one where God’s glory is already complete and not dependent on me—I have respect for those like you who have found peace and grace without needing to untangle every doctrinal thread. Thanks for sharing that.

A question I like to think about in conversations like this: If you get to heaven and discover, to your shock, that it's glory as instead of glory with, will you lose your faith, refuse to bend your knee or embrace your Savior, and request to go elsewhere? My answer to those sorts of questions is basically to not get wrapped up in it in the first place. I recognize the voice of the spirit, I have felt the atonement work in me. The rest of it is just details.

The mirror analogy is a helpful way to think about it—especially the idea that mirrors reflect less light than they receive because some is always absorbed or scattered. That fits well with the idea that God receives and delights in imperfect reflections, not because they increase His glory, but because of the joy they bring to those reflecting Him, by grace. Your mention of reflection and light also reminded me of 1 Corinthians 15:40–41, often cited in LDS theology to support the idea of varying degrees of post-mortal glory—celestial (like the sun), terrestrial (like the moon), and telestial (like the stars). In its original biblical context (as I've come to understand it), Paul was contrasting earthly and heavenly bodies to emphasize the future transformation of the resurrected body—its glory, incorruption, and power. I’ve always found it interesting—and a bit strange—that the terrestrial kingdom is associated with the glory of the moon, even though the moon has no light of its own. It’s placed above the telestial glory of the stars, many of which are distant suns producing their own light. The moon only reflects the sun’s light. That imagery actually ties back to this whole conversation: even a lesser glory still participates in radiance, but it doesn’t generate it—it reflects it. Whether one reads that passage metaphorically or doctrinally, it underscores how dependent we are on the true source of light.

Yes, I appreciate the dialog also. Expanding creations that reflect His complete or perfect glory back to Him thus add to His glory, even though, using the mirror analogy again, mirrors can only reflect less light than reaches them, since some light is always absorbed or scattered. This is where grace comes in: He receives and delights in the imperfect mirrors' reflections (as in those through which we see darkly) because of the joy He knows they experience.

I really appreciate you taking the time to dig into the text. You raise some valid points about the literary structure of Hebrew poetry, especially how parallelism functions in verses like Isaiah 42:8. I agree—it's emphasizing that God alone is worthy of worship and devotion, not idols. The “glory” and “praise” He won’t give to another is clearly set against the backdrop of idolatry. So yes, context matters, and I respect that you highlighted it. Where we may still differ is in how we understand the implications of that glory—both in who it belongs to and how it is shared. I absolutely believe that we are being transformed “from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18)—that’s the beauty of sanctification and the Spirit’s work in us. But I would argue that even as we are transformed into Christ’s image, we are not absorbing or sharing in His divine glory in essence, but rather reflecting it more fully. It's the glory of Christ being formed in us (Gal. 4:19), not an ontological elevation of our own being into godhood. This is where I see a distinction between biblical glorification (Romans 8:30) and the concept of exaltation as taught in LDS theology. The former is about being conformed to the image of the Son, sharing in His victory, His inheritance, His resurrection life—but never becoming gods in the same sense He is God. The latter seems to move into an ontological transformation that shares not just His glory, but His divinity. That’s where Isaiah 42:8 still carries weight for me: there is something about God’s unique majesty—His kabod—that He does not delegate or distribute. As for “glory added upon our heads forever and ever”—I understand that language from the King Follett discourse or D&C may sound similar to Paul's writings, but they’re built on different theological foundations. Paul’s vision of glory is always derivative, always dependent, always pointing us back to Christ as the source and sustainer. It’s glory with, not glory as.

That’s adorable bro.

You're right: I’ve cited Isaiah 42:8 a few times because for me it became a kind of theological anchor as I wrestled with competing views of God’s glory. “I am the Lord, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another” pointed me to the idea that God's glory is not shared in the sense of distributed deity, but rather revealed and reflected by creation, never diminished or augmented by it. The tension I struggled with wasn’t primarily about exaltation as a metaphor or our future inheritance—Romans 8 is glorious, and I believe every word of it. In Christ, we are adopted into God’s family, called co-heirs, and promised glorification. But what I came to see is that this glorification is always derivative—it's a sharing in Christ's glory, not a becoming gods in the ontological sense. That’s the distinction I couldn't reconcile with LDS theology, especially when paired with D&C 132:20, which speaks of becoming "gods... then shall they be gods, because they have no end." In that framing, it seemed to me that God’s glory increased with our exaltation—that He in some way benefited from our progression. And that’s what seemed to clash with the God described in Isaiah 42:8 and passages like Acts 17:25, which emphasizes that God is not “served by human hands, as though he needed anything.” I hear what you're saying about different people moving in different directions spiritually over time—I've seen that too. And you're right: argument rarely changes hearts. But honest dialogue sometimes does, even if only by planting a seed or helping someone feel less alone in their questioning. That’s what threads like this mean to me. As for my username, my 8-year-old daughter actually came up with it last week when she accidentally said “fiddle tenders” instead of “chicken tenders.” I thought it was so funny, and I ended up writing it down—and when I created this account, I decided to use it.

Well, let's take a look at these verses: Forgive me, but it certainly sounds like "glory added upon our heads forever and ever." So, why are you find it objectionable? Context matters. That last phrase which you ignored gives a new perspective to the verse, does it not? The "glory" spoken of here is not the vague notion of power or radiating light. It is the worship/love/devotion that we offer to the Lord and none else. We do not worship idolatrous gods. It may take some understanding of the Hebrew writing style. But phrases like this are used by repeating the same idea in different words to clarify & emphasize. If that is the meaning of glory (you brought up the citation) then it CAN increase as more people worship Him.

These flow charts reflect how different belief systems—both inside and outside the LDS Church—shaped my view of God, grace, and growth. This is just my personal experience, not a judgment on anyone else’s relationship with God. I know many sincere followers of Jesus within the LDS faith, and I’m not questioning their hearts or salvation. I’m simply sharing how these teachings influenced me, and how my understanding of God shifted over time. Belief: God's Glory Increases Based on Our Input (How I Experienced LDS Exaltation Theology) God’s glory is not complete → Belief that His glory grows as His children are exalted. (Doctrine & Covenants 132:19–20; Moses 1:39) God benefits from our exaltation → Our obedience and progression are seen as contributing to His glory. Our obedience becomes necessary for His gain → Emphasis on temple covenants, worthiness, callings, and personal righteousness. Relationship with God becomes transactional → We perform to uphold our end and progress toward godhood. Creates pressure to perform and prove worthiness → Leads to spiritual exhaustion, perfectionism, and shame. Grace becomes overshadowed by works → Faith is claimed, but practically, merit drives spiritual identity. Belief: God’s Glory Is Fully Complete and Unchanging (What I Came to See in Biblical Theology) God is eternally, completely glorious → His glory is not dependent on us. (Isaiah 6:3; Habakkuk 2:14) He invites us into relationship—not out of need, but love → Relationship is initiated by God’s grace, not our performance. Relationship is based on grace, not merit → We are loved before we obey, not because we obey. We obey out of love, not to earn exaltation → Obedience flows from a transformed heart (John 15:5). God’s unchanging glory anchors our identity → We rest in His sufficiency, not our striving. Grace transforms and frees us to grow → The pressure to perform is replaced with joyful dependence on Christ.

Never ask a question you don’t want the answer to. 😜 (just playing)

I see you've cited Isaiah 42:8 a couple of times now. After trying hard to follow your argument about how LDS exaltation somehow violates what's laid down there, I still don't see it. Isaiah's statement is indeed profound, but then, so is as Romans 8:16-17: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." The notion of exaltation is little more than the notion that we should read the scriptures a tad more literally than trinitarian creedal Christianity does. I figure Paul meant what he said here, and so does the Spirit. We are not just broken creations reliant on our Creator's grace, we are the literal offspring of deity. Our Father in heaven is literally just that - our Father. And children grow up. I am totally fine that you and yours see things differently. Very happy to share this earth with folks who think different thoughts than I about the nature of God and our relationship to Him. I don't see the point in arguing who is right or wrong, whose concept is more or less supported, more or less refuted with this or that scripture. In the decades I've been paying attention to the debate, I've almost never seen anyone budge from their opinion based on argumentation or apologetics. I've seen faiths evolve and beliefs change over time, and I've witnessed people starting in one camp and experiencing a huge growth in spiritual understanding and end up in the other camp. And I've seen them pass each other on such journeys. You're not my first "I started LDS and then grew my way into trinitarian Christianity" person I've met. And I've also met plenty of "I started some other kind of Christian or Jew and then grew my way into the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" people. If there's going to be a winner before Christ's second coming, I doubt it will occur based on discussions such as the one you've started in this thread. After all, people have been having variations of this discussion for almost 200 years, and matters haven't been settled. This isn't exactly logarithmic growth where we can plot a point where every human is converted. But it is certainly a firm statement that we've heard the best creedal Christianity has to offer, evaluated your best arguments about the nature of God, and every year more and more of us find better answers, more in line with what the Spirit witnesses to us, in the Church of Jesus Christ. Glad you're here @fiddle tenders. What is a fiddle tender, anyway? Someone who plays with their chicken tenders, or someone who takes care of a musical instrument, or something else?

Thanks for clarifying—that helps me better understand where you're coming from. I can see how, in your view, God’s glory expands through creation in a way that deepens or enriches His own being, even as it remains an unchanging attribute. I still lean toward seeing that expansion as creation reflecting His already-complete glory rather than adding to it. I appreciate the dialogue—it’s given me a lot to think about.

I see the expansion of His glory through the creative action as gaining more glory in Himself, no matter the extent to which those creations can and do choose to be redeemed. I also see His glory as an unchanging condition or attribute, in that Jesus’ Intercessory Prayer was not the first time He experienced the eternal oneness Jesus prepared for us.

I appreciate how you’re drawing on John 17 to emphasize union with God as a framework for understanding the increase of glory—not merely as perception, but as something deeply relational and participatory. That image of mirrors reflecting more light back to the source is a compelling metaphor. It captures something beautiful about the communal nature of glorifying God together. I think where I still find myself wrestling is in the distinction between God's glory as revealed to us versus God's glory as inherent to His being. I agree that God's glory is relationally experienced and that our unity with Him magnifies that glory in the world—just as Jesus prayed that we would be one so “that the world may believe” (John 17:21). In that sense, glory spreads, expands, and is increasingly displayed. But I still hesitate to say that God’s own glory increases ontologically—even as our awareness, participation, and worship of Him does. From my perspective, when every knee bows and every tongue confesses, it’s not that God gains more glory in Himself, but that creation finally recognizes and reflects the glory that has always existed fully in Him (Habakkuk 2:14, Isaiah 6:3). Your interpretation of kabod as the manifested presence of God is how I understand it—the sense of “weight” and “heaviness” certainly conveys awe and reverence. I agree that this weight has an effect—it shapes us, draws us, humbles us. And I can see how one might say that as more of us respond rightly, the “glory dynamic” in the cosmos changes. I suppose I’d just frame it as the reverberation of God’s unchanging glory echoing more loudly through a redeemed creation, rather than as the glory itself increasing. Still, I love what you said about the holy relationship evolving into gratitude, love, and worship. That resonates deeply. And while we may nuance these things a bit differently, I’m grateful for the way this conversation continues to refine my thinking and remind me of the beauty of God’s relational heart.

I think that as our awareness and participation in His glory increases, His glory increases, which is His nature as we become one. This is one of the takeaways I get from John 17. An analogy might be that many mirrors reflect more light back to the source than one mirror. As you pointed out, glory is part of God's eternal nature. The other aspects of His eternal nature allow for and generate quantitative and qualitative increase in this glory. My understanding of the Hebrew word "kabod" [ https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3519/kjv/wlc/0-1/ ] is that it often refers to the manifested presence of the glory of God, literally meaning "weight" or "heaviness," to convey the idea of Someone being weighty, impressive, or deserving of honor and respect ("doxa" being the Greek attempt to convey the same). Us modern folk often think of glory as power (including brightness, might, beauty), dominion and so forth. In God's case and from where we stand in relation to Him, His "kabod" is absolute, irresistibly drawing our honor and respect (e.g., "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess"), our resurrection from the grave and desire for forgiveness. These feelings and thoughts of honor and respects evolve into gratitude, love, adoration and worship as the holy relationship develops. Some may resist these things in this life, at some point no one will be able to. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Thanks for taking the time to respond and for raising these questions. I agree that definitions matter. And I also agree that some theological discussions become muddied when we don’t take the time to clarify the terms we’re using. That’s partly why I wrote what I did: to process the implications of specific doctrines and the language used around them, both scripturally and culturally within LDS teaching. To respond to some of your points: 1. “Become a god” in LDS scripture You're right—the exact phrase “become a god” isn’t used verbatim in LDS scripture. But the doctrine of exaltation is unmistakably taught. D&C 132:19–20, which I quoted, states that those who are exalted “shall be gods… because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” The same doctrine is affirmed in numerous General Conference talks, official manuals, and statements by past and present prophets and apostles. So while the phrase may not appear as-is, the idea is clearly there—that faithful Latter-day Saints can be exalted to godhood, receive divine power, and participate in eternal increase. For those of us raised in the Church, the concept of “becoming a god” is not a strawman—it’s a lived doctrine. 2. What does it mean to “be a god”? That’s precisely part of the theological tension I’m highlighting. LDS teaching tends to describe exaltation as inheriting godlike attributes—power, dominion, and eternal posterity. But biblically, there is only one eternal, uncreated God. Any notion of humans becoming “gods”—even subordinate ones—pushes against the fundamental biblical claims about God’s uniqueness, glory, and self-sufficiency (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8; 46:9). If LDS exaltation teaches that we will be gods under God, then it raises questions: What distinguishes the uncreated God from His creations who eventually become gods themselves? 3. What is the glory of God? Can it be shared or taken? Biblically, God’s glory refers to His intrinsic, infinite worth and majesty—His holiness, power, beauty, and presence. It’s something He reveals and expresses, but it is not dependent on creation. We reflect His glory (2 Corinthians 3:18), but we do not contribute to or expand it in essence. Isaiah 42:8 says, “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another.” That’s a profound statement. God does not relinquish or divide His glory—He reveals it to us, and we reflect it back to Him through worship and obedience. But we do not become partakers of it in the ontological sense that LDS exaltation seems to suggest. The biblical narrative is clear: God’s glory is complete, not because it’s shared, but because it overflows—not to benefit Himself, but to bless us. 4. The importance of semantics You made an insightful point about wordplay and false dilemmas (like the “rock so big” analogy). I completely agree that not all grammatically sound questions are logically or theologically sound. But I would also say that real-world implications often flow from how systems define and teach core doctrines, even if those systems couch them in nuanced or metaphorical language. The LDS teaching of exaltation—as broadly understood—does have practical and theological implications. It impacts how people see their relationship with God, the nature of grace, and the purpose of obedience. That’s why I raise the tension: not to play semantic games, but because the idea of contributing to God’s glory through personal exaltation has consequences on how we view God's character, His sufficiency, and our dependence on grace. In the end, I’m not trying to “win” a theological argument. I’m simply working through the implications of what I used to believe, in light of what I now see in Scripture. We may land in different places, and I’m grateful for meaningful dialogue that challenges assumptions and presses us toward clarity. Thanks again for engaging.

I think we’re both trying to express something quite nuanced, and I see where our perspectives overlap and where they diverge. I agree with you that there are both qualitative and quantitative aspects to how God’s glory is perceived and revealed, especially in creation. Scripture absolutely supports that He numbers the stars (Psalm 147:4), that His delight in His people is real (Zephaniah 3:17), and that His glory is revealed in different ways at different times—such as in the transfiguration or through prophetic visions. In that sense, I can understand your point that the manifestation of His glory can increase, particularly as it becomes more visible or relationally experienced through His creation. Where I think we still differ, as you noted, is in the distinction between manifested glory and essential glory. For me, when Scripture speaks of God’s glory as part of His eternal nature—His kabod, His doxa—it’s not simply about expression or perception. It’s intrinsic. It’s who He is. That’s why I equate “glory” in this context with His nature—because Scripture often speaks of His glory as inseparable from His holiness, majesty, perfection, and presence. So to say His glory increases in any essential sense would, to me, suggest a change in His being—something Scripture affirms does not happen (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). That said, I completely respect that you differentiate “nature” and “glory,” and I now better understand your framing—that His nature doesn’t change, but His glory can increase in terms of relationship and expression. I just continue to hold that what increases is our awareness and participation in His glory, not His glory itself. I also appreciated your point about subjective experience—that our relationship with God, and how we perceive His glory through the Spirit, can vary and grow. I wholeheartedly agree with that. Our relationship with Him is dynamic, and the way He reveals Himself can meet us uniquely depending on where we are in our journey. That’s part of what makes walking with Him so beautiful. I also hear your encouragement to hold on to the light I’ve received, and I thank you for that. I really have found that the more I’ve come to know Jesus—not just as a theological concept but as a person—the more I’ve discovered grace to be bigger than I ever imagined growing up. And while our frameworks may differ, I genuinely believe these kinds of conversations help us refine our views and sharpen each other as fellow seekers of truth. Grateful again for the respectful dialogue.

A few questions to consider: Where in LDS scripture is the phrase "become a god" found? (Hint: Nowhere) What does it mean to "be a god"? If it makes a difference, capitalize the G before answering. In what sense are we expected to become as God is? What does that mean, exactly? What is the glory of God? Can God's glory be shared? Can it be taken by another? What is the difference between God's glory and God's honor? What exactly was the rebellious Satan trying to take from God? Describe a scenario where such a thing (procuring God's honor by taking it from Him) even makes sense, not merely semantically, but philosophically. As with many seemingly "deep" questions, this issue cannot even be addressed until we define our verbal tokens sufficiently that we can manipulate them in a rational way. Once we sufficiently define those tokens such that the situation they describe becomes meaningful, the answer is likely to reveal itself in a pretty straightforward manner. Until then, we cannot even know if the question has any real-world meaning. "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" makes perfect sense grammatically, but not semantically. It proposes a meaningless situation that exists only because of wordplay and the rules of grammar, then demands we take that situation seriously. But we cannot, because it is not a serious situation. It is meaningless, like "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". (For further development of this particular part of investigating the topic, see Gõdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter. Seriously, if you're willing to put the effort in, you'll learn a great deal.) As a general life rule, I believe that many of our questions can be approached only after we grasp the fundamental elements of those questions, not merely in a grammatical sense, but semantically, epistemologically, and hermeneutically. Until then, we are small children pondering how to solve a differential equation. We're just scrawling crude pictures on a whiteboard covered with equations, carelessly and vacuously kicking words around without actually addressing anything meaningful.

I am also saying that His creations, and so this aspect of His glory, also increases. There are quantitative (His numbered creations, e.g., Psalms 147:4) and qualitative (His delight) aspects to His glory. We can use semantics to say His glory does not change, and also that it does, depending on context and personal frame of reference. The teachings of the Church offer both contexts. For me, this does not imply an incompleteness in His nature but the perfect balance of eternal glory within His nature consistent with the reconciling Atonement of Christ that was set from before the foundation of the world. Christ appeared in various degrees of glory in the transfiguration, His daily life and crucifixion, His resurrected appearance to many and in suddenly appearing to the eleven, in His His ascension and as Stephen and Paul saw him. We have the Old Testament examples as well, seen by prophets in the flesh and in vision. The “essence of God’s glory,” which I take to mean the inherent, infinite beauty, worth, and grandeur stemming from all His perfections of course does not change in that the word “glory” does not change, except when a particular subjective context or paradigm changes its meaning. This is where the relationship with God and the Gift of the Holy Ghost are essential: the relationship is subjective and something we can only experience within ourselves and try our best to describe and show outwardly. The framework you have embraced, which you describe as biblical, is contained within the Church’s teachings that recognize the same distinctions but do not render them mutually exclusive. Whatever framework you grew up in, I encourage you to hold on to the light you have since received as it will lead you to greater light. ETA: I just realized you equate "glory" with "nature" -- I do not see God's nature changing but I do not equate "nature" with "glory". His nature is glorious by accommodating glory in the ways I described.

I agree with you that there are mysteries about God’s nature that we won’t fully grasp in this life. With that said, I think it’s still important to explore what Scripture has revealed, and to weigh these ideas against the character and attributes of God as presented in the Bible. For example, when the Bible says God is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8), and that He is “perfect” (Matthew 5:48), “all-sufficient” (Acts 17:24–25), and that “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Romans 11:36), it paints a picture of a God who is not growing, increasing, or becoming more glorious—but rather, a God who already is the fullness of glory itself. The LDS concept of God’s glory expanding through His children may seem intuitive—especially from a family-centered view—but it introduces the idea that God’s nature somehow improves or grows based on our performance or progression. That stands in tension with the biblical view that God’s glory is unchanging, not dependent on anything outside of Himself. So while I agree that we’re finite beings exploring infinite realities, I don’t think we’re left in the dark entirely. Scripture gives us anchors—truths that can guide how we think about even the most mysterious attributes of God. And from a biblical perspective, God’s glory isn’t something that increases because of us. Rather, we are invited to reflect and witness His glory, not contribute to it. Again, I’m thankful for the thoughtful way you’re participating in this conversation. It's worth diving into.

I appreciate the clarity and care in how you’re explaining your perspective. I think I better understand now what you’re getting at: that God’s unchanging nature doesn’t rule out a kind of ongoing relational increase or delight as His purposes unfold in creation. And I do agree that Scripture clearly shows God delights in His people’s growth and love. That’s real, and meaningful, and not static. Where I still see a fundamental difference is how we define the nature of that increase. You mentioned that God can simultaneously remain the same and yet increase in expressions of glory through His creation. I think that makes sense relationally—in the sense that God rejoices as we grow, and His love is expressed dynamically through relationship. But to me, that’s distinct from saying God’s essence or glory itself increases. To say that God’s essential glory or being increases—even through the growth of His creation—implies a kind of incompleteness in His nature, which doesn’t align with how Scripture describes Him as infinite, perfect, and lacking nothing. When love grows in us, it’s because we’re finite—we’re becoming. But God is. He doesn’t become more loving; He is love in its fullness. His delight can be expressed more broadly as more people come to know Him, sure—but that’s an overflow of who He already is, not an expansion of who He is. I respect that this distinction might not seem necessary within the framework of LDS theology, especially with the idea of eternal progression and the potential for God to “increase” with His creations. But from the biblical framework I’ve come to embrace, there’s a difference between God experiencing relational joy as we grow and the idea that His glory or nature somehow expands through it. Also, I appreciate what you said about the two paradigms—the one focused on loving Christ for who He is, and the other grounded in the idea that the LDS Church uniquely offers the “fullness” of the Gospel. You’re right—I no longer share the second paradigm. For me, the more I’ve understood grace, and the more I’ve come to know Christ outside of the framework I grew up in, the more I’ve seen that the fullness of the Gospel isn’t in an institution, but in the person of Jesus Himself. That said, I still really value these kinds of conversations. They help me think more deeply and clarify what I actually believe. So thanks again for being willing to talk through it all.

Given there is opposition in all things (expressed as a season for everything in Ecclesiastes), including the complimentary opposition in all things which the Atonement of Jesus Christ reconciles to the Father’s glory, our never-changing God at the same time constantly increases in His creations and delight, and so enjoys an increase in these expressions of His glory. In this way He changes and remains the same at the same time, and they become the same thing. Another way of saying this in terms of relationships, “God is love (1 John 4:8) and love that does not grow is dead: 1 Thessalonians 3:12, Philippians 1:9, Ephesians 4:15, Psalm 119:32. The way and the path are used to convey progress and development (“I am the way”). The paradigm I am describing is consistent with my experience in the Restored Gospel. People without the fullness of the Gospel can share this paradigm (and they also might focus on "rewards" than the love of Christ). I remain with the Church not because of this paradigm, but because of the paradigm that the Church offers the fullness of the Gospel. I would say you do not share my second paradigm, but the Church does offer both and I accept them.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I can hear that this is a sensitive topic, and I respect your conviction in the authority of modern revelation and how that shapes your understanding of glory, truth, and eternal progression within the LDS framework. My intent wasn't to argue or impose a definition—I was simply trying to articulate the theological tension I personally experienced when I compared what I was taught growing up with what I later came to believe through Scripture. I recognize that my current views differ from LDS doctrine, and I’ve tried to approach that difference with clarity and respect. I understand if this conversation isn’t the kind you’re interested in having. My goal in participating here has been to listen, share honestly, and represent my perspective thoughtfully—not to stir up contention. I do appreciate the discussions I’ve had with others in this thread who have engaged thoughtfully, even in disagreement. And I wish you well.

The beauty of being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that we believe in modern revelation: The Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, and modern Prophets. This allows us to have significantly increased truth and knowledge over those that only believe in the Bible. The definition of Glory for Latter-Day Saints is not what you are describing. I am not interested in arguing about how you define glory. You would probably have a more engaging discussion on a different website. If you were actually interested in having a meaningful conversation about LDS beliefs your tone would be different. Good luck.

Hilbert’s Hotel is a fascinating way to stretch our thinking around the concept of infinity. It’s definitely one of those mind-bending ideas that helps us see how counterintuitive infinity can be. I see what you’re getting at: that just as the hotel can always accommodate more guests without technically increasing in size, an all-glorious God could, in theory, “receive more glory” without implying a lack or deficiency. I appreciate that insight — it’s a helpful way to express the idea that God’s relationship with His creation can dynamically reflect and respond to love, obedience, and worship, without threatening His nature. That said, I think the key difference in how I’m approaching this has less to do with whether God can relate dynamically with His creation, and more to do with what kind of glory we’re talking about. The biblical view I’ve come to embrace draws a distinction between God’s intrinsic glory — His unchanging essence and perfection — and the glory that is displayed or reflected in the world. So yes, God can receive praise, be glorified through His people, and delight in righteousness — but that glorification doesn’t imply an expansion of His essential being. In the same way the sun doesn’t shine more brightly because more mirrors are angled toward it, God doesn’t become more glorious as more of His creatures recognize and reflect Him. His glory is the eternal starting point — not a growing result of our actions. So I’m not dismissing the analogy at all — I think it can help explain how an infinite being relates to finite expressions of love, worship, or even covenant. I just still hold that, from a biblical standpoint, God’s essential glory is not additive — it is infinite, whole, and eternally complete. Thanks for prompting such a deep and worthwhile reflection.