Person of Christ in other Christian denominations

[prisonchaplain]

Madeleine1 made an interesting statement in another thread, that seems to deserve it's own string.

In all charity, I'd like to believe you, but after reading some LDS thoughts on the Holy Trinity at another LDS forum, I'd say we're not even talking about the same Person. So I don't think we are in agreement as to Who it is we're turning to.

To be specific, as I see it, the break down is as follows:

LDS: Christ is God/god. He is entirely distinct from the Father, as a separate personage, though he is part of the Godhead. Heavenly Father is his God. Many LDS admit this definition makes it almost impossible to define the religion as monotheist, and accept the term henotheist (belief that there can be many gods, though only one gets worship) I admit that my knowledge here is limited, so others feel free to correct, modify, and extend.

Trinitarian (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestants, including most Evangelicals): Christ is the Son of God. He has his own sovereign personality, but is one essential being with the Father and Holy Spirit. Trinitarians insist we are monotheistic, though Muslims and Jews reject our claim.

Subordinationists (Jehovah's Witnesses): Jesus is godlike, a god, an angel, etc. He paved the way to salvation, but it is the Father who has the power and gets the worship. Jesus is a created being.

Modalists (United Pentecostal Church, 'Jesus Only'): Jesus is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It's all Jesus, who takes on all three roles.

Madeleine1 says that the LDS and Trinitarian beliefs are too far apart, for us to consider that we are worshiping the same person. In the past others here have suggested our views are not that far apart. Where I wonder is that most Christians seem to have only a vague understanding of these distinctions, and sometimes talk in ways that cross over both sides of the theological fence. On the other hand, if God loves us and wants to reveal himself to us, these teachings are hardly minor.

THOUGHTS?

[Vort]

Madeleine1 made an interesting statement in another thread, that seems to deserve it's own string.

To be specific, as I see it, the break down is as follows:

LDS: Christ is God/god. He is entirely distinct from the Father, as a separate personage, though he is part of the Godhead. Heavenly Father is his God. Many LDS admit this definition makes it almost impossible to define the religion as monotheist, and accept the term henotheist (belief that there can be many gods, though only one gets worship) I admit that my knowledge here is limited, so others feel free to correct, modify, and extend.

Trinitarian (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestants, including most Evangelicals): Christ is the Son of God. He has his own sovereign personality, but is one essential being with the Father and Holy Spirit. Trinitarians insist we are monotheistic, though Muslims and Jews reject our claim.

Subordinationists (Jehovah's Witnesses): Jesus is godlike, a god, an angel, etc. He paved the way to salvation, but it is the Father who has the power and gets the worship. Jesus is a created being.

Modalists (United Pentecostal Church, 'Jesus Only'): Jesus is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It's all Jesus, who takes on all three roles.

Madeleine1 says that the LDS and Trinitarian beliefs are too far apart, for us to consider that we are worshiping the same person. In the past others here have suggested our views are not that far apart. Where I wonder is that most Christians seem to have only a vague understanding of these distinctions, and sometimes talk in ways that cross over both sides of the theological fence. On the other hand, if God loves us and wants to reveal himself to us, these teachings are hardly minor.

THOUGHTS?

Interesting that Paul did not try to talk the Greeks out of their pantheon, but instead used their altar to "an unknown god" as a springboard to introducing Christ. Wow. Talk about "another Jesus"! Yet so many modern so-called "Christians" want to exclude Latter-day Saints as Christians because they don't understand or like our doctrine. Pretty anti-Paul of them.

[Guest]

This is one of the more arrogant and insulting things I've heard from other Christians, and that's the most response I'll give it. (Not directed personally at you, pc.)

[MrShorty]

Trinitarian (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestants, including most Evangelicals): Christ is the Son of God. He has his own sovereign personality, but is one essential being with the Father and Holy Spirit. Trinitarians insist we are monotheistic, though Muslims and Jews reject our claim.

Sometime within the last month I was listening to a portion Janet Parshell's (sp??) In the Market radio show and they were talking about the issue that Muslims don't accept Christians claim to monotheism. The analogy that was used to describe how Christians can be "monotheistic" while claiming separate personalities was along the lines of comparing the Trinity to an ideal marriage where the husband and wife become united in their goals, desires, etc., while retaining their individuality. This is the same kind of analogy I've heard in the LDS church for as long as I can remember to explain how the Godhead can be "one God" made up of three personalities. Personally, I can't really see the difference (other than different words) between this description of the Trinity/Godhead and the "LDS" version you posted.

Modalists (United Pentecostal Church, 'Jesus Only'): Jesus is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It's all Jesus, who takes on all three roles.

I will admit that I don't get real into Mormon - Christian apologetics, but this "modalist" view is the "traditional Christian" view that I've always heard ascribed to "all" Christians and preached against in church. This is one of the things that I've learned from you specifically on this forum, PC, is the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism, and that "Mormons" around me have misled me on.

At this point, I'm really not seeing the difference between "Trinitarianism" and the LDS view of the Godhead -- three personalities/beings perfectly united to be "God." Where this is started based on someone's comment that the LDS view and the Trinitarian view are too far apart, I would tend to argue the opposite -- namely, what are LDS and Trinitarians arguing over?

[Spartan117]

The Catholic Church has published an official statement on their website from John Paul II declaring baptisms done by the LDS Church as "invalid" and not "Christian baptisms" because of the belief in the Godhead and not the Trinity.

If one of the requirements for being a true "Christian" church is belief in the Trinity then there weren't any Christians until 300 years after Christ's resurrection. By Catholic standards the original Twelve Apostles don't qualify as "true Christians" either.

I get quite urked when people try explain to me why I'm not a Christian, or even go as far to tell me I worship a different Jesus than they do. This is usually accompanied with the justification by faith alone belief, and when combined with the Trinity belief creates the worst migraine-headache-argument I've ever had. I've argued with Catholics and Evangelicals over those 2 issues until I've been blue in the face. Sometimes red if we can't keep it civil. From those arguments though I did reach an understanding about one thing ... if your church teaches justification by faith alone with FREE admission to the redeeming power of the atonement, and they teach the Trinity is the true nature of deity, we just may in fact be worshiping different Gods.

It isn't just that there isn't any scriptural teaching about those 2 beliefs, it's that I can't read the scriptures and walk away with those 2 ideas in my mind. At all. I do not get done reading the Bible or the BoM and think "Faith alone saves me, and the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are totally the same guy." I can't find any sort of context for them, I can't even mix-and-match verses to come up with some kind of reference for these beliefs. So when someone presents them to me as the standard of Christianity, and tells me that I didn't make the team because I don't believe these things, or I'm not a disciple of Christ because my church doesn't teach them, I take a little bit of issue with some things.

My favorite interpretation of scripture though is the teaching by Jehovah's Witnesses that Christ is Michael the Archangel, and how they connected the dots in the Bible to come up with that. It's impressive. And I'm not being flippant either.

Seventh-day Adventists make some bold claims as well. The investigative judgment, The Great Controversy, and they brought back church on Saturdays. Old school. I've spent a good amount of time researching the SDA Church. I'm fascinated with some of their teachings and the history of the SDA Church in general.

What was this thread about again?

[prisonchaplain]

Interesting that Paul did not try to talk the Greeks out of their pantheon, but instead used their altar to "an unknown god" as a springboard to introducing Christ. Wow. Talk about "another Jesus"! Yet so many modern so-called "Christians" want to exclude Latter-day Saints as Christians because they don't understand or like our doctrine. Pretty anti-Paul of them.

Well...er..um..I do think Paul said that the ignorance of the Greeks could be excused, but now we know better, and must abandon idolatry. Keep in mind also that at Ephesus, the riot was caused by Paul's anti-idolatry stance meant the converts were no longer buying from the god makers--literally. He used pagan writings to bridge their understanding to his, but he was not the kinda guy to brush differences under the rug.

I do see the difference between LDS and Trinitarian teaching as more nuanced than that of Jewish monotheism vs. Greek paganism. That's why we can have these conversations.

[prisonchaplain]

Sometime within the last month I was listening to a portion Janet Parshell's (sp??) In the Market radio show and they were talking about the issue that Muslims don't accept Christians claim to monotheism. The analogy that was used to describe how Christians can be "monotheistic" while claiming separate personalities was along the lines of comparing the Trinity to an ideal marriage where the husband and wife become united in their goals, desires, etc., while retaining their individuality. This is the same kind of analogy I've heard in the LDS church for as long as I can remember to explain how the Godhead can be "one God" made up of three personalities. Personally, I can't really see the difference (other than different words) between this description of the Trinity/Godhead and the "LDS" version you posted.

At this point, I'm really not seeing the difference between "Trinitarianism" and the LDS view of the Godhead -- three personalities/beings perfectly united to be "God." Where this is started based on someone's comment that the LDS view and the Trinitarian view are too far apart, I would tend to argue the opposite -- namely, what are LDS and Trinitarians arguing over?

Probably the major difference is that, at the end of the day, we Trinitarians absolutely consider ourselves monotheists. The one God created everything else, including us. We are not eternal matter. There is no premortal existence. God literally spoke us into existence. One God did that.

When our forefathers taught that Jesus is God, we did not give up our monotheism. We still fervently believe God is one. So, we could not accept that Jesus is less than God--a created being. Neither could we allow that Jesus was completely separate from the Father--his own personage.

The Trinity was how our forefathers laid out that Jesus was one with the Father, part of one God-being, and yet had a distinct personality. There are unanswered questions though. The logic is not simple. Thus, we say things like "There is divine mystery," and "God is greater than us, so of course we cannot fully understand him."

What LDS have done is to seemingly push us off the monotheistic cliff, with no way of return. If Jesus is physically separate from the father--his own personage, then he is a separate god. The marriage analogy may be appropriate, because somewhat might ask, "What if they argue? Could they separate?" They may be of one purpose now, but what of later?

Add to our fears of leaving monotheism, the doctrines of premortal existence, the eternal nature of matter, and the hope of exaltation, and we go full panic. Our perception is that God becomes gods, and we become gods-in-the-making, rather than loyal created beings, in eternal service to the one true God.

"A different Jesus" may be too direct, and lacking any nuance. However, it is fair to say that the overall worldview of the faiths is different.

[Soninme]

At this point, I'm really not seeing the difference between "Trinitarianism" and the LDS view of the Godhead -- three personalities/beings perfectly united to be "God." Where this is started based on someone's comment that the LDS view and the Trinitarian view are too far apart, I would tend to argue the opposite -- namely, what are LDS and Trinitarians arguing over?

I see a vast difference.

Traditional Christianity teaches there is only one and will only ever be one God. (Isaiah 44:8)(Rev 1:11)

LDS teaches there are many gods.

Traditional Christianity teaches God has been God fom all eternity.(Psalm 90:2)

LDS teaches he was once a man like us.

LDS teaches Satan is the brother of Christ and you and me.

Traditional Christianity teaches Jesus is Satan's, yours and my creator. (John 1:3)

Logically, these cannot all be true.

[prisonchaplain]

Maybe a reasonable middle ground is for us to admit that we are all attempting to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Further, we do all revere Jesus as deity. So, while we cannot all be right, and the doctrines we discuss are hugely important, there is at least enough in common that discussion amongst those of us with good will can bring good fruit. The bottom-line is that we may not baptize each other, but we are all God-seekers.

[MrShorty]

What LDS have done is to seemingly push us off the monotheistic cliff, with no way of return. If Jesus is physically separate from the father--his own personage, then he is a separate god. The marriage analogy may be appropriate, because somewhat might ask, "What if they argue? Could they separate?" They may be of one purpose now, but what of later?

As I noted, I've heard the marriage analogy specifically mentioned by a "Christian" speaking about defending Christianity against Muslim criticisms. So, does this same "what if" question apply to Trinitarianism as well as LDS? I don't expect any analogy to be perfect, so I would say that the answer to this question is, "impossible, because the unity of the Godhead is perfect and they will never separate."

Maybe a reasonable middle ground is for us to admit that we are all attempting to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Further, we do all revere Jesus as deity. So, while we cannot all be right, and the doctrines we discuss are hugely important, there is at least enough in common that discussion amongst those of us with good will can bring good fruit. The bottom-line is that we may not baptize each other, but we are all God-seekers.

And, I sometimes would like to add, that we all can be saved. I know you have mentioned before an uncertainty as to what erroneous beliefs a person has to believe to be "not saved." I'm not sure myself what specific beliefs/philosophies will cause God to declare one "damned." Yes, there may be philosophical differences in some of the details of our views of God, but, isn't it possible for Mormons to be "saved" with our belief structure? My own picture of "saved by grace" suggests that I can be saved in spite of imperfections in my character, my fallen nature, and, maybe, some erroneous beliefs in the nature of God.

[Guest mormonmusic]

For me all the conflict is evidence that no one really knows for sure. One has to find the interpretation that makes the most sense and to which one can be committed, while leaving oneself open to greater light and knowledge at another time potentially.

I know nothing really, although I have lots of strong hunches that are subject to change over time.

[prisonchaplain]

As I noted, I've heard the marriage analogy specifically mentioned by a "Christian" speaking about defending Christianity against Muslim criticisms. So, does this same "what if" question apply to Trinitarianism as well as LDS? I don't expect any analogy to be perfect, so I would say that the answer to this question is, "impossible, because the unity of the Godhead is perfect and they will never separate."

Actually, the marriage analogy explains the LDS doctrine well. It probably fits better with LDS teaching, than with trinitarian teaching. From the Jewish and Muslim perspective, we trinitarians are trying to have our "deity of Christ" and monotheism both. They might well appreciate that the LDS view is more consistent, though some LDS scholars, such as Prof. Robinson (BYU) still want to call the LDS teaching monotheism.

And, I sometimes would like to add, that we all can be saved. I know you have mentioned before an uncertainty as to what erroneous beliefs a person has to believe to be "not saved." I'm not sure myself what specific beliefs/philosophies will cause God to declare one "damned." Yes, there may be philosophical differences in some of the details of our views of God, but, isn't it possible for Mormons to be "saved" with our belief structure? My own picture of "saved by grace" suggests that I can be saved in spite of imperfections in my character, my fallen nature, and, maybe, some erroneous beliefs in the nature of God.

Perhaps it would help if I said that salvation for Protestants would be most like entry into the Celestial Kingdom for LDS. We expect to be constantly in the God's presence. That doesn't happen in the lower kingdoms.

I still remember a great conversation point that Robert Millet and Greg Johnson were having. Johnson says, "You know, if you just became evangelical, you'd be guaranteed entry into the Terrestial Kingdom, and avoid hellfire for sure. It's really a safe position, even by LDS teaching." Millet responded, "Yeah, but for LDS, anything short of the Celestial Kingdom is just too low a bar for us to aim for.:

[AnthonyB]

. Neither could we allow that Jesus was completely separate from the Father--his own personage.

The Trinity was how our forefathers laid out that Jesus was one with the Father, part of one God-being, and yet had a distinct personality. There are unanswered questions though. The logic is not simple. Thus, we say things like "There is divine mystery," and "God is greater than us, so of course we cannot fully understand him."

If Jesus is physically separate from the father--his own personage, then he is a separate god.

PC,

Surely the Godhead in the NT is separate physically. It was the Son who was crucified not the Father, it was the Spirit who came at Pentecost. If you hold to the persons not being pysically separate how do you avoid the Father being crucified, something that was explicity defined as heretical.

I'm not deny the unity, the one essence or the one being of the persons, just don't see that intrinsically means one physical entity. I'm not saying that thay couldn't chose at times to be one physcially just that to say they are always one physically would for me sound practically some form of modalism. Since it must imply that the Father ws present at the crucifixion physically.

I see the watershed between LDS and TC's (traditional or trinitarian Christians) as being the one being. The LDS from what I understand seem to insist on 3 beings, TC's on 3 persons in one being.

Oddly LDS seem to deny the one essence of the Godhead, yet from my outsider view they do actually believe the 3 persons are of one essence. It is just that they have made the three persons creatures (created at some point) and that they they share that one essence with humans and angles.

Edited September 18, 2011 by AnthonyB

[prisonchaplain]

Anthony, since we (TC's as you say) do not believer the Father is corporeal (has a physical body), then the three persons would not have three separate bodies. At the same time, I agree that because they are separate persons, the Father was not crucified. Another doctrine that factors in is the LDS belief that all humans have an eternal aspect, that matter is eternal.

[Blackmarch]

Madeleine1 made an interesting statement in another thread, that seems to deserve it's own string.

To be specific, as I see it, the break down is as follows:

LDS: Christ is God/god. He is entirely distinct from the Father, as a separate personage, though he is part of the Godhead. Heavenly Father is his God. Many LDS admit this definition makes it almost impossible to define the religion as monotheist, and accept the term henotheist (belief that there can be many gods, though only one gets worship) I admit that my knowledge here is limited, so others feel free to correct, modify, and extend.

Trinitarian (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestants, including most Evangelicals): Christ is the Son of God. He has his own sovereign personality, but is one essential being with the Father and Holy Spirit. Trinitarians insist we are monotheistic, though Muslims and Jews reject our claim.

Subordinationists (Jehovah's Witnesses): Jesus is godlike, a god, an angel, etc. He paved the way to salvation, but it is the Father who has the power and gets the worship. Jesus is a created being.

Modalists (United Pentecostal Church, 'Jesus Only'): Jesus is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It's all Jesus, who takes on all three roles.

Madeleine1 says that the LDS and Trinitarian beliefs are too far apart, for us to consider that we are worshiping the same person. In the past others here have suggested our views are not that far apart. Where I wonder is that most Christians seem to have only a vague understanding of these distinctions, and sometimes talk in ways that cross over both sides of the theological fence. On the other hand, if God loves us and wants to reveal himself to us, these teachings are hardly minor.

THOUGHTS?

seems to be a decent summation.

I'd say until he does reveal himself by some way or another i don't think they great enough of difference to say that they are completely different people (especially as each sect say thats what they get from the bible)... It's kinda like arguing what types of clothes someone wears and because he has different clothes he is a completely different person depending on the clothes they wear.

Where it does get really important is in understanding what happens after this life, what happens after we are saved (as well as before the creation).

It is also important to the extent in that how a being percieves god may affect how he views God's word at certain points.

[prisonchaplain]

Blackmarch, you correctly highlight how difficult it is to discuss doctrines in isolation. It is quite a challenge to have these conversations in a focused way, while trying to incorporate related doctrines. It does go to show that our God is awesome, majestic, grand, and just flat-out big. If he were easy to describe, and unity came with little discussion, then the accusation that man made God might seem plausible. Given these centuries-long disagreements and discussions, I'd suggest that no one can seriously argue that our God-faith is no primitive superstition.

[Spartan117]

PC, have you read the King Follett discourse?

[prisonchaplain]

Not yet, Spartan...I think I have it in a pdf file or a photocopy, but, alas, I haven't yet delved into it.

[Spartan117]

Mormon Literature Sampler: The King Follett Discourse

First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another.

I think you would get a lot from it, answers a lot of questions I've seen brought up. Joseph Smith lays a lot of stuff out of there, boldly. I'd be interested in your opinion of it.

[Blackmarch]

Blackmarch, you correctly highlight how difficult it is to discuss doctrines in isolation. It is quite a challenge to have these conversations in a focused way, while trying to incorporate related doctrines. It does go to show that our God is awesome, majestic, grand, and just flat-out big. If he were easy to describe, and unity came with little discussion, then the accusation that man made God might seem plausible. Given these centuries-long disagreements and discussions, I'd suggest that no one can seriously argue that our God-faith is no primitive superstition.

I agree. Things don't work as well when you superimpose your view/intrepretation of things over someone elses and then ask them about some other point within their system.

And certainly it is not a simple thing in general after all these ages having beliefs of God, and that if one is to be serious about it, something that is to profoundly affect one's life.

While from the LDS standpoint the basic concept of God is extremely simple (perhaps somewhat deceptively so), the majesty and power and influence is not.

Oddly LDS seem to deny the one essence of the Godhead, yet from my outsider view they do actually believe the 3 persons are of one essence. It is just that they have made the three persons creatures (created at some point) and that they they share that one essence with humans and angles.

Possibly depending on what the essence of God is, its generally not a term LDS use in regards to God.

what is essence?

Edited September 23, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Justice]

Trinitarian (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestants, including most Evangelicals): Christ is the Son of God.

Here is one place where I think we differ, and the primary place where I can't grasp the Trinity.

How can one be a son of himself? Especially if they have existed co-equal for eternity together.

Do you believe that the only way Christ is the Son of God is by His mortal birth?

Do you really believe that Christ's physical body was literally the offspring of God's? Or, is this just a "word play" because Christ was born of a mortal mother and the Father provided the means for Him to be born, even if not in a literal way?

I think the whole key to Christianity is to believe that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God. So, I'm wondering how you claim that to be true, literally, if Jesus is but a manifestation of God in the flesh, and His flesh body is not the literal offspring of the Father.

Is it just a "symbolic" sonship, and I'm pushing too hard to look for the literal relationship?

Edited November 11, 2011 by Justice

[prisonchaplain]

Here is one place where I think we differ, and the primary place where I can't grasp the Trinity.

How can one be a son of himself? Especially if they have existed co-equal for eternity together.

He is not the Son of himself. He is the Son of the Father. They are two distinct beings, though one God.

Do you believe that the only way Christ is the Son of God is by His mortal birth?

No. Jesus is the eternal Son of God the Father.

Do you really believe that Christ's physical body was literally the offspring of God's? Or, is this just a "word play" because Christ was born of a mortal mother and the Father provided the means for Him to be born, even if not in a literal way?

Jesus, the eternal Son of God, became flesh. He was the Son of God before he became the human baby, Jesus. Mary was impregnanted by the Holy Spirit. The details we know not, anymore than we know "how" Jesus healed. it was a miracle.

I think the whole key to Christianity is to believe that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God. So, I'm wondering how you claim that to be true, literally, if Jesus is but a manifestation of God in the flesh, and His flesh body is not the literal offspring of the Father.

Except that if Jesus is the eternal Son of God, He had no beginning. He always was. It was not the incarnation that made Jesus the Father's Son.

Is it just a "symbolic" sonship, and I'm pushing too hard to look for the literal relationship?

Since we do not believe there was a heavenly mother, however it is that Jesus is the Father's Son, the relationship is very real. It's not wordplay.

[Carl62]

the LDS and Trinitarian beliefs are too far apart, for us to consider that we are worshiping the same person.

And that is why I go by what the Bible says and not by what a group of men concocted at a council in Nicea almost 2,000 years ago. For me, the Bible trumps what any man says any time. Isn't it ironic how other Christian denominations say we use 'another Bible' and that we should solely rely on just the KJV, but yet when it comes to using the Bible in defining the Godhead, we appear to be more closely linked to what the Bible says than most other Christian denominations.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Carl62

[prisonchaplain]

And that is why I go by what the Bible says and not by what a group of men concocted at a council in Nicea almost 2,000 years ago. For me, the Bible trumps what any man says any time. Isn't it ironic how other Christian denominations say we use 'another Bible' and that we should solely rely on just the KJV, but yet when it comes to using the Bible in defining the Godhead, we appear to be more closely linked to what the Bible says than most other Christian denominations.

I do not mind at all that you believe the LDS doctrine of God is the most biblical. In fact, it would be concerning if you did not. On the other hand, I struggle with this idea that a group of men concocted the Trinity. Do you really believe that they just made it up? Perhaps I'm reading too much into your nuance. Suffice to say we trinitarians also believe that our doctrine is the most biblical. Google "trinity scripture defense" as I did, and you'll find many sites, most that use at least 20 scripture references to make their case. On a side note, most trinitarians would not suggest you limit yourself to the KJV. After all, the largest trinitarian church is Catholic.

[Guest gopecon]

"He is not the Son of himself. He is the Son of the Father. They are two distinct beings, though one God." -PC

This sounds like it's not nearly as far off from LDS doctrine as we often assume the teaching of the Trinity to be. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to clarify things. Do you think that Stephen saw 2 beings in his vision in Acts? Are our actual differences about the history of God, rather than how He exists today (i.e. to LDS we are all - including Jesus - spirit children/creations of God, God has a physical body that He obtained through some form of mortality, etc.)?