Of course I was also in a discussion once on the meaning of a verse in the Bible. I actually scared some of the Non-Mormons with my ability to objectively analyse the passage and show the actual meaning without siding with either the LDS or the rest of Christians.

In general I do not enter these discussions to convert or even to persuade, but to have fun. Frequently I feel the need to correct people when they give false information about the church, but I am also willing to be corrected if I am wrong.

My comments about over simplifying really had no direct purpose, except to warn those who are not part of the discussion but passing readers. While I agree that such should be expected by most people, I just like being safe.

I do agree that over simplification is needed to understand the differences on a general passes, and I prefer this kind of discusssion to any other regarding religion.

Bridget, I think the base problem remains, that is, the character of God. The only reason anyone could find comfort in God being omnipotent is if he is in fact totally good (I doubt anyone would find much comfort in a partially evil God being omnipotent). But, how do you know that he is totally good? The events happening on the earth are a potential defeater to that claim.

My answer wasn’t meant to be “so what?”, it was merely an acknowledgment that I find more comfort in the idea that God is ultimately in control of these things and allows them to happen because they have a set purpose than I do in the idea that He can’t stop them because He’s obligated to let free will happen as much as possible.

I think it’s impossible to have a conversation and NOT oversimplify things. If we took into account what every individual Mormon (or whoever we are takling about) happens to think right this second, or heck, even what you or I think over the history of our lifetimes, we would never get anywhere. I think it’s perfectly justifiable to attempt to generalize out of a mass of experiences, thoughts, writings and so forth, if they seem to have good explanatory and especially predictive power.

In any case, I think there is some legitimacy to arguing that part of what a lot of religions which preach an infinite God end up doing is diminishing the role of humankind. What you say about people being filthy rags, however, is best applied to Reformed traditions, and pretty much that alone. In the mass of Christianity people, their physical bodies, their reason and so forth is seen as essentially good, if corrupted, and the great worth of people exemplified in the sacrifice of God himself through the atonement.

Mormonism is different in arguing that the very essence of humanity IS that of God. That is a special doctrine, I agree. Orthodox Christianity argues that the essence of humanity is essentially other from God, contingent and derivative and therefore by its nature less. I don’t think it’s an either or chocie though- that is, essentially godlike or to the core filthy rags. Orthodox Christianity has typically exalted humankind as specially created in God’s image and debased humankind by arguing that our very existence is contigent on God’s will.

Now, I will say that as a religion I do not expect any serious changes in the future regarding the LDS doctrine, partly because the doctrine is such that some changes are not only allowed but expected. I was in a great debate over this a few weeks ago trying to show a man that the doctrine of the church has not changed over the years (which I do not really want to get into now) because doctrine and practice are not the same thing. Thus, for practices to change does not necessarily change the doctrine (like the sacrifices of the Old Testiment being changed after the Atonement was made).
In this way the basic doctrines can stay the same but the practices alter to fit the current circumstances (such as the discontinuence of Plural Marriage).

However, as to the differences between LDS and other religions, I do see what you are saying. To put things a little simpler (way too simple in all honesty, but what the hey) this is how I have noticed the actual doctrinal difference between the LDS and other Christian sects. Other Christians seem to glorify God by debasing man, seen in the constant comments that we are as filthy rags and unable to please God in any way. On the other hand, the LDS glorify God by glorifying man, seen in the simple quote “this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortallity and eternal life of man.”
I think both seek individual relation with God, but the nature of the relationship is vastly different. Most Christians seek a servant-master relationship, while the LDS seek a son-father relationship.

These are just simple comparrisons that really donot do full justice to either branch of doctrine, but I think it puts it in a clear way.