I’ve always thought it was interesting that, while in most of the offshoots of the old Indo-European pantheon, the Big Guy is a Tyr cognate, in the Norse mythos, it’s the Hermes cognate that’s the boss.
Do Mormons consider Christ to be God? It was my understanding that they rejected the concept of the Trinity.
If I’ve learned anything from the SDMB, it’s that anyone who claims to be a Christian is one. Literally.
Now that you mention that, there is a lot of dissonance about Jesus so I guess that only applys to the OP to the point that the personage of Jesus is the same across Islam, Christianity and all of it’s flavors, and Judeism. The concept and role of Jesus varyies tremendously.
So if the personage of Abraham is the same across all three religions, and all three claim to follow the God that Abraham followed, does that make all three the same God with differing underlying properties, roles, rituals etc.?
Well, given that god is an invention of humanity, then yes - they are all the same.
This is poor argument: algebra and geometry are both inventions of humanity, and they are not all the same.
I’d say there’s plenty of historical evidence that the two religions are based on the same tradition and are thus speaking about the same god, at least to the same degree that Santa Claus and Sinter Klaus are considered to both refer to the same entity.
Whoops, editing artifact. That “Bell” was supposed to be “Neil Armstrong”, of course.
Meh, I just figured it was some sort of quaint pet name you had for Armstrong. I was kind of curious about what he called you but was afraid to ask. 
Putting aside the Abrahamic religions for a moment, God himself said there are other gods when he told Moses: “Thou shalt have no other gods before
Me”.
I already said it: spherical ball + rectangular field/court with a goal at each end.
The problem, as far as my analogy is concerned, is that in [American] football there are at least four different ways to score: touchdown, point-after-touchdown (with two possible variations on this), field goal, and safety, each method resulting in a different number of points. Those four methods can be somewhat condensed to three: moving the ball across the goal line (touchdown or running in the PAT), kicking it between the goalposts (field goal or normal PAT), or stopping the opponent in his own end zone. (I realize that basketball has “normal” 2-point field goals, 3-point shots, and 1-point free throws, but they all require the same action: putting the ball through the hoop). So for my purposes, [American] football is more analogous to Ba’hai (sp?), or possibly some Eastern religions.
Also, basketball and soccer (and I suppose hockey, too) share the pell-mell, superficially-random racing back and forth from one end of the field/court to the other, as opposed to [American] football’s regimented, play-by-play march up and down the field.
But what common game can all of these games be said to have originated from?
Granted there are a lot of differences between denominations and sects within C J & I beliefs, but they all come from one common “game” in the form of Abraham.
(Disclaimer - I’ve been out of it for 25 years so I might have the exact theology wrong.)
Mormons believe that God the Father and Christ are two separate entities. God the Father was divine from the get-go. Christ became divine by being fathered by God and through his sacrifice.
This bit is from half-formed memories, so forgive me if it’s inaccurate. Mormons still identify themselves with the monotheist traditions. I remember as a kid being kind of confused by that, but I don’t remember the specifics of any theological teachings that made that identification or denied it – it was part of the background noise.
Does the LDS teach that The Father was Divine from the get-go, or that He was an exalted man who achieved Deity through obedience to his Father God?
It’s that Q that causes many Christians to wonder whether the LDS Church is Biblically & historically Christian.
Anyway-
God in Judaism- An Absolute Eternal Personal Unity, though manifest & immanent in a myriad of ways through Creation- (for example, the Ten Sefiroth).
God in Islam- An Absolute Eternal Personal Unity- transcendence heavily emphasized, tho Sufism seems to add an emphasis on immanence.
God in historic C’nity- An Absolute Eternal Essential Unity but Tri-Personal.
God in LDS C’nity- An Absolute Eternal Principle in which Persons grow into Deity- The Father, Jesus & The Spirit being our God… If I understand correctly.
I’m pretty sure you’re right about LDS essentiality, but God in Judaism and Islam isn’t considered essential?
By “Essential” in my C’tian description, I mean “In Essence”, I don’t mean “Necessary”.
Thus, in Islam & Judaim, God is Absolute Eternal Unity in Essence and Person.
Historic C’nity posits God as Absolute Eternal Unity in Essence, Multiple (precisely, Triple) in Person.
Ah, ok. I misunderstood. Thanks. 
Two comments on pet peeves:
-
“Santa Clause” definitely exists. Tim Allen’s been raking in the royalties every December for years now. If you want to make mock of the popularization of St. Nicholas of Myra, at least learn how to spell first.
-
Most of the Babtists were converted to Baha’ism back in the 1840s. If you want to make mock of Baptists, at least learn how to spell first.
Now the significant point:
Either the deity formerly known as YHWH exists, or He does not. If the latter, then any arguments about whether various fictional deities are equivalent is the same degree of fanwankage involved in whether a balrog can achieve flight while on a treadmill. 
If, on the other hand, YHWH is in fact real, then He objectively exists independently of various people’s conceptualizations of Him. If three groups are pointing at the same quasi-historical figure (the deity who is supposed to have hung out with Abraham) but describing him differently according to their variant theologies, that is no different than two biographies of Cyrus the Great of Persia portraying him as the genius who invented the multinational empire and as an Oriental despot – both of which were valid characteristics of the historical figure.
What about if two biographies pose him as a genius who invented the multinational empire, and a moron who couldn’t innovate worth a damn? There’s a difference between alternate but still valid views and contradictory ones, or ones which suggest just a different level to certain characteristics.
Good question. Mormons believe that any individual can become a “god” in the next life, thus we assume that God the Father was once like us (whatever that is :rolleyes: ). However, that assumption is not quite fully doctrinal. Again - my memory isn’t providing me a full picture. I remember thinking of God the Father as being divine, period. Only in learning the doctrine of godhood as a life goal did I connect God the Father with having once been mortal.
It’s important to remember that most Mormons really don’t get too deep into esoteric doctrine – the beliefs are often more based in the cultural interpretation. I got a bit into the esoterics, but not deep enough to really speak authoratively.
That’s more or less correct, although Mormons don’t think of it in those terms. Mormons definitely see the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as separate entities.