Can you explain?

We talked about something similiar to this on Sunday at church. We were talking about this pastor who was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease. He said that you had to "get lost in the wonder of God" and when he did that he was able to love and worship God in a way he never thought possible.

Well, it kinda works like this:

We like the us-centered God, because he's nicer, feels better to us, makes us happier, makes the Bible a "love letter" to us, etc etc Consequently we live self-centered Christian lives and Jesus is our buddy or our ticket to heaven or what have you.

The impression is that the "bigger" your view of God is, the less relatable, the more distant, etc. God will be to you.

But, apart from the good enough fact that God being omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinite, supreme and sovereign over all creation, determining our steps, creating our works before hand that we may walk in them, loving and hating as he please, etc is actually true, when we see (and worship) God as being this way (as he really is), we will appreciate Jesus that much more because it is only through Jesus that we are reconciled to, able to relate to, and brought near to the throne of the Father.

If Jesus is just the guy doing the dirty work for the Father who's "desperately in love with you," the temptation is greater to both see God as lesser and appreciate Jesus less fully.

But the bigger our view of God and his holiness, the more amazing/astounding/incomprehensible it is that he would lavish his grace on us in Christ.

Does that make more sense?

Of course, I assume it only works for those who understand the gospel, b/c there are plenty of people who affirm a great big God but don't love Jesus all that much.

I'm not sure I'm tracking where your're going correctly either.

But while I see a lot of danger and shallowness in "Jesus is my boyfriend and the Bible is a love letter" me-focused Christianity, I think it's equally wrong to emphasize God's supreme, unimaginable sovereignty without also emphasizing that he's the Abba/Daddy God who searches for the lost coin/sheep and rejoices when it's recovered, the Father who waits for the lost runaway son and runs to embrace him.

The truth is the Bible gives us both pictures of God, doesn't it? The fall-on-your face holy majesty, and the wounded, betrayed lover. The creator and sustainer of all things, who we are to refer to as a small child trusts his or her loving Daddy.

Karl, I agree. I'd only add that both pictures makes for a bigger God.
When anyone errs on either side, their picture is logically smaller than the one whose picture encompasses both.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, though, most of the people I interact with have a picture of God that does not do justice to the majesty, holiness, and glory of the sovereign God.
I think that is why my efforts at "correction" lean that way.

Also, I think that it is through our joint-heir status with Jesus, our brother and friend and advocate, that we experience the Abba Father.

I'm not sure either why there needs to be a dichotomy between The Son and The Father. Both seem to be intimately involved, and neither seem too interested in wowing humanity with their incomprehensibleness.

Is it amazing? Yes. Can man plumb the depths of Christ suffering, God's love, or the nature of God/Christ's Grace? No, but perhaps more important than amazement, it produces humility--especially since Jesus Christ (being God) didn't need to act humble when he faced his murderers or when washing the feet of the Apostles. He condescended in humility to do for us what we could not do for ourselves. After the initial amazement, the more indelible feelings that well up are humility, gratitude, and a desire to follow Christ as close and as long as I can. I don't feel the need to dichotomize God and Jesus Christ into separate natures in order to do this. They are both supreme and infinitly greater than me, yet both are personal.

I'm not sure either why there needs to be a dichotomy between The Son and The Father.

Because God exists in three Persons. That's orthodox Christianity.

neither seem too interested in wowing humanity with their incomprehensibleness

Seriously? Read God's answers to Abraham and Moses. Read more OT prophets. Read God's answers to Job. Read Paul on the surpassing greatness, on the length and depth and breadth and height of God's love, on the glory of God.

I don't feel the need to dichotomize God and Jesus Christ into separate natures

Same nature. Jesus is God in the flesh. Just distinct persons.

Joseph, do you believe that God exists in three Persons who are all three fully and co-equally God? Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate?

I agree with your theory, Jared.

It sends my thoughts in another direction, though, having to do with certainty. As I've gotten older, certainty in God (meaning in his character, his trustworthiness, his love, etc) has gotten stronger, I believe. On the other hand, my certainty about what God will do in any given situation has gotten weaker, as I've learned how much different He is than me, how much higher He is than me, how his ways are incomprehensible because they are beyond me, how much I need to adjust to doing things His way, etc.

Same nature. Jesus is God in the flesh. Just distinct persons.

I suppose your original post wasn't about supposed dicotomies in the nature of God vs. Christ. Sorry, I got sidetracked by comments (my attention deficits probably). More to the point, I don't think understanding of 1) the gospel and 2) the 'bigness' of God necesarilly causes one to prize Jesus. There are plenty who have both 1 and 2, but if they don't e.g. repent of their sins--then in my limited judgement, they really don't appreciate Jesus Christ. I don't mean to tear you down, but in order to be more constructive, i'd submit that perhaps a better if...then clause would be "the more one repents sincerely of sin (e.g. John 7:17), the more precious Jesus will be to you."

As to your question: Yes, and yes.

Hmm. I think it would work the other way: the more precious Jesus is to you, the more one would repent sincerely of sin. That way at least keeps Christ at the center.

I any event, when I say "assuming one understands the rudiments of the gospel," I am assuming repentance as part of the equation.
In none of this am I speaking about mere information. I don't suppose that one can either worship a sovereign God or treasure Christ above all completely in his head.

Joseph, do you believe that Jesus was always God? From before the beginning of time? Or that he was/is a created person who became God or like God at some point?

Not a trap or anything. I'm genuinely curious, because as an LDS guy, much of the theology you claim here is radically and distinctly different from the theology expressed by the LDS missionaries who visit my doorstep.

am assuming repentance as part of the equation.
In none of this am I speaking about mere information.

I thought about that after my last comment and realized the inadequacy of my last comment. It's sure easy to fall into the trap of assuming one's interlocutor is speaking philosophically instead of from wisdom learned from faith.

I suppose you just said the same thing as I did: The 'bigness of God' is roughly equivilant to the nothingness of man and man's nature. Perhaps a further reworking of your original post would read thus: If we truely understand the nothingness of man and his dependant nature (as contrasted to God's Omnipotence) then we truely prize Jesus. As we prize Christ we also humbly submit to him.

Sometimes I feel like Thomas Aquinas, who compared his life-work in theology to "mere straw." So inadequate; the only reason I try is because of my hope and faith. Now I must repent of my hasty judgement of your post.

I am not an arian nor am I even semi-arian (a common and somewhat understandable misconception). I don't believe Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, (or, take your pick of Christ's names and titles) was created. He is eternal from before time to the end of time and beyond (whatever that means). He 'was' God with the Father, since he existed co-eternally with the Father before matter was organized (by Christ) into our little universe. I also don't know the meaning of all things and pretty much simplify things down to what I understand and what I can do with that 'mere' knowledge (which pretty much limits me to trying to love God, family, neighbor and try to leave those around me improved as a result of my efforts).

a common and somewhat understandable misconception

Why would the missionaries who come here say the trinity is not biblical or that Jesus has not been eternally God?
Are they mistaken?

Again, I'm not trying to argue. I'm actually interested about this difference. Is there a variety of opinion about this within the LDS church?

I mentioned that it was an understandable misconception because frequently people interpret things based on their own cultural-social lens, or through the horizon of their own experiences. It's the same in our worldwide church which may produce minor misunderstandings between intrafaith as well as interfaith groups. That’s why I’m hesitant to ascribe blame. People like Dawkins and Hitchins e.g. are very effective in making caricatures that ignore nuance and substantive truth claims that underpin the beliefs they dismiss as ‘weird’ and ‘illogical’ and ‘primitive.’ The people of Nazareth rejected Jesus Christ because they had such a hard time believing in a God whom they knew as a little child. Their frame of reference is substantially different from us who have seen Christianity become the officially sanctioned religion of western governments and the portal through which one must pass to attain worldly power and influence (i.e. it's a lot easier to profess if there's a paycheck attached to to the profession).
Personally, I find the writings of Tertullian, Anathasius, C.S. Lewis, Tolstoy, Victor Hugo, etc. to be helpful and edifying, but their authority only extends as far as this earth—in my mind.

Of course my intent here isn’t to proselyte so I’ll just refer your questions to these helpful clarifications as to the nature of Christ.

Back to lunch.

There's an old hymn that has a stanza about Christ on the cross:

"Grace and love like mighty rivers
Poured incessant from above
Heaven's peace, and perfect justice
Kissed a guilty world in love"

The beauty of Jesus is that "all the fullness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell in Him" On the cross He upheld God's justice and expressed God's love. And yes, the more Holy God is, the more screwed I am,unless I can plead the blood of Christ over myself. Yeah, the bigness of God makes me love Jesus more, 'cause I realize how desperately I need Him. Or at least, I realize more than I used to how much I need Him. Right on, Jared.

And I still want to hear about LDS thoughts on Jesus-so many good friend of mine have been LDS, and so few were the same in their belief. That really instilled in me the importance of hearing where individuals are at.