Ask a Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

For example, Ghandi followed the teachings of Jesus. He was greatly inspired by the Sermon on the Mount. He was not Christian, nor could he call himself Christian. Because he believed in a different God or divine system.

Jordan Peterson, proclaimed theist, is not a Christian. But he acknowledges that following the teachings of the Bible and of Jesus are better for humanity and society as a whole.

This is correct. Words matter! Definitions matter! And neither Ghandi nor Jordan Peterson claim to be Christians! And they are not Christians because they do not believe that Christ is the Son of God. They do not believe in His Divine Nature, nor that He did miracles, nor that He suffered and saved us, nor that He was resurrected from the dead. So they are not Christians, and, even more importantly for this argument, they do not claim to be Christians. The problem with this argument is that the churches you called out do believe all of those things, and do call themselves Christians, so these examples are not comparable at all, and that is an incorrect leap of logic.

Believing that God is One God, with 3 distinct persons, and has always been One God with 3 persons is essential to being a Christian.

In 325 AD, Emperor Constantine put a council together to figure out the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost because no one could agree on it, meaning it has not always been essential to being a Christian. In fact, it took many other councils and centuries to establish the concept of the Trinity as described.

The concept of the Trinity was put forth by well-meaning men who were trying their best to understand and teach about the beloved Savior of Mankind, but they were *just men* who were interpreting scripture according to what they thought. We know throughout history there have been so many schisms of believers in Christ (aka Christians) because they have not been able to agree in one interpretation vs. another. So why is this the schism that is pointed to as the line in the sand? And, with all these schisms, who is to say which interpretation if better than another? No human is better or more privy to the knowledge of God than another. Period. In the end, we have to ask God what is right, because only He is the arbiter of Truth.

You cannot believe that God is three separate beings united in one purpose and be Christian because you are fundamentally worshiping a different God.

Why not? There are several times in the New Testament where it could very easily be interpreted that Christ, His Father, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings. For example, when John the Baptist baptized Christ- Matthew 3:16-17

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

It is not unreasonable to think that there were three distinct personages at that event- Jesus Christ, who went out of the water, the Spirit of God descending like a dove that He saw, and the Voice from Heaven declaring Jesus "my beloved Son" (implying there is a Father and a Son- two different people)

Now I'm not saying that there is not an interpretation of this that matches with the Trinity- there probably is! What I am saying is it is not unreasonable to think that Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and God are three different Beings, and it is unfair to say that the separate beings interpretation is incorrect, and is worshipping a fundamentally different God.

You cannot believe that God is three separate beings united in one purpose and be Christian because you are fundamentally worshiping a different God.

Again- why not? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Christ's statements about being one with the Father means that they are united in purpose, and not literally one.

In John 17:20-21, where Christ is praying to His Father (again, reasonably implying that they are two separate Beings):

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Christ is not praying that we all will one day merge into one super-Being (that would be contrary to all of His teachings), He is praying that we- those who believe in Him- will bend our wills to the Father and become united in purpose with Him, just as Christ is united in purpose with the Father. Again, I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, just that the "three separate Beings" interpretation is equally as valid.

You cannot believe that Jesus was a created being who was made divine, because that is a different Jesus than the one in the Bible.

I'm not sure exactly what a "created being" means, but we know that Jesus Christ developed as baby, in His mortal mother's womb, was born, aged, and was killed. We do know He was not a normal man- unlike literally every other person who was born on this earth, He was completely sinless (1 Peter 2: 22 "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:"). And as the Son of God, He had the power to break the chains of death and Hell- and He still lives. (Romans 6:9 "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him") I'm not 100% sure if this argument is assuming people believe He was just some guy and then became a God, but if that is how I'm interpreting it, I don't think any of the religions called out in the post believe that. First and foremost, Jesus was never some guy, but the Son of God.

You cannot believe that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, or that he was not raised from the dead, because that is not what the Bible teaches.

Following Jesus' teachings alone does not make you a Christian. Following and believing in the Word of God, in Jesus who is eternal and everlasting God and man, who died that we would be freed from death and rose again that we would rise with him is what is means to be a Christian.

Right on! I don't think anyone who calls themselves Christians believes that Jesus did not die on the cross and was not raised from the dead. People who call themselves Christians do so because they believe that, and follow and believe the Word of God- that Jesus died so we could be free from death and rise with Him again. I think this argument is once again confusing people who like what Christ taught but don't believe in Christ's divinity - and please note, do not identify as Christians (like Jordan Peterson and Ghandi) with actual other Christians.

And one little nitpicky thing- "LDS church" is the incorrect way to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but thank you for at least not calling us "Mormon"

First of all, thank you again for being polite with regards to our name! According to the style guide, after referring to us as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is appropriate to say "The Church" or "members of the Church"- I know our whole name is a mouthful. The "Mormon" term was originally a slur we tried to reclaim in the early 00s so it would be easier for people to look us up on the internet, but it confused people, so even though it's really long, we cannot accept nicknames for our faith anymore because it misrepresents us. The "we cannot accept nicknames" policy was actually more recent than the 90s- it was from 2018; you can read the talk from the president of the church here if you are interested!

We didn't decide to present as more Christian, we always have been believers in Jesus Christ, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been our official name since 1838.

I get what you mean about someone claiming to be a member of the same belief system as you do when they don't believe everything you do- it can be frustrating, and I see it in my Church more than I would like. However, this is something that is between that person and God- you should not feel insulted. Maybe sad for them because you think they are going down the wrong path, but not insulted. They are not telling you what you are, but telling you what they are. It has nothing to do with you. Honestly, I wouldn't have commented on the original post if my religion was not unfairly called not Christian. That was the point I was making- that it is not up to you, or me, or any human to decide what other people believe. They tell you what they believe and you can decide for yourself (hopefully by studying scripture with a prayerful heart and asking God for guidance) whether those ideas are right or wrong.

Because the Word of God says, repeatedly, that the Lord God is One. One being, one God. And yet, in Genesis, God refers to himself as ‘we’ when he creates man. Jesus says “I and the Father are One.” Jesus says “Before Abraham was, I Am.” The Spirit of God is references many times in the Old and New Testaments as coming upon those who follow God

Yes, absolutely! We totally agree on this- however, these scriptures never say anything about being one Being, just about being One. Again, just to show that the "non-Trinity" interpretation is valid, why would God use "we" and "us" when discussing creation if He were just one person? We and Us signify more than one person. It is a valid interpretation to believe that God and Jesus were there together creating the world. And we do believe that Jesus Christ was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Creator and Savior of the world. We believe He (Christ) was acting under the instruction of God (the Father) as He created the world and spoke to the prophets of the Old Testament. Indeed, Christ tells us in John 5:30

30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

The Trinity was not brought into being by the Nicene Council and Creed. The Creed is, indeed, a document written by fallible men to explain a truth found in scripture

Here's where we disagree- it is not a truth found in scripture, but an interpretation of scripture. There is no scripture that supports that interpretation over other interpretations, just good men trying to explain something they did not understand deciding on the interpretation.

Jesus existed before he was incarnate

Yes! He absolutely did! Just like you said- He existed before He was born! Again, we believe He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! He has always been guiding us with His commandments and love- from Adam on down!

But why were they able to survive seeing God, if none can see God and live? Because that was the pre-incarnate Jesus, because God has never been far off or distant, because it is God the Father no fallen human can see. God wants to be with his people and Jesus, God the Son, is with his people in the flesh.

Maybe I don't understand the Trinity- is it that God was the Holy Spirit first, then incarnate as Jesus, then in His resurrected form became God? That isn't what we believe, but that kind of seems where that explanation was going. If I misinterpreted that, please forgive me- I don't want to put words in your mouth.

But we believe they could see God in those moments because they were transfigured- there is scriptural proof of transfiguration. (Matthew 17:2) "2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light."

There are so many disagreements in the Church Universal, and quite a bit of the disagreement is actually healthy. It keeps us from gaining too much earthly power, it keeps us sharp (for iron sharpens iron and brother sharpens brother), and it allows Christians freedom to worship God how they feel comfortable. But there are a few things ALL Christians need to agree with, or you are not actually Christian but rather a false teacher or following one.

This part bothers me a little, and goes back to why "You're not Christian if you don't agree with my interpretation" doesn't sit right with me. God is Eternal. He is Truth. So if Christians can just do what makes them comfortable, does that mean there is no truth? But why are the few things the only things that are truth? Again, this seems very subjective- like man is saying what God accepts, instead of God saying what God accepts.

The LDS Church gets the nature of God wrong by teaching God is three separate beings instead of Three Persons in Unity as One God.

Agree to disagree, backed up by my first response. You may think that our interpretation is wrong, but we think your interpretation is wrong, and it's just a "he said, she said" argument that will last forever. The only One who can break the tie is God, and He will tell you the answer if you search the scriptures and ask Him.

The LDS Church also, if I am not mistaken, does not teach that Jesus’s death is the atonement for our sins, but rather his suffering, starting in the Mount of Olives. Death always was and is the payment for our sins; nothing but the death of Jesus can free us and placing the emphasis on his suffering instead shows (at best) a complete and total lack of understanding around sacrifice in the Bible, why it was used, and why Jesus had to die at all.

We believe that His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane is part of the Atonement, rounded out by His death on the cross and His resurrection three days later. The suffering in Gethsemane was the taking on of all the sins of the world so He paid the consequences for them instead of us, the death on the cross was so He could overcome death and show us the way (so, yes, He had to die, so that's not a fundamental misunderstanding around sacrifice in the Bible), and the resurrection was His defeat of death. We absolutely agree- the Atonement had to include Jesus' death. We agree that Christ suffered for our sins and overcame death so we too can overcome sin and death!

The LDS Church also, if I know my lds theology rightly, teaches that we will one day reach godhood if we follow Jesus. I think it stopped being mainstream LDS doctrine by the ‘90’s, but Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught it and it was taught by every leader of the LDS Church since those two. This is false, and is even satanic, for Lucifer also wanted to be God and was struck down from heaven for it.

This actually still is mainstream doctrine, but it is often misunderstood! It's so easy for people to mock and scorn and take things out of context, but yes, we do believe that we will be like God if we follow Jesus and repent. Otherwise, how can we live with God in His presence? He is perfect, and we cannot be in His presence unless we too are perfect. But we are human, and no one except Jesus Christ led a perfect life. That's why He was the Savior of the world- He voluntarily suffered for our sins, so if we repent, the debt is paid, our sins are forgiven, and we can return to live with God. Following Jesus, after all, means trying to be like Him.

Also I would like to point out the difference between becoming like God and being Him. Lucifer was struck down because he wanted to overthrow God (Isaiah 14:13 "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God", not because he wanted to be like Him in His goodness (quite the opposite, actually, as you well know.)

By the standards that have been held by Christians for 2000 years, you do not believe in the same God. Therefore, the LDS Church is not Christian in its teaching and members of the LDS Church are not Christian.

But Christians were Christians before these standards, even though they are old, and as mentioned before in my first response, the Trinity was not accepted as Christian doctrine until hundreds of years after Christ. Even Stephen the martyr saw God and Christ as two separate beings as He was being stoned. (Acts 7:56 "And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.") Showing, if we want to argue legitimacy by which idea is older, the "separate beings" one would have a leg up on the Trinity. So this definition of Christian is arbitrary, and there is no authority to say that people who believe in the divinity of Christ, the God of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, who atoned for our sins, died on the cross, and rose from the dead after three days are not Christian. Indeed, I believe (but could be wrong!) that Catholics (probably the oldest version of Christians) and Protestants (branching off from the Catholics) understand the Trinity in different ways too.

You may read this and go, “Wow, this Christian isn’t acting very Christ-like, being so concerned about theology and isn’t being loving by denying us the label of Christian.”

Haha omigosh, this is another thing we agree on- I can't stand it when people say "oh, you disagree with me? That's not very loving and therefore not very Christlike" Like, no??? Christ's doctrine wasn't "everyone just live to how you're comfortable, let people do what they want" it is to love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:36-39), and we are taught in John 14:15 that loving God means keeping the commandments. Being kind and forgiving, yes, but not going against God (there are people in my church who forget that too- sometimes they fear man more than God and get it twisted- "well, I have to love my neighbor so I will say their sin is good so they can be happy-" No. That is not the point of Christianity. But that's a rant for another day haha). How can one follow Christ if they don't know His teachings? Discussing theology is 100% a Christian thing to do!

But on that note- I am not looking to you to give me the label of Christian. I am a Christian. I know that. God knows that. What you say in that regard does not matter. The point of my response was to try and let you see that your particular definition of Christian is not a valid one because there are perfectly valid reasons in the Old and New Testaments to not think of the Trinity as the way to understand Christ's Divinity.

Or you may go “Wow was this written by a drunk person? This makes no sense.” For the second, I apologize. I am tired.

No not at all! You being drunk or tired never crossed my mind! You've explained your side very clearly, as I hope I have explained mine. Please understand, I am not here to change your beliefs, but to explain mine and hope you are not so dismissive of your fellow Christians. You don't have to change your definition, but I hope you can at least begrudgingly agree that there could be a valid different interpretation, and it's not up to you, me or anyone else to point to someone and go "Yes, no, yes, no". That, as we know, is left to God.

What I will not do is sacrifice the truth to get along with others. Jesus never did. I would be less loving and caring than God if I stayed quiet in the face of lies, especially about God. I pray for you, and all the members of the LDS Church, that you come to know God as he truly is.

And that's exactly how I feel!

And for the record, I do believe that Joseph Smith's teachings- teachings from the Bible- that God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ are two separate beings, for all the reasons listed above. I will finish with this quote from one of the current apostles, Jeffrey R. Holland, who is way more elegant than I am: "To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings is not to be guilty of polytheism; it is, rather, part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said it best: “Christ Jesus … being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (Phillipians 2: 5-6)

For example, Ghandi followed the teachings of Jesus. He was greatly inspired by the Sermon on the Mount. He was not Christian, nor could he call himself Christian. Because he believed in a different God or divine system.

Jordan Peterson, proclaimed theist, is not a Christian. But he acknowledges that following the teachings of the Bible and of Jesus are better for humanity and society as a whole.

This is correct. Words matter! Definitions matter! And neither Ghandi nor Jordan Peterson claim to be Christians! And they are not Christians because they do not believe that Christ is the Son of God. They do not believe in His Divine Nature, nor that He did miracles, nor that He suffered and saved us, nor that He was resurrected from the dead. So they are not Christians, and, even more importantly for this argument, they do not claim to be Christians. The problem with this argument is that the churches you called out do believe all of those things, and do call themselves Christians, so these examples are not comparable at all, and that is an incorrect leap of logic.

Believing that God is One God, with 3 distinct persons, and has always been One God with 3 persons is essential to being a Christian.

In 325 AD, Emperor Constantine put a council together to figure out the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost because no one could agree on it, meaning it has not always been essential to being a Christian. In fact, it took many other councils and centuries to establish the concept of the Trinity as described.

The concept of the Trinity was put forth by well-meaning men who were trying their best to understand and teach about the beloved Savior of Mankind, but they were *just men* who were interpreting scripture according to what they thought. We know throughout history there have been so many schisms of believers in Christ (aka Christians) because they have not been able to agree in one interpretation vs. another. So why is this the schism that is pointed to as the line in the sand? And, with all these schisms, who is to say which interpretation if better than another? No human is better or more privy to the knowledge of God than another. Period. In the end, we have to ask God what is right, because only He is the arbiter of Truth.

You cannot believe that God is three separate beings united in one purpose and be Christian because you are fundamentally worshiping a different God.

Why not? There are several times in the New Testament where it could very easily be interpreted that Christ, His Father, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings. For example, when John the Baptist baptized Christ- Matthew 3:16-17

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

It is not unreasonable to think that there were three distinct personages at that event- Jesus Christ, who went out of the water, the Spirit of God descending like a dove that He saw, and the Voice from Heaven declaring Jesus "my beloved Son" (implying there is a Father and a Son- two different people)

Now I'm not saying that there is not an interpretation of this that matches with the Trinity- there probably is! What I am saying is it is not unreasonable to think that Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and God are three different Beings, and it is unfair to say that the separate beings interpretation is incorrect, and is worshipping a fundamentally different God.

You cannot believe that God is three separate beings united in one purpose and be Christian because you are fundamentally worshiping a different God.

Again- why not? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Christ's statements about being one with the Father means that they are united in purpose, and not literally one.

In John 17:20-21, where Christ is praying to His Father (again, reasonably implying that they are two separate Beings):

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Christ is not praying that we all will one day merge into one super-Being (that would be contrary to all of His teachings), He is praying that we- those who believe in Him- will bend our wills to the Father and become united in purpose with Him, just as Christ is united in purpose with the Father. Again, I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, just that the "three separate Beings" interpretation is equally as valid.

You cannot believe that Jesus was a created being who was made divine, because that is a different Jesus than the one in the Bible.

I'm not sure exactly what a "created being" means, but we know that Jesus Christ developed as baby, in His mortal mother's womb, was born, aged, and was killed. We do know He was not a normal man- unlike literally every other person who was born on this earth, He was completely sinless (1 Peter 2: 22 "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:"). And as the Son of God, He had the power to break the chains of death and Hell- and He still lives. (Romans 6:9 "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him") I'm not 100% sure if this argument is assuming people believe He was just some guy and then became a God, but if that is how I'm interpreting it, I don't think any of the religions called out in the post believe that. First and foremost, Jesus was never some guy, but the Son of God.

You cannot believe that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, or that he was not raised from the dead, because that is not what the Bible teaches.

Following Jesus' teachings alone does not make you a Christian. Following and believing in the Word of God, in Jesus who is eternal and everlasting God and man, who died that we would be freed from death and rose again that we would rise with him is what is means to be a Christian.

Right on! I don't think anyone who calls themselves Christians believes that Jesus did not die on the cross and was not raised from the dead. People who call themselves Christians do so because they believe that, and follow and believe the Word of God- that Jesus died so we could be free from death and rise with Him again. I think this argument is once again confusing people who like what Christ taught but don't believe in Christ's divinity - and please note, do not identify as Christians (like Jordan Peterson and Ghandi) with actual other Christians.

And one little nitpicky thing- "LDS church" is the incorrect way to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but thank you for at least not calling us "Mormon"

The Godhead vs. the Trinity:

Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true. Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].”

The Nicene and related Creeds:

In the year a.d. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible. We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. [...] How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?

Not believing the Trinity doesn't mean we're not Christian:

It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?

New Testament evidence for our view of the Godhead:

We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great Intercessory Prayer just mentioned, His baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four. With these New Testament sources and more ringing in our ears, it may be redundant to ask what Jesus meant when He said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.” On another occasion He said, “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Of His antagonists He said, “[They have] … seen and hated both me and my Father.” And there is, of course, that always deferential subordination to His Father that had Jesus say, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” “My Father is greater than I.” To whom was Jesus pleading so fervently all those years, including in such anguished cries as “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” and “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”? To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings is not to be guilty of polytheism; it is, rather, part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said it best: “Christ Jesus … being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

Elder Holland also touches on our doctrine of an embodied God, and bears his testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. I'm sure I've quoted over half of this talk here already, so here is another link to the full address if you would like to read those sections.

If you've made it this far, thank you. It means a lot to me that you'd take a little time out of your day to read about the beliefs and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I hope this was helpful in clarifying what we do and don't believe when it comes to the Trinity and the Creeds.