That’s a distorted version of what Latter-day Saints actually believe. We do believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, united in purpose. That is our understanding of the Godhead. Teachings about exaltation (that we are children of God with eternal potential) are more complex than “any man can become a god and create worlds.” They’re rooted in the idea that through Christ’s grace, faithful disciples can share in His glory, not in a caricature of polygamy and universe-making.
The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds are one way of framing Christian theology; Latter-day Saints frame it differently. That doesn’t erase our faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer, which is why we still identify as Christians.
Original sources do exist, and that’s exactly why projects like the Joseph Smith Papers make them available in full. But interpretation of those documents is always open to debate. Context matters, and simply pointing to critical summaries on exmormon.org isn’t the same thing as reading the records themselves.
Reducing everything about the church to “it’s all problematic” misses the heart of what it actually teaches. The teachings are centered on faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, repentance, covenants, and striving to follow Him. That’s what defines Latter-day Saint discipleship, even while we acknowledge our history has complex and difficult chapters.
It sounds like your experience in the church was very different from mine, but it doesn’t erase the fact that the church has always officially identified itself as Christian. That’s been the case since 1830, when it was organized as The Church of Christ, and reaffirmed in 1838 as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
You’re right that there are parts of our history that are hard to reconcile, like past restrictions on priesthood and rhetoric about other faiths. The church has since disavowed those positions and made clear they don’t represent current doctrine. But none of that changes the central point: our faith has always been built on Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer, which makes it fundamentally Christian.
That’s a fair note; the earliest use of the term “Christian” was indeed outsiders in Antioch labeling Christ’s followers. But the meaning was simple: those who follow Christ. By that definition, Latter-day Saints clearly fit, since everything in our faith is centered on Jesus as Savior and Redeemer.
So while different traditions frame doctrine differently, it doesn’t make sense to deny the label altogether. If “Christian” means a follower of Christ, then Latter-day Saints are Christians.
My age isn’t relevant to the point I’m making; pushing this line of argument just makes it sound like you're deflecting for points. That's not a rational point to this discussion.
The question here is whether it’s “abhorrent” for Latter-day Saints to identify as Christians. Whatever era someone grew up in, the church has always officially been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and its teachings have always been centered on Christ as Savior and Redeemer. That hasn’t changed before or after 1968.
Historical claims about early leaders can be debated, but it’s worth noting that a lot of what circulates online is presented without context or balance. The church has always encouraged members to study its history, and there are resources like the Joseph Smith Papers and the official Gospel Topics Essays that deal directly with the harder questions in transparent ways.
On terminology: you’re right that “Mormon” has been used by both outsiders and members for a long time, and has even appeared in official materials. But it was never the formal name of the church, which since 1838 has been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That’s why President Nelson asked in 2018 that we move away from the nickname and use the full name, to keep the focus on Christ.
There are complex parts of history and doctrine, but none of that changes the reality that the LDS faith is centered on Jesus Christ, His atonement, and His gospel.
I’m LDS as well, and it’s illogical - and really counter to what the church itself stands for - to suggest that calling yourself a Christian if you’re LDS is “abhorrent.” Our entire faith is built on Jesus Christ. His divinity, His atonement, His resurrection, and His role as Savior and Redeemer. How could it possibly be “abhorrent” to follow Christ?
Joseph Smith never called the church “Mormon.” When he organized it in 1830, it was The Church of Christ, and by 1838 it became The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The nickname “Mormon” came from outsiders because of the Book of Mormon. While members sometimes adopted the term informally, it was never the official name.
In fact, in 2018 President Russell M. Nelson specifically asked that we no longer use “Mormon” to describe the church, since the proper name centers on Jesus Christ. So while people still say it casually, it’s not what we call ourselves and never has been our formal name.
I appreciate you clarifying that you don’t doubt our sincerity. That’s important, because sincerity and devotion to Christ are at the heart of this discussion. Where we differ is in the framing; you describe our beliefs as worshipping “a different Jesus,” while from our side, we see ourselves worshipping the same Jesus of the New Testament. Born of Mary, crucified, resurrected, and the source of salvation, and though we understand His nature and role differently than creedal Christianity does. I'm not sure where the idea that "we worship a different Jesus Christ" comes from, but the claim is ill-founded.
You emphasize salvation through confessing Christ as God incarnate and His atonement for sin. We affirm that too, while also believing that discipleship involves making covenants, repenting, and striving to live His commandments. We see grace and works not as competing, but as intertwined. His sacrifice makes salvation possible, and our effort is how we respond to His grace.
I respect your conviction, and I ask for the same respect in return. Our differences in theology are real, but they don’t erase our devotion to Jesus Christ.
You said that nobody has grief against Mormons, followed by "something is up".
I might have misread your intent, but the "something is up" makes it sound like the implication is that this is a false flag or something similar. I apologize if that was not your intent.
Occam's razor suggests that "in a time when Christians and Christian churches are being targeted, an LDS church is a likely target as well, regardless of peoples viewpoints of its members".
Honestly, framing the Latter Day Saints as “counterfeit” or implying that "we don’t know the real Jesus" just comes across as dismissive, and even sanctimonious. LDS members aren’t pretending to be Christian, our teachings sincerely believe in and strive to follow Jesus Christ as Savior. We may interpret His nature and teachings differently than creedal traditions, but differences in doctrine don’t erase the reality of our discipleship.
It’s worth remembering that Christ Himself taught us to recognize His followers “by their fruits.” I appreciate your acknowledgment that the Latter Day Saints sincerely try to live by Christian values, but if you can acknowledge that many do so, then perhaps it’s more constructive to respect that shared devotion rather than it is to attempt to dismiss our faith as mere imitation. We can disagree on theology without questioning each other’s sincerity or relationship with Christ.
While it may be true that many Christian denominations define orthodoxy by the early creeds, from an LDS perspective, Christianity is defined by following Jesus Christ himself. We believe in Him as the Son of God, the Savior, and as our Redeemer; we strive to live up to His gospel. That’s why we identify as Christian.
It’s true we don’t frame doctrine the same way the Nicene or Apostles’ Creed does, especially regarding the Trinity. But difference in interpretation doesn’t erase our faith in Christ. In fact, by your definition, only creedal churches would count as Christian, yet historically, the word has always described anyone who accepts and follows Jesus as Lord.
I can appreciate your perspective and the emphasis you place on Christ and personal faith. That being said, from an LDS standpoint, we also center our lives on Jesus Christ; His divinity, His atonement, and His role as Savior. That’s why the full name of our church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
You’re right that we study more than just the Bible, but we don’t see those scriptures as a replacement. Rather, they’re additional witnesses of Christ. Our temples and ordinances aren’t meant to create barriers like the Pharisees, but to help us draw closer to God through covenants with Him.
Even if we understand some doctrines differently, our values are rooted in Christ’s teachings. So when an LDS church is attacked, it’s not separate from Christianity, it’s still an attack on people who worship and follow Christ.
I don't know the specifics, but if there were classrooms with people in them on the second floor that were caught in the fire, then it's likely that the primary (ages 3-11) and youth group (12-17) classes were spread throughout those rooms. Depending on the Ward and building layout, primary classes can all be taught to one collective group, or they can be broken up by ages, or some mix of the two. Youth groups tend to be broken up by age groups. Either way, most of those classrooms were likely full of kids.
While there are adult classes, those tend to be more collective, and take less space, whereas the kids tend to be spread out more.
The LDS are Christians. We are a subsect of Christianity, and we still hold Christian values. "Mormon" isn't even the proper name. It's "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".
There's a difference, but not one that's so large as to suggest that an attack on an LDS church is not an "anti-Christian attack".
In no way would I trust him to be involved with food, let alone food that so many people eat, especially food that kids eat.
If he's proud and happy to cheer on the death of Charlie, then what would he do if he saw a MAGA sticker or hat? Or, honestly, if he just a caucasian man without rainbow hair - based on the ADL's qualifiers for "violent right wing individuals.
I am no fan of cancel culture, but I draw the line with the First Amendment.
The difference between "the left calling for firings" and "the right calling for firings" is that when the left does it, it's generally because their target says something that they don't like, but that is ultimately protected under free speech.
When the Right does it, as we are seeing now, it's because the left is calling for more violence, is celebrating death and pain. There is a massive difference in these two paths.
It's one thing to have empathy and forgiveness, but do not sacrifice your home and values for suicidal empathy.
Proverbs 17:15: “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.”
Treating those who celebrate murder as if they are beyond accountability falls into justifying the wicked, yourself.
Proverbs 24:24-25 — “He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.”
We are commanded to rebuke the wicked, not to be silent when we see it.
Romans 13:3-4 — “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil… he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
Forgiveness does not negate civil accountability.
Isaiah 5:20 — “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”
Luke 17:3 — “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.”
We are not bound to forgive those who celebrate murder. We are called to rebuke first, then forgive when repentance is given honestly. Forgiveness must follow repentance; it's not an unconditional indulgence.
Matthew 18:6 — “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Jesus himself taught the seriousness of leading others into sin or celebrating harm.
Do not cite forgiveness as a biblical requirement, without first understanding what the bible itself teaches us first. Christians, or any who believe in the Bible, are not required to forgive transgression until we have been destroyed for our unconditional forgiveness. There is a line in the sand that they have crossed. They must face the consequences of their actions and offer repentance before they can be forgiven.
Forgiveness is not erasing consequences. It is not silence in the face of wickedness. Scripture teaches us to rebuke evil, hold it accountable, and forgive when repentance is real. Anything else isn’t biblical grace, it’s enabling evil.
There's a significant difference in stating something false and treating it as true, and stating something false, and being required to label it as an opinion.
What she's suggesting isn't a violation of free speech or of enforced censorship, it's a call for the requirement of factual evidence to provide information that is claimed or inferred to be fact. In fact, this was already a law in the past, until Obama had it removed. The media hellhole that we find ourselves in now can be directly attributed to that law being removed.
It gets worse. They're now trying to use him to push gun control.
https://x.com/isaiahrmartin/status/1966611178806739356
Isaiah Martin, democrat running for the US House representing Texas:
I WILL BE INTRODUCING THE MELISSA HORTMAN/CHARLIE KIRK GUN SAFETY ACT TO MANDATE FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECKS TO PURCHASE A FIREARM! WE ALSO NEED RED FLAG LAWS, MORE PENALTIES FOR POLITICAL VIOLENCE, AND MORE FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS! TOO MANY LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST!
Did I say that Q killed him? Where did you pull that from?
I mourn with thought, distraction, and analysis. And it is undeniable that these numbers sum up to 17. Do not put words in my mouth, I only pointed out the connection, and nothing more.
At this point, it sounds less like you’re interested in the teachings of the church and more like you’re intent on denigrating it through selective stories and supposed worst-case examples. Whatever individuals in history may or may not have done, their flaws don’t define the doctrine or ethos of the church itself.
The values and teachings of the Latter-day Saint faith are centered on Jesus Christ, His divinity, His atonement, His resurrection, and His commandments. That focus hasn’t changed since 1830. Reducing the entire faith to alleged failures of some individuals ignores the reality of what millions of Latter-day Saints actually believe and live every day.
Honestly, we’ve been circling for hours. Unless you have something meaningful to say about the actual teachings of the church, I’ll leave the conversation here. Hyperbolic “he-said-she-said” and anecdotes from your grandfather don't have any bearing on the integrity of the church or its members.