Earlier this week, Happy Hubby addressed the Mormon Leaks release about trends in Young Single Adult activity rates. During the same leak, Mormon Leaks revealed a 40-page training document from 2012 for LDS church leaders and Public Affairs personnel to use in addressing common questions (full PDF here, Infants on Thrones smackdown here). Reading the first few doctrinal questions about what Mormons believe about Jesus and the Trinity made me realize something important: Mormons really don’t get why traditional Christians think Mormons are heretics!
(This is the first post in a series — I would appreciate comments from anyone, LDS or not, on if you think I have messed up any details about either LDS or traditional Christian theology.)
Are Mormons Christian?
I’m sure every Mormon has experienced someone questioning their Christianity. And, if you were like me, born and raised in the church, you probably had no idea why your non-LDS Christian friends were so insistent that Mormons are not Christians.
From looking at the church’s answers, I am struck by how I could easily see myself using similar answers to the ones the LDS church advises leaders and Public Affairs to use: we have Jesus Christ in the name of the church — how can we not be Christians?!
And so it goes for the questions regarding Mormonism’s status as a Christian religion:
Are Mormons Christian?
Yes. Latter-day Saints worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God and embrace His message, mission, and ministry as set out in the New Testament. In addition, The Book of Mormon is another testament, or witness, of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Christ-centered references occur throughout the book, such as in 2 Nephi 25:26: “And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.“
Who could protest this?
The one thing I’ve learned since engaging with non-LDS Christian theology on a more substantive level has been that most of the time, terminology has very different meanings and Mormons may not even be aware of that. At best, the church’s answers are blissfully ignorant of the substantive issues at play. At worst, the church’s answers are explicit obfuscations of those issues.
Do Mormons believe in another Jesus?
At first, the LDS answer to the question of whether Mormons are Christians seems unassailable. Mormons do talk about Jesus a lot. Jesus’s name is in the name of the church, it is in every Mormon prayer, and Mormons have not just two testaments to Jesus (because the Old Testament is also definitely about Jesus), but three! To understand the issues lying beneath the surface with the LDS answer to the question of whether Mormons are Christians, we have to address where Mormons and traditional Christians might disagree on who Jesus is, how the members of the Godhead or Trinity relate to one another, and (in the next post), how they relate to us.
This leads to another question addressed in the document:
Do you worship a different Jesus?
Latter-day Saints worship God the Father and Jesus Christ — the Jesus of the Bible that many people are familiar with.
No more questions, right?
The church anticipates that some people will not be pleased with one line, so it continues:
Do you believe in the Trinity?
We believe in God the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit). In many Christian traditions, these are usually understood as manifestations of one God. In our belief, they are separate personages but one in purpose.
Here is where Mormons and traditional Christians are going to start having major problems. For many Mormons who aren’t aware of traditional Christian theology, these three short sentences are unobjectionable. Before talking with traditional Christians in depth, my understanding of the Trinity probably would have been the same.
The first sentence still isn’t too objectionable (at least, not yet), so I’ll start with the second.
Is it true that in many Christian traditions, Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are understood as manifestations of one God?
This answer plays on the popular understanding that Christianity is utterly committed to monotheism, so it is true that traditional Christianity is absolutely committed to the claim that there is one God. And yet, how can there be three in one?
Many people throughout history have tried to explain how this can be, and many times, they have expressed one form of heresy or another, either rejecting the oneness of God or the personhoods of some or all of the Trinity.
The idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as being different manifestations evokes the heresy of modalism: the idea that the members of the Trinity are only three modes or aspects to God, rather than being three persons.
One expression of modalism might be to say that God is like the states of matter for water — water can be liquid water, or it can be solid ice, or it can be vapor, but it’s the same thing.
Another expression of modalism might be to say that God’s three aspects are roles or metaphors…one man might be a husband to his wife, a father to his son, and a son to his own parents — but at the end of the day, he’s one man.
I suspect that many Mormons sincerely believe that the Christian trinity is modalism (and, apparently, the church’s own document on common questions), and that Mormonism fixes the Trinity by making God into three distinct persons. (Thus, you might also hear Mormons criticizing Christians for believing the baffling claim that Jesus was praying to himself, and so on.)
But here’s the issue: modalism is a heresy and has been for a long time. It is not what traditional Christians believe!
Behold the Trinity Shield — the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost, and neither are the Holy Ghost or the Son the same person as the Father or one another.
So, what do traditional Christians believe? The traditional understanding of the Trinity is that God is three persons (Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and the Father) in one being.
Mormon beliefs on personages
Let’s go back to the 3rd sentence from the previously discussed answer.
In our belief, they are separate personages but one in purpose.
Firstly, this line reinforces the previous impression that traditional Christians are modalists — Mormons believe that three members of the trinity are separate personages, but traditional Christians do not.
But what is actually true is that both Mormons and traditional Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate persons. Neither group seriously thinks that Jesus prayed to himself.
So, what’s the big deal?! Why are traditional Christians so insistent that Mormons are not Christians?
It’s in what is not mentioned. Never is the word being or substance mentioned.
For many Mormons, “being” is probably seen as synonymous to “person” or “personage.” To say God is three persons for a Mormon is probably synonymous as saying “God is three beings”. Even now, I imagine many folks having a tough time separating the concepts.
But for traditional Christians, being and person mean different things. Being is more like (not exactly, but more like) a reference to species, and this is where things can get really complicated (in fact, at the end of the day, most folks I talked to embraced the idea that the Trinity is a divine mystery, and therefore isn’t intended to be easily understood.)
For traditional Christians, the persons of God are defined by who they are, and their shared nature is defined radically separately from all of creation as the one that is uncreated, eternal, necessary, and existing in and of itself. This contrasts with the nature of all creation, which are created (duh!), temporally and logically contingent, beings separated and divided materially and temporally, and who are held in existence by God.
In the attempt to make the Godhead more relatable, personal, and understandable than the traditional Trinity, Mormonism drastically redefined who God is and how God operates significantly from the traditional Christian understanding. The Mormon Godhead is not defined by who they are, but by what they do, or, as the church document emphasizes: the Godhead is one in purpose. Godhead is more like an office or role performed by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
In this way, to say something like “Heavenly Father is God” in traditional Christianity is like saying “I am human” — it is something that is true regardless of what I do, although the actions I can perform are mediated by my human nature. It’s who I am. In contrast, to say something like “Heavenly Father is God” in Mormonism is more like saying “I am an accountant” — that is something that is true because of what I do.
So, who is God in Mormonism? How does who God is relate to who we are? In Part II, I’ll get into Mormon-specific speculations about relationality between being such as God and humanity, which spills over into fun questions for Mormons such as what relationality exists between Jesus and Satan, and whether persons than the members Godhead can do the actions that would make them God.
Wheat & Tares 
Ponderize Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s speech on whether we worship the Son. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_relationship-lord/
Are we then Christians?
While I think it is useful to understand the difference in outlook between religious sects, including ours and traditional Christians, the question “Are Mormons Christians?” to the average person is a different question than the sophisticates are answering. True, many people who ask that question are trying to find out if other Christian faiths accept Mormons, so they are essentially asking “Are Mormons heretics?” But most are just trying to get a general idea of how far we fall outside of what other Christians believe, and I think the fine points you’re bringing up (and presumably will continue to bring up) are going to be lost on them.
This isn’t to say the post isn’t interesting, because it is. I’m not sure I buy the argument that Mormons define God by what He does rather than what he is, though.
Martin, yes, they are often asking whether Mormons are heretics. But that question also cannot be answered without a definition of what is essential in whatever version of “traditional Christianity” against which “heresy” is to be measured.
As Andrew noted or at least implied, some of the traditional formulations of Trinitarian doctrine use the word “substance” rather than “being”. The few productive discussions I have had with non-Mormons on whether Mormons are Christians have generally been productive only as people realized that they have had differing definitions of “Christian”, “person”, “being”, “substance” and even “traditional Christianity” (pre- or post- Nicea). I no longer find it useful to engage in trying to answer the question unless the questioner is first willing to define his terms. Most of those I have spoken with (with some exceptions, not seminary or philosophically trained ministers) cannot define their terms.
If the question I have been asked then hinges on acceptance of the Nicene creed, which for some it does, that merely shifts the question to the definitions of “person”, “being” or “substance”, etc. Most of those I’ve dealt with cannot define those terms as used in the creed. By some definitions I think many Mormons would have no difficulty with the Nicene creed; by others, they would.
I have wondered how much of the Nicene creed is really just a collection of words intended to put an end to differences among prior Christian doctrines held by various groups, but without any real agreement on what is meant by the critical terms? (For some adherence to the Nicene creed may be sort of like the Mormon creed “I know the Church is true” which conveys nothing more than personal commitment and does not mean that all those Mormons who repeat that creed mean the same thing by “know” or “church” or “true”.) The Nicene creed had at least the function of insisting on both the divinity of Christ and on a monotheism which took as given creation ex nihilo so that nothing could be divine if it was not part or all of the “substance” of God that existed before anything else at all existed. It seems that strict monotheism and ex nihilo creation may be the conceptual foundation of the effort that resulted in the Nicene creed’s attempt to preserve the divinity of Christ as opposed to those early Christians who rejected Christ’s divinity in order to preserve strict monotheism and Christ’s separateness from the Father.
I have for the most part given up such discussions. I find it more useful when asked to explain what I believe to be current Mormon doctrine about Christ and let the questioner decide for himself whether he thinks that qualifies as “Christian.”
Tom,
That is quite the link there…not sure if Bruce R. McConkie still holds sway today (or if he should), but I think one thing that I would say is that his views on how people should relate to the different persons of the Godhead does seem very influenced by his understanding how of the Godhead’s members differ.
Martin,
I would agree that to the “average”‘ person, a lot of these differences don’t mean much.
But I also want to point out that a big difference between how Mormons and traditional Christians think is that Mormons tend to think that these differences are just minor differences, whereas traditional Christians recognize that these are big differences that go through the entire worldviews. I suspect that many members might bristle at the idea that God is defined by what he does, but then when we talk about whether humans can become gods (and what that requires), then I think people would eventually admit that it’s not inherent to what humanity is, but it depends on a human progressing through certain actions (e.g., what is required for exaltation)
JR,
I would agree that the typical Christian probably does not have a good understanding of traditional theology. What I probably wanted to say at the end of this post is that the components of the Trinity vs the Godhead are functionally similar enough that this isn’t the place people get bent out of shape over. That is, neither Mormons nor traditional Christians are modalist. Each believes that God is three persons.
I think the big issue is with the doctrines that develop after defining God differently. In other words, as we will discuss when discussing what it means to Mormons for Mormons to be “children of God”, or what it means for Jesus to be our eldest brother, or what it means for us to progress to become gods, all of these questions hinge on the very different idea of God that Mormons have. As you note, one of the big things for traditional Christian creeds is asserting the difference between the eternal creator and the time-bound creatures (of which, in traditional Christianity, we are firmly in the latter category.) There is no bridging that gap, so there is no way we become gods.
But in Mormonism, creatio ex nihilo is rejected, and the difference between creator and creature is rejected. This is a profound difference.
I agree with your last paragraph — it’s ultimately up for the person you’re talking with to hear those differences and decide whether or not Mormons are Christian. I probably would say Mormons should embrace at the very least that we certainly are not *traditional* Christians, because Mormonism believes they got it very wrong.
Mormons agree generally with traditional Christians on what Jesus did and will do .
Mormons and traditional Christians do not agree on who Jesus is. or what God is for that matter.
If self-definition is allowed in religion (it isn’t in professions like medicine or law where you have to be certified by the government), then we can call ourselves Christians. And my relative and friend Rod Meldrum can call himself a scholar with his half a quarter of college education (and considerable self study, don’t underestimate his knowledge base).
But we can’t have it both ways . For example we can’t claim the FLDS are not Mormon and Warren Jeffs is not a prophet.
A good topic. My observation as a lifelong LDS, too, has been that we characterize Trinitarianism as if it is Modalism and generally misunderstand Trinitarianism. This was true for me up until a couple of years ago when I happened upon an episode of “In the Market with Janet Parshell” (Moody Radio) that used one of the same analogies I have used (the husband and wife are separate individuals but can act as one unit). Then I read something by a Christian pastor describing the Trinity as three distinct personalities but one God. Follow that up with Donall and Conall’s “St Patrick’s Bad Analogies” (which I thought was quite entertaining). I don’t think that we do a very good job of accurately representing others beliefs here (which I find kind of ironic considering that we really do not like having our own beliefs mischaracterized).
Beyond the part of using the Trinity/Nicene Creed as something that defines Christian, I once put “Are Catholics Christian” into Google, and got some interesting results (especially from those among Evangelicals/Protestants that claim that Catholics are not Christians). That was naturally followed by “Are Protestants Christian”, which, likewise, included several Catholics who wanted to argue that Protestants are not Christian. After that exercise, part of me wonders if there is any point at all in trying to understand who is truly Christian.
I liked one article by a Catholic theologian who suggested that anyone who believes in what he called the basic “kerygma” of Christianity (and made reference to 1 Cor 15 where Paul talks about preaching Christ and Him crucified) would be a Christian in his book. It’s a fairly broad definition of Christian, and probably includes a lot of heretics under that umbrella.
Martin –
It was a little jarring for me as well to read that Mormons define God by action. Upon further reflection, I don’t disagree with Andrew’s statement. I’m reminded of our narrative of premortality wherein Jesus was became the Christ by His decision to volunteer, “Here am I, send me.” Similarly, we teach that His perfect example is all well and good, but the actions of the Atonement are where salvation and exaltation start to kick in. Whether we believe anyone else was qualified to undertake those salvific actions is a fun but separate question. Our theology is pretty clear that none of the inherent qualifications of who Christ are as theologically important to us as what he did with them.
To quote President Uchtdorf quoting JK Rowling, “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” Mormon theology loves this idea.
Mike,
I think at the end of the day, whether one concludes if Mormons are Christians or not, at the very least, we should own that Mormons are very different than traditional Christians. At very times in our history, we have been more willing to accept that, but at other points (and with this document), it seems there is more of a desire to collapse the distinction to be seen as just like everyone else.
McShorty,
I am personally always very amused by folks who don’t think Catholics or Orthodox are Christians…like, how can the groups that started everything not be Christian?
Elizabeth St Dunstan
Right, this is what I was trying to encapsulate with that statement! In contrast, there’s a sense in traditional Christianity that that’s baked into who their being is. We couldn’t “do” anything to be Gods because we simply have that divide of being created/finite beings whereas God is uncreated and infinite.
Most Christians I know describe their beliefs as modalism even some pastors.
I think there is a good argument for Mormonism being consistent with a Social Trinitarian model of the Godhead; but I would agree that this is not the real important sticking point between Mormon vs Christian (traditional) views of God.
I think the meat of the difference is in traditional Christianity, the gulf between creator and created is uncrossable, whereas in Mormonism, we can vault across it. I think both groups see God (hood) as being defined by who/what a being is, rather than what they do; it’s just that Mormons believe they can change from one type to the other. Actions we do are simply the means of making that transition.
MrShorty, describing the Trinity as “describing the Trinity as three distinct personalities but one God” is interesting, but doesn’t help much, but can introduce the concept of multiple personality disorder! It shifts the definitional problem from “person” to “personality” and begs the question of what “one God” or “being” or “substance” is.
I remain unconvinced that the Trinity is a concept rather than a collection of words with largely undefined connections to other uses of the same words. Maybe that is what is meant by some Trinitarians insistence that it is a mystery.
I have to note that the most ardent anti-Mormons I’ve met are all modalists or monists. There is a lot of truth to the way the reply is framed.
I’d also note that the real rub comes in a conflict between denotation and connotations.
” the basic “kerygma”” is all about simple denotation.
The arguments all then become that is you believe too much past that in the wrong direction you become non-Christian.
So that many historical Christian figures really were not Christian.
But. I’ve enjoyed the analysis.
Typo. “If” not “is”.
CoriAnton1
With Eastern Christianity and Theosis we also can vault across the gap.
jpv,
Yeah, I bet that is true. There’s a lot of theological illiteracy, haha.
CoriAnton,
I agree with this comment so much, but in the next post, I want to address that do vs be distinction. There isn’t AFAIK a transformation in “kind” or “species” with exaltation — rather, there is the emphasis that God is pretty similar to us in terms of composition and probably went through the same sort of ordeals we are going through now.
JR,
I was actually going to ask someone if our understanding of multiple personality disorder/dissociative identity disorder can be used in any way as an analogy. I think we could point out a few things at the very least to compare/contrast:
1) As you note, the distinction between personality and person needs to be fleshed out. I’ve read enough self-reports from those with multiples and they usually describe the different multiples as being different persons. I think that the rest of us reduce those persons to being mere personalities because we are accustomed to only accept 1 person per body. But this isn’t how many folks with multiples would self-identity. Who’s correct? I bracket that issue. I just think that this should give us a way of thinking of containing multiple persons in 1 being. But this leads to the next thing:
2) In traditional Christianity, God is immaterial. So, it’s not like Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are sharing a body, because they are immaterial. (How does Jesus have a body in a traditional Christian context? Well, as you may already know, traditional Christians believe Jesus had two natures…one fully God and one fully human. Human nature is to have a body, and Jesus’s body is part of his human nature (but not his God nature).
That being said, I do agree that traditional Christians are more willing to embrace mystery. I think that a lot of Mormonism’s starting theological innovations were to try to “fix” aspects that Joseph thought were deficient in traditional Christianity…but in doing so, he made something quite different.
Stephe(n) R Marsh,
To respond to all the comments so far at once…
…I would be very surprised if modalism was the OFFICIAL theological standpoint of the most ardent anti-Mormons, rather than just being a misunderstanding from the LDS side or ignorance on the critic’s side.
I think that it’s definitely part of the LDS narrative (the very idea of restoration) to insist that Mormons are really just doing what the original Christians were doing (and that modern traditional Christians are excluding original Christians as heretics), and to some extent I agree that some of the creeds definitely were essentially excommunicating folks who had in the early church considered themselves very much in fellowship with the Christian community. But I also think it’s the case that there’s innovations that aren’t really part of the original church, or that misunderstand what the original church believed. Mormonism’s claims to restoration are more aspirational.
Like, let’s take theosis. I don’t think any Eastern Orthodox is going to say that the gap can be bridged, because something that is created cannot (not even possibly…it’s not logically possible) become uncreated. Rather, from all of my conversations with Orthodox folks, there is an emphasis on God as having energies/operations throughout the created universe, and humans can either work with those energies or against it. Theosis isn’t about humans being subsumed into God or becoming components of God or being transformed in substance, but more about the working together (synergeia). There is consistent distinction made between theosis and, say, henosis.
Again, this may understate what theosis might be doing. But I’m pretty sure that Orthodoxy maintains the creator/creature distinction, you know?
So I may have missed this (and if I did I apologize), but where exactly are you getting a definition of ‘traditional Christian beliefs’? I’m not saying my background as Baptist should be considered traditional, but this does not necessarily agree with some things I have been taught.
Based on my understanding traditional Christian beliefs have somewhat morphed over the years. Some would argue that traditional beliefs would be what someone in the 1930s or 1950s believed. Traditional Christian beliefs could mean the reformation era or the creeds from the time period after the death of Christ. Is there a distinction between Catholic vs Protestant beliefs in your arguments above or are they all mingled together? Once again I apologize if I missed a definition.
I’m impressed with your knowledge and articulation of these nuances Andrew.
JPV said:
Most Mormons I know say that no one in the LDS church is drawing a salary or a stipend. That misunderstanding on their part doesn’t make it so.
There are two sides of the bridge someone can fall off into when discussing the Trinity: saying there are three gods (Tri-theism), and saying that there is only one person (Modalism). Most Evangelical discussion of the Trinity is focused on answering how Christians are not tri-theistic. That emphasis has the affect of making us sound like modalist. That’s even more true in conversation with Henotheists like Mormons.
Also, as your basis premise is to describe why other Christians believe Mormons to be heretics I think it would be good to define what a heretic is and what a Christian is. I think you’ve done a great job going over the trinity, but the basic idea of why people don’t think Mormons are Christian has more to do with the fact (in my mind) that Mormons believe that God was created and has not been around for all time. I’m not sure if I fall under your Christian beliefs, but another issue usually comes up about Jesus not being God although I can’t comment much on the differences there.
Jeff (responding to both comments):
I will say that my understanding of traditional Christian beliefs comes from a variety of denominations because they are meant to be based on the creeds from the early centuries. I’d say anyone who can accept creeds such as the Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian Creeds (with the exception that I am not really committed one way or the other on the filioque clause, so I’m not trying to exclude or slight Eastern Orthodoxy) fits as traditional Christian. I do not really have any thoughts at least in this series regarding the authority or priesthood of any church authority (so I’m not making a distinction between Catholodoxy or Protestantism here), but I will say that when it comes to technical details, my understanding would probably lean more to a Catholic/Thomistic understanding (especially for discussion of things like the discussion of “nature”, “being”, “substance”, etc.,)
As I’ve commented before, I do think it’s kinda ridiculous when Protestants say Catholics aren’t Christian, so that would be another bias. If you ever see me refer to “traditional Christian sexual ethics” for example, that’s will be closely aligned with Catholic sexual ethics, which I think are more logically rigorous.
With respect to your second comment, I would say: this will be covered in part 2, but this post was already getting too long. I think that Mormonism’s different conception of what kind of beings the members of the Godhead are directly contribute to what you talk about — in Mormonism, humans are as eternal as God is…whether we take that to believe that we are all co-eternal because of our intelligences…or we take that to mean that nothing is eternal because everything (including God) was organized, had to progress, etc., This is a radical change.
I’m not sure who you are saying believes that Jesus is not God? I don’t think that’s a distinction between traditional Christians and Mormons. I think it’s just that Mormons would say Jesus is God through his unity of purpose with God, rather than being God because he is uncreated, etc., etc., (I think that some Mormons often do use a shorthand of saying that “God” refers to the father, but I think this is more because people aren’t really thinking things out, than a real theological distinction.)
A Protestant Youth leader I once worked with handed me a sheet titled “How to Identify a Cult” with the first question :Is their Church based on anything other than the Bible? He flipped-out when I checked NO, but I explained that all of our beliefs can be found in the Bible; just not fully detailed.
A woman asked “If you could keep only one of these books (Scriptures) which would it be? My response was asking her if she could keep only one New Testament Gospel, which would it be?
Sorry, I reread the last part of my second comment and realized it was not stated clearly. Based on my discussions with Mormons (and this is talking with them and not getting into any resource material) Jesus obeys the Father and therefore not on equal terms or footing with him. That distinction is where the heretic belief and not the same Jesus attitude comes into play in my opinion.
Also, is what is Catholodoxy a real word? I think you just made that up.
Tim,
it was really all of the conversations at your old blog that seriously discussed all these issues and differences. I still check out Agellius’s blog a lot too.
I agree with what you’re saying on the role of different emphases. I think if I ever get around to talking about grace, that’s going to come out.
markag,
The whole “just not fully detailed” part has a lot of issues in it with how Mormons prooftext the Bible. But I would agree that there’s probably too much sensationalism in “countercult ministries” as well.
Jeff,
Yeah, I think I could see how this derives from Mormon distinguishing Jesus from the Father that way. Not sure if every Mormon would say that they believe Jesus is not on equal terms…but they would say that the Godhead is defined through unity of purpose.
As far as the term Catholodoxy, I saw it somewhere. I’m sure it’s very colloquial, but I didn’t make it up!
I was in a Christian Bible study for years.
I had about thirty quarter hours of philosophy credits in college.
They really were modalists. I found it striking.
As much as if I had stumbled across a group of Nestorians.
It really pains me to say that Mormons are not Christian, because I like to think of them as Christian, and many of them seem to be more Christlike than many self professing Christians…. but I don’t like relativism, and the line has to be drawn somewhere, and Mormonism has just veered way too far off the path from orthodox Christianity. There are some similarities, but the differences in theology and beliefs are drastically different than orthodox and mainstream Christianity (I think there are more differences than there a similarities). Outwardly, Mormonism appears quite Christian, because it has borrowed much of its terminology from Christianity, and so at first when Christians & Mormons engage in dialogue they may think they are talking about the same things, but in Mormonism, the terminology has different definitions & meanings than it does in Christianity.
In Christianity, Jesus is God incarnate, we did not have a “pre-existence,” Satan & Jesus are not brothers, neither is Satan our brother, and Jesus is only in a sense our brother when we become adopted sons & daughters of God through baptism.
In Christianity, God is the only God who exists and has ever, and will ever exist. He is pure “being” itself, He is the “uncreated creator,” the “unmoved mover” and the “uncaused cause.” He is omnipotent and omniscient. He is Spirit and was never a man (other than when the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ) who lived on another planet worshiping His own god, who then progressed and became “exalted” as another god. He does not have a wife (or wives) in heaven with whom he had sex with to create billions of literal “spirit babies.” God exists outside the boundaries time/space and is infinite. We are in time, but to God, He sees everything that happens in time before Him all at once in the present. God created out of nothing (He speaks things into existence), and there was no pre-existing matter before Him.
The Trinity is indeed a difficult concept to grasp, but we cannot 100% understand the infinite Almighty God with our finite minds and very limited human perspectives and experiences. We can only really describe things with what we know and are familiar with, so every analogy we use to describe God is imperfect and falls short. Imagine a person existing in a 2D world trying to understand how what they know as a square or rectangle could simultaneously be a circle? This would be very hard, if not and impossible concept to grasp from a very limited 2d perspective, but in a 3D world, we can see how a square or rectangle could round out and take the form of a circle in a cylinder.
God has revealed Himself as being one in three persons. Jesus is the Word of God/Wisdom/Logos made Flesh:
John 1:1-5
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
John 1:9-14
“That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
John 1:18
“No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
This is how Jesus is the Word/Wisdom/Logos of God… Imagine knowing yourself perfectly, 100%, so much in fact that your knowledge of yourself was like looking into a mirror but a perfect mirror (not like the mirrors we are used to), a mirror where you could see every every angle, every detail, deeper than you can imagine (not just visual, but intellectually, emotionally, etc.) and it was a living image so real that it actually manifests as another person. This is who Jesus (the Word of God) is. He is referred to as the Son of God, because He is eternally begotten of God – proceeding from the Father, but He is the same God, just a distinct “person”. Now the Holy Spirit is the Breath/Love of God, who eternally proceeds & radiates from and continually between the Father and the Son. God is Love itself, and love is relational perfect love pours forth from the Father to the Son and visa versa. If God was consisted of just one singular person, He couldn’t be love.
God entered into time & His creation when the Word was made Flesh. By Humbling Himself taking on flesh/human nature, the Invisible God was made visible in the person of Jesus Christ. This is why He is called Emmanuel “God with us.”
Here is a great blog article that shows some of the rich Biblical evidence for Jesus’ divinity (and when Christians claim that Jesus is divine, we mean that He is THE God, not one of many divine beings):
https://polldaddy.com/js/rating/rating.js
https://polldaddy.com/js/rating/rating.js