Being formed into Gods of their own dominions

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

- If by "salvation" you mean not forever burning in the pits of a lake burning with fire and brimstone:

* Be born

* Don't commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost

- If by "salvation" you mean living eternally with our Father, together with our families, in a state of eternal learning and progression (what we call "exaltation"):

* Faith in Jesus Christ

* Repentance from sins

* Baptism by immersion by one having authority and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

* Receiving and keeping covenants entered into in Temples- including sealing in marriage

* Enduring faithful until the end

I don't mean either of those categories you have suggested in this post. But again, as I just said, my interest is to better understand the LDS perspective since it was used by the one who wrote it in the LDS context. Perhaps  the "essentials" with all other things being "appendages." My concept of salvation is not the same as either category you suggested, but that is not relevant to me. I know what I believe and don't believe what I believe to be thee Truth or thee only truth. I believe whatever are the essentials of salvation may never be revealed to us until judgment day, when Christ, in his infinite wisdom, deals with each one of us as individuals, not members of a denomination, group, or church. As a Mennonite and an Evangelical, the "Enduring faithful until the end" is an especially tricky construct. I will leave that in Christ's hands when it comes to judging Navidad. That is both scary and comforting.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I don't mean either of those categories you have suggested in this post. But again, as I just said, my interest is to better understand the LDS perspective since it was used by the one who wrote it in the LDS context. Perhaps  the "essentials" with all other things being "appendages." My concept of salvation is not the same as either category you suggested, but that is not relevant to me. I know what I believe and don't believe what I believe to be thee Truth or thee only truth. I believe whatever are the essentials of salvation may never be revealed to us until judgment day, when Christ, in his infinite wisdom, deals with each one of us as individuals, not members of a denomination, group, or church. As a Mennonite and an Evangelical, the "Enduring faithful until the end" is an especially tricky construct. I will leave that in Christ's hands when it comes to judging Navidad. That is both scary and comforting.  

You asked what was required for salvation, I answered. If you are wanting more specifics, ask more specific questions.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You asked what was required for salvation, I answered. If you are wanting more specifics, ask more specific questions.

Wow. I guess I missed that. You asked me what I mean by salvation. I replied that what I mean is irrelevant to my question. Then you hypothesized two possibilities for what I meant by "salvation." Again that was irrelevant to my question. I want to know what you believe are the beliefs necessary for salvation according to your knowledge of the LDS doctrine. I am unaware that you have answered that question. Perhaps you did and I missed it 

[ZealouslyStriving]

42 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I want to know what you believe are the beliefs necessary for salvation according to your knowledge of the LDS doctrine.

You say I didn't answer your question, yet @InCognitus and I both answered the same way- so are you sure the issue doesn't lie with you?

Let me try answering in a different way:

- There a no beliefs required for the lowest general salvation- you just have to be born and die without committing the unpardonable sin (blasphemy against the Holy Ghost)

- To attain the highest exaltation, you have to believe at some point, as necessary, the things I listed in my previous comment- and do them (or have them done for you, in the case of ordinances).

** There are varying degrees between the lowest general salvation and the highest exaltation- mostly having to do with our actions according to our knowledge

 

[Navidad]

57 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You say I didn't answer your question, yet @InCognitus and I both answered the same way- so are you sure the issue doesn't lie with you?

Let me try answering in a different way:

- There a no beliefs required for the lowest general salvation- you just have to be born and die without committing the unpardonable sin (blasphemy against the Holy Ghost)

- To attain the highest exaltation, you have to believe at some point, as necessary, the things I listed in my previous comment- and do them (or have them done for you, in the case of ordinances).

** There are varying degrees between the lowest general salvation and the highest exaltation- mostly having to do with our actions according to our knowledge

 

You seem to be separating salvation and exaltation. I always thought they were both part of the process of salvation for the LDS. I guess I was wrong.

As far as the ad hominem attack on me, have at it . . . I know there are many problems and issues with me. I stipulate to that. No need for you, who don't even know me to remind me of that truth.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You seem to be separating salvation and exaltation. I always thought they were both part of the process of salvation for the LDS. I guess I was wrong.

Salvation is sometimes used as synonym for the whole covenant path, which includes exaltation.

Exaltation is the fullest expression of salvation and thus we sometimes use “salvation” interchangeably with “exaltation”.

We also sometimes just use it as the first step, salvation from physical death.

So depending on the context and what we are focusing on and our personal preferences, it could mean simply salvation from death or any step on the way to and including exaltation or the whole journey.  InCognitus and zealous gave separate explanations for some of the ways we use salvation.

Those of us who talk a lot with nonLDS typically figure out we use salvation in confusing ways and so separate them out or request the person define salvation first, so we can try and avoid using a a particular definition that is different than what they were expecting. 

That is why I believe zealous asked you to define “salvation”.  I don’t think he was insisting on your own personal definition, I think he just wanted to start at the same point you were starting. 
 

Not having a shared starting point is (I am guessing of course) how you ended up confused by the answers given as they weren’t specific to your question apparently and why zealous is now possibly frustrated, but at least looking for a more specific question from you so he and others can better focus on what you actually want. 

[Calm]

Back to the original question…

Quote

I am wondering if you would list for us from your understanding of LDS knowledge, those subjects that are indeed required for salvation. I have often wondered about that. I also am curious because when I ask my Evangelical counterparts the same question, they sometimes hesitate and provide contradictory answers. Thanks, Navidad.

What type of LDS salvation do you mean when you say “required for salvation”?

Do you mean what is required to complete the whole process, what is often called now the covenant path and used to be “the path of salvation”?  Or do you mean to be saved in at least the Telestial Kingdom or perhaps the Terrestrial?  Perhaps you mean saved in the Celestial Kingdom?  Or do you mean receiving exaltation after resurrection?  Or something else?  

If you don’t specify which type of salvation you are asking for, you will get different answers from different people and they may all be right and not contradicting each other even if it looks like it for you.  

Edited November 30, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

56 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You seem to be separating salvation and exaltation. I always thought they were both part of the process of salvation for the LDS. I guess I was wrong.

As far as the ad hominem attack on me, have at it . . . I know there are many problems and issues with me. I stipulate to that. No need for you, who don't even know me to remind me of that truth.

It was not an ad hominem- I was pointing out that if two of us understood your question the same way, perhaps you weren't as precise in your question as you thought you were.

@Calmdid a good job explaining the confusion that may have happened.

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It was not an ad hominem- I was pointing out that if two of us understood your question the same way, perhaps you weren't as precise in your question as you thought you were.

@Calmdid a good job explaining the confusion that may have happened.

Let me try and clear up the confusion. On 11/14, @Pyreaux answered a question from @theplains about the Doctrines of Salvation. He said: "I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation." (emphasis mine) I then asked, quoting this comment of @Pyreaux,  what are those subjects that are indeed required for salvation? Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith offered personal views, speculation and opinions on the subjects that are not required for salvation. My reference point was asking "what are such subjects that are not required for salvation." I have no way of knowing, without reading "Doctrines of Salvation" what Smith was talking about. I was asking @Pyreaux what his thoughts are as to what those subjects might be necessary or required, or in the reverse, not required for salvation in the LDS mindset? So I wasn't referring to any specific salvation other than that intended by @Pyreaux in his reply to @theplains. I wasn't defining salvation in any way. I was asking about what Joseph Fielding Smith might have been including or excluding when offering personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation? That is of interest to me since I have an interest in Joseph Fielding Smith because of his Mexican connections.  I hope this helps straighten out the confusion. Or perhaps makes it more confusing! I just think this context might help. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Let me try and clear up the confusion. On 11/14, @Pyreaux answered a question from @theplains about the Doctrines of Salvation. He said: "I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation." (emphasis mine) I then asked, quoting this comment of @Pyreaux,  what are those subjects that are indeed required for salvation? Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith offered personal views, speculation and opinions on the subjects that are not required for salvation. My reference point was asking "what are such subjects that are not required for salvation." I have no way of knowing, without reading "Doctrines of Salvation" what Smith was talking about. I was asking @Pyreaux what his thoughts are as to what those subjects might be necessary or required, or in the reverse, not required for salvation in the LDS mindset? So I wasn't referring to any specific salvation other than that intended by @Pyreaux in his reply to @theplains. I wasn't defining salvation in any way. I was asking about what Joseph Fielding Smith might have been including or excluding when offering personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation? That is of interest to me since I have an interest in Joseph Fielding Smith because of his Mexican connections.  I hope this helps straighten out the confusion. Or perhaps makes it more confusing! I just think this context might help. 

Yeah, you completely lost me.

So you wanted to know what JFS thought was required for "salvation" that might not actually be required for "salvation"?

[CV75]

On 11/28/2025 at 2:45 PM, Navidad said:

Good afternoon. I am wondering if you would list for us from your understanding of LDS knowledge, those subjects that are indeed required for salvation. I have often wondered about that. I also am curious because when I ask my Evangelical counterparts the same question, they sometimes hesitate and provide contradictory answers. Thanks, Navidad.

Using the word "subject" to mean a branch of knowledge, and the words "know" and "believe" as practical/virtual synonyms for this purpose, no one needs to know/believe anything to be resurrected (salvation in that sense). However, we cannot help but know/believe, sooner or later, that Jesus Christ resurrected/will resurrect/resurrects us. We do need to know/believe Jesus and His invitation to follow Him, repent and be baptized, involving the baptism by fire spoken of by John the Baptist, to be freed from sin (salvation in that sense). 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Let me try and clear up the confusion. On 11/14, @Pyreaux answered a question from @theplains about the Doctrines of Salvation. He said: "I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation." (emphasis mine) I then asked, quoting this comment of @Pyreaux,  what are those subjects that are indeed required for salvation? Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith offered personal views, speculation and opinions on the subjects that are not required for salvation. My reference point was asking "what are such subjects that are not required for salvation." I have no way of knowing, without reading "Doctrines of Salvation" what Smith was talking about. I was asking @Pyreaux what his thoughts are as to what those subjects might be necessary or required, or in the reverse, not required for salvation in the LDS mindset? So I wasn't referring to any specific salvation other than that intended by @Pyreaux in his reply to @theplains. I wasn't defining salvation in any way. I was asking about what Joseph Fielding Smith might have been including or excluding when offering personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation? That is of interest to me since I have an interest in Joseph Fielding Smith because of his Mexican connections.  I hope this helps straighten out the confusion. Or perhaps makes it more confusing! I just think this context might help. 

I don’t know the thought processes that led Bruce R MConkie to choose that title, but I have always considered it to mean along the lines of teachings and beliefs that spiritually edify and educate rather than everything in it needing to be known to pursue the path of salvation.  It was a edited compilation of sermons, letters, etc, so not systematically created by JFS even if BRM did systematize JFS’s ideas when he put it together (against JFS’s wishes iirc, but hard to say no to your enthusiastic son-in-law, I guess).  So it’s a good idea not to assume even JFS thought much of the material was needed for salvation or comprehensive in any way, though no doubt he thought it would be helpful along the way or he won’t have shared his thoughts in the first place.

The preface isn’t that helpful to pin down why Brother McConkie chose what he did and left out others:

Quote

Joseph Fielding Smith is the leading gospel scholar and the greatest doctrinal teacher of this generation. Few men in this dispensation have approached him in gospel knowledge or surpassed him in spiritual insight, His is the faith and the knowledge of his father, President Joseph F. Smith, and his grandfather, the Patriarch Hyrum Smith.

It was inevitable, therefore, that his sermons and writings should form the basis of a substantial contribution to the literature of the Church. This first-of-three volumes should find ready acceptance among gospel students everywhere.
Source of the material is the published sermons and articles of President Smith as found in the various periodicals of the Church; also, the thousands upon thousands of personal letters he has written to give answers to questions raised by searchers who could not find the desired information in any published work.  It follows that a host of answers will be found herein to gospel questions frequently asked, but seldom answered with the authoritative finality of the oracles of God. When President Smith speaks, it is not as the scribes.  The student will do well to read the scriptural references listed in the footnotes, and to approach his study in a spirit of faith and prayerful search for ultimate truth.

Formatting may be off.

https://archive.org/details/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/page/n1/mode/2up

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Let me try and clear up the confusion. On 11/14, @Pyreaux answered a question from @theplains about the Doctrines of Salvation. He said: "I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation." (emphasis mine) I then asked, quoting this comment of @Pyreaux,  what are those subjects that are indeed required for salvation? Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith offered personal views, speculation and opinions on the subjects that are not required for salvation. My reference point was asking "what are such subjects that are not required for salvation." I have no way of knowing, without reading "Doctrines of Salvation" what Smith was talking about. I was asking @Pyreaux what his thoughts are as to what those subjects might be necessary or required, or in the reverse, not required for salvation in the LDS mindset? So I wasn't referring to any specific salvation other than that intended by @Pyreaux in his reply to @theplains. I wasn't defining salvation in any way. I was asking about what Joseph Fielding Smith might have been including or excluding when offering personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation? That is of interest to me since I have an interest in Joseph Fielding Smith because of his Mexican connections.  I hope this helps straighten out the confusion. Or perhaps makes it more confusing! I just think this context might help. 

@Pyreaux could correct me, but I understood his statement "I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation" as saying that the "personal views, speculations and opinions" aren't required for salvation.  Not that the subjects aren't required.  The book "Doctrines of Salvation" is a compilation of sermons and writings that Joseph Field Smith gave across a wide variety of subjects.  There are 3 volumes and his son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie, compiled it while Joseph Fielding Smith was an apostle (1954-1956).  The books cover a wide range of subjects.  There are definitely subjects in there that I think most would accept are required for salvation, such as God and Christ.  There is even an entire section in the second book called "Salvation".

[JVW]

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

Let me try and clear up the confusion. On 11/14, @Pyreaux answered a question from @theplains about the Doctrines of Salvation. He said: "I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation." (emphasis mine) I then asked, quoting this comment of @Pyreaux,  what are those subjects that are indeed required for salvation? Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith offered personal views, speculation and opinions on the subjects that are not required for salvation. My reference point was asking "what are such subjects that are not required for salvation." I have no way of knowing, without reading "Doctrines of Salvation" what Smith was talking about. I was asking @Pyreaux what his thoughts are as to what those subjects might be necessary or required, or in the reverse, not required for salvation in the LDS mindset? So I wasn't referring to any specific salvation other than that intended by @Pyreaux in his reply to @theplains. I wasn't defining salvation in any way. I was asking about what Joseph Fielding Smith might have been including or excluding when offering personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation? That is of interest to me since I have an interest in Joseph Fielding Smith because of his Mexican connections.  I hope this helps straighten out the confusion. Or perhaps makes it more confusing! I just think this context might help. 

I'd like to give my two cents on this.

I believe that a Christian's general definition of "salvation" is to live with Jesus forever. I know that the Trinity is one God in three persons, so they'll say "salvation is to live with God forever", but the Christian world, at least in America, is hyper-focused on the New Testament and they very obviously worship Jesus, not the Trinity. According to the Holy Bible (see Matthew 7:21-23) there will unfortunately be many Christians who will be rejected by Christ, so they will not get to experience their definition of salvation. Because the LDS believe in the Godhead we have a bit more nuance to the afterlife and where people will end up.

My definition of salvation is to be saved from the two deaths: physical death and spiritual death (separated from God).

Jesus saves us all from physical death as a free gift that doesn't even require faith in Him, though there will be a period of time between death and the resurrection that will vary from person to person. This fact is implicit in 1 Cor 15:30 "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept." Adam had died many thousands of years before Christ was resurrected, so there was a space between his death and his resurrection.

The sons of perdition (whatever that means) will be permanently separated from God, they reject salvation of any kind. God is dead to them, just as He is to the devil. Anyone who is not a son of perdition will be saved, regardless of what they believe.

The wicked will suffer in hell for 1000 years (during the millenial reign of Jesus) before they are resurrected, judged, and receive a degree of God's glory and dwell eternally in the presence of the Holy Ghost.

Those who repent and have faith in Jesus Christ, and follow Christ without hypocrisy and without guile, regardless of their belief system will receive a degree of God's glory and dwell eternally in the presence of Jesus Christ (the Christian salvation). They will be resurrected after the Celestial resurrection

Those who repent and have faith in Jesus Christ, are baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (under God's authority), and live faithfully until the end of their lives will receive a fulness of God's glory and dwell in the presence of the Father. They will be resurrected when Jesus comes in the clouds at His second coming (the Celestial resurrection). This is commonly referred to as "the morning of the first resurrection".

In all three cases a person is physically dwelling blissfully with God forever. Salvation truly is a free gift. In the LDS church the terms "salvation" and "exaltation" are commonly conflated, but they do not mean the same thing. Everyone except for perdition will be saved, that is, they will be resurrected and dwell with God forever. Only those who make authorized covenants with God will be exalted. Another nuance here is that after one dies, before the resurrection, they are given time to repent. So one who is wicked or deceived, after they die there is an opportunity for them to repent and come unto Christ before the resurrection. So we truly cannot judge where our neighbor will go after they die, regardless of what "Jesus" they worship, or what idols they worship.

Clear as mud?  

............ ETA: The doctrine that is required for salvation is nothing, because it's a free gift, unless you want to not suffer in misery and hell while you're alive and/or before you are resurrected. If you want to live with God's peace then the doctrine that is required for salvation is repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Edited December 1, 2025 by JVW
To answer the original question

[ZealouslyStriving]

19 minutes ago, JVW said:

I'd like to give my two cents on this.

I believe that a Christian's general definition of "salvation" is to live with Jesus forever. I know that the Trinity is one God in three persons, so they'll say "salvation is to live with God forever", but the Christian world, at least in America, is hyper-focused on the New Testament and they very obviously worship Jesus, not the Trinity. According to the Holy Bible (see Matthew 7:21-23) there will unfortunately be many Christians who will be rejected by Christ, so they will not get to experience their definition of salvation. Because the LDS believe in the Godhead we have a bit more nuance to the afterlife and where people will end up.

My definition of salvation is to be saved from the two deaths: physical death and spiritual death (separated from God).

Jesus saves us all from physical death as a free gift that doesn't even require faith in Him, though there will be a period of time between death and the resurrection that will vary from person to person. This fact is implicit in 1 Cor 15:30 "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept." Adam had died many thousands of years before Christ was resurrected, so there was a space between his death and his resurrection.

The sons of perdition (whatever that means) will be permanently separated from God, they reject salvation of any kind. God is dead to them, just as He is to the devil. Anyone who is not a son of perdition will be saved, regardless of what they believe.

The wicked will suffer in hell for 1000 years (during the millenial reign of Jesus) before they are resurrected, judged, and receive a degree of God's glory and dwell eternally in the presence of the Holy Ghost.

Those who repent and have faith in Jesus Christ, and follow Christ without hypocrisy and without guile, regardless of their belief system will receive a degree of God's glory and dwell eternally in the presence of Jesus Christ (the Christian salvation). They will be resurrected after the Celestial resurrection

Those who repent and have faith in Jesus Christ, are baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (under God's authority), and live faithfully until the end of their lives will receive a fulness of God's glory and dwell in the presence of the Father. They will be resurrected when Jesus comes in the clouds at His second coming (the Celestial resurrection). This is commonly referred to as "the morning of the first resurrection".

In all three cases a person is physically dwelling blissfully with God forever. Salvation truly is a free gift. In the LDS church the terms "salvation" and "exaltation" are commonly conflated, but they do not mean the same thing. Everyone except for perdition will be saved, that is, they will be resurrected and dwell with God forever. Only those who make authorized covenants with God will be exalted. Another nuance here is that after one dies, before the resurrection, they are given time to repent. So one who is wicked or deceived, after they die there is an opportunity for them to repent and come unto Christ before the resurrection. So we truly cannot judge where our neighbor will go after they die, regardless of what "Jesus" they worship, or what idols they worship.

Clear as mud?  

............ ETA: The doctrine that is required for salvation is nothing, because it's a free gift, unless you want to not suffer in misery and hell while you're alive and/or before you are resurrected. If you want to live with God's peace then the doctrine that is required for salvation is repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Two of us have already given an answer similar to your answer and apparently it doesn't answer the intent of his query.  🤷🏻‍♂️

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

but the Christian world, at least in America, is hyper-focused on the New Testament and they very obviously worship Jesus, not the Trinity.

About 20% of the US is Catholic, so even if one assumes all non Catholic, nonLDS Christians don’t worship the Trinity or the Godhead—which is a big assumption I think is likely incorrect, it is still incorrect to say “the Christian world in America worships only Jesus” even if one only means it broadly speaking.

I would agree there is a strong focus on Jesus among many denominations and nondenominational groups, but that does not mean there isn’t also worship of the Father and the Spirit as well.  From what I have seen the Spirit is frequently mentioned.  Perhaps a way to phrase it (and Navidad and other nonCatholics can correct me if I am wrong as there is a high probability I am) is that Jesus and the Spirit are seen as the more active members of the Trinity or whatever term one might use while the Father is the grounding, the ultimate source.  Practically speaking perhaps it is easier to relate to Jesus as the Father may feel distant or more of an authority figure and the Spirit is more of an unknown, mysterious, but to push it to only worshipping Jesus and not the Trinity goes against most mainstream Christian groups’ doctrine or creeds.

Added:  okay, I may be wrong and/or really out of date about nonTrinitarians being a relatively small group.  I want to know how they define Christian in this survey though.

https://www.arizonachristian.edu/2025/03/26/new_research_reveals_most_christians_reject_trinity/#:~:text=Though two out of three,Christians—affirm this foundational tenet.

Quote

Though two out of three Americans call themselves Christian, only 11% of all adults—and 16% of self-proclaimed Christians—affirm this foundational tenet.

This new data, part of the American Worldview Inventory 2025 from veteran researcher Dr. George Barna, highlights a growing disconnect between Christian identity and theological understanding. While the trinity has been a cornerstone of Christian doctrine for centuries, the latest findings show that even among churchgoers, this foundational truth is largely misunderstood or rejected.

The report reveals that:

• Only 40% of adults believe the God of the Bible exists and is active in their lives.
• Just 59% believe in the existence and influence of Jesus Christ.
• Only 29% believe in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

When combined, these statistics show that very few Americans hold a trinitarian view of God. Even among the most devout population segment—those with a biblical worldview—just 62% affirm the doctrine of the trinity.

Barna, CRC’s Director of Research and creator of the study, expressed concern about its implications. “These findings about America’s ignorance or rejection of the trinity are simply another in a long list of examples of people living without the truths and life principles of God shaping their life,” he said.

The data suggests a cultural drift not only away from biblical beliefs but from any clear understanding of who God is. Two earlier reports from the American Worldview Inventory 2025 show Americans are redefining God in their own image and are minimizing the role of God in their lives.

“It could be argued that the primary theologians influencing the spiritual views of America these days are figures such as Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson, Megyn Kelly, and Bill Maher,” Barna explained. “They mix practical and sometimes unbiblical theology and philosophical points of view into their commentary on life and world events.”

As Barna points out, most Christian denominations—including “almost all Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communities of faith”—uphold the trinity as a “mainstream doctrinal foundation,” while groups like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, and Scientology reject it.

Times have changed it seems if many Americans are getting their theology from political pundits. 
 

https://georgebarna.com/2025/04/most-americans-including-most-christian-churchgoers/#:~:text=Trinity - George Barna-,Most Americans—Including Most Christian Churchgoers— Reject the Trinity,Christians%2C believe in the trinity.

Edited December 1, 2025 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

23 hours ago, Navidad said:

Let me try and clear up the confusion. On 11/14, @Pyreaux answered a question from @theplains about the Doctrines of Salvation. He said: "I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation." (emphasis mine) I then asked, quoting this comment of @Pyreaux,  what are those subjects that are indeed required for salvation? Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith offered personal views, speculation and opinions on the subjects that are not required for salvation. My reference point was asking "what are such subjects that are not required for salvation." I have no way of knowing, without reading "Doctrines of Salvation" what Smith was talking about. I was asking @Pyreaux what his thoughts are as to what those subjects might be necessary or required, or in the reverse, not required for salvation in the LDS mindset? So I wasn't referring to any specific salvation other than that intended by @Pyreaux in his reply to @theplains. I wasn't defining salvation in any way. I was asking about what Joseph Fielding Smith might have been including or excluding when offering personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation? That is of interest to me since I have an interest in Joseph Fielding Smith because of his Mexican connections.  I hope this helps straighten out the confusion. Or perhaps makes it more confusing! I just think this context might help. 

JFS does give essential Doctrines typically found throughout the Standard Works (LDS scriptures).

The Godhead's Nature, and correct knowledge of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is essential for eternal life (John 17:3). Important in the temple context because it is the basis for understanding its teachings of our divine potential.

Faith in Jesus Christ is required for all acts of repentance.

Repentance is a necessary, ongoing process to be forgiven of sins and qualify for God's presence.

Essential Ordinances - Baptism, Receiving the Holy Ghost, Priesthood, Temple Ordinances (Endowment, Sealing). These are the covenants required to enter Exaltation.

Baptism, a Saving Ordinance.

Priesthood, What it is, how it Works

Marriage

Resurrection/Judgment, knowing the reality of the Resurrection (universal) and the Judgment (conditional) provides the motivation and framework for obedience.

The Gathering of Israel, because it is the mission of the Church and its members to prepare the world for the Second Coming.

In short, anything relating to the Articles of Faith, the ordinances of the temple, and the necessary commandments (like obedience, the Sabbath, tithing, etc.) is considered required for the full blessings of exaltation.

Subjects Not Required for Exaltation (Speculation/Interpretation)

These are points of interest, historical theories, or interpretations that, while often believed by previous leaders (like Joseph Fielding Smith), are not currently sustained as unified, binding doctrine and do not affect one's standing for exaltation. The key non-essential subjects like;

Specific Creation Timeline: The fact of the Creation by God is essential; the exact duration, mechanics, and correlation with scientific theories are not revealed and are matters of interpretation. Joseph Fielding Smith was a strong advocate for a literal, six-day creation (in the sense of six time periods but often short ones). He strongly argued against evolutionary theory. Current Church leaders maintain a position of neutrality on the process of creation, emphasizing that God directed it.

Overly Detailed Millennial Conditions: The fact of the Millennial reign is essential; the exact status and role of non-members, the details of mortality vs. immortality on earth, and the precise nature of temple work during that time are not fully settled. Smith speculated on who exactly will remain on the earth (celestial and terrestrial people), the nature of death (change in the twinkling of an eye), and the level of mortality that remains. While based on scripture, the fine details are unnecessary for personal salvation today.

Pre-Mortal Organization/Roles: The fact of the Pre-mortal Life is essential, specific hierarchy, nature of pre-mortal knowledge, or the details of how spirits were created are non-essential. Smith and others explored things like the specific progression of God and the concept of intelligence (a term often used broadly in early LDS thought). These are considered speculative philosophical points today.

The doctrines required for salvation (or, more accurately, Exaltation) are what we call the Covenant Path starting with salvation and ideally ending in exaltation: Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and making and keeping the Temple Covenants (Endowment and Sealing).

The subjects that are not required for salvation are the overly detailed interpretations or opinions of past leaders. These discussions are interesting, and have their own logic, maybe even true, but it is not the information we are judged by.

[manol]

On 11/3/2025 at 4:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

Is there a dominion of Heavenly Mother?

Latter-day Saints generally believe there is an exalted, divine Mother alongside a Father in Heaven, because the doctrine of exaltation (becoming like God) is taught for both men and women. The general principle of exaltation suggests joint dominion and partnership. The ideal exalted god is described as an eternal marriage unit. The idea of a husband holding "solely" dominion would contradict the principle of eternal partnership, where a worthy man and woman are "heirs together" (1 Peter 3:7) and both receive "all that [the] Father hath" (D&C 84:38).

Do offspring worship their divine parent?

Latter-day Saints are explicitly taught to worship God the Father. This is a fundamental and non-speculative tenet. The plan of salvation is often thought of as a cycle, it can follow logically that future spirit children created by an exalted couple would worship that couple. But this is a projection of the doctrine and not a core, explicit teaching. The idea that its cycle I think is the logical apologetic leaders used, meant to defend exaltation. That children grow up to be like their parents, and we are children of God. Never really intended to settle who has divine preeminence in the next spiritual generation.

Will exalted beings create their own worlds or previous worlds God created?

The Church statement explicitly rejects the popularized idea of "getting your own planet." This phrase is seen as speculative folklore, distracting from the central doctrine of becoming like God. A "dominion" is not strictly a planet, its power, rule, authority, or realm. The Church is clarifying that the specifics of how we become like God, like making a planet, are unrevealed and therefore not doctrine. Whether they create a planet for them or preside over an existing realm is speculative. The doctrine of eternal increase (having spirit children) and exaltation (becoming like God) is true, while explicitly disavowing the speculative folk doctrine. Not for being false, but for being unrevealed.

 

On 11/17/2025 at 8:43 PM, Pyreaux said:

Appeal to Authority (or in your case a False Authority) into a False Dichotomy

The Church's stated position is that leaders are fallible mortals who speak "as men" outside of official, unified revelation. Any statement, even if factually incorrect, is not "false" doctrine. This a classic non-LDS analytical error of not allowing commentary or personal opinion, but deeming everything as "doctrine" based solely the person's title; rather than based their stated source of authority, or on its venue (where it is taught) and sometimes even rather than the authority of the speaker at that moment (in this case like when they were not The Prophet when those teachings were originally given, compiled, or published. As only the President of the Church can claim to speak for the entire Church on matters of doctrine, particularly when accompanied by the unified assent of the Quorum of the Twelve.).

Doctrines of Salvation was never presented as binding doctrine required for salvation. Any error there in is a factual mistake, not an error that undermines the gospel. Popular, unrevealed ideas (like "getting a planet") was never canonized, so rejecting them does not contradict revealed truth. Instances where a leader speaks outside their prophetic mantle is a mortal error; it is not a spiritual deception or an attempt to lead people away from God.

These statements' purpose were to offer insights and instruction based on their personal study. A statement is simply "incorrect" if it fails a factual test, but it is not "false doctrine" because it never claimed the authority of revelation.

Do you mean "lead people astray" is to lead them away from salvation? It nullifies the Atonement, invalidates covenants, or prevents a person from reaching the Celestial Kingdom? Or just leading away from factual accuracy? Believing it or disbelieving it (like getting a planet) does not affect salvation, temple covenants, or worthiness. Therefore, it does not "lead people astray" in a theological sense that matters.

 

On 11/29/2025 at 12:14 AM, Pyreaux said:

Yeah, that is a thing. There is confusion as there are categories of salvation, in the very same source materials we all use. We get lost by binary thinking (of saved and not saved, heaven or hell) to things that are a spectrum, or "degrees", if you will.

Saved from Hades

The Resurrection of Christ saved all of us from death, that is unconditional. Christ taught "all that are in the graves shall hear [the Father's] voice and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of of damnation" (John 5:29). Thus, resurrection saves our spirits from an eternal separation from our bodies after physical death.

Save by Justification

Justification, having the punishment of sins waived, on the condition of faith alone. Not any works can undo sin, Jesus paid it on our behalf. Paul says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph 2:8) and "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ...for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16).

Saved by Sanctification

Individual purification makes men holy by repenting. Paul says, "God hath chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thes 2:13). The conditions are works of repentance, "faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). Those who are "called to be saints" are "them that are sanctified" (1 Cor 1:2). Repentance and the baptism of the Holy Ghost (John 1:33), the baptism of fire (Matt. 3:11) and being born again (John 3:3-5).

Saved by Exaltation

Fulness of Salvation. Exaltation is Eternal Life, to live with God in the Celestial Kingdom and become like Him, living the kind of life God lives, with the opportunity for eternal increase. A conditional gift, "ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (Matt. 10:22). "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3:21).

The Required Knowledge for Salvation

Required knowledge is a bit more complex. Joseph Smith taught that "it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance" (D&C 131:6), and that we are saved "no faster than he gets knowledge". This knowledge would include the fundamental principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and receiving all temple ordinances and covenants (like the endowment and sealing), and enduring to the end in faithfulness.

For those who do not hear the gospel in this life (like infants, or those without access to teaching), they are saved/resurrected by God's grace and are judged according to the knowledge and law they had (Light of Christ). For those who do hear the gospel during their mortal lives, the requirement is to exercise faith in Jesus Christ, which includes repentance.

There is other important knowledge, the Plan of Salvation, the nature of God, the role of Jesus Christ, and the finer principles behind Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Knowledge and understandings of the saving ordinances and covenants of the Gospel.

"Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age.... Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." (Hebrews 5:12-6:2).

The key takeaway is that it is the revealed nature of God (God has a body, He is a Personage) that is considered essential doctrine, but the specific, unrevealed details of His past progression or origin are non-essential and often fall into the category of speculation.

 

30 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

JFS does give essential Doctrines typically found throughout the Standard Works (LDS scriptures).

The Godhead's Nature, and correct knowledge of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is essential for eternal life (John 17:3). Important in the temple context because it is the basis for understanding its teachings of our divine potential.

Faith in Jesus Christ is required for all acts of repentance.

Repentance is a necessary, ongoing process to be forgiven of sins and qualify for God's presence.

Essential Ordinances - Baptism, Receiving the Holy Ghost, Priesthood, Temple Ordinances (Endowment, Sealing). These are the covenants required to enter Exaltation.

Baptism, a Saving Ordinance.

Priesthood, What it is, how it Works

Marriage

Resurrection/Judgment, knowing the reality of the Resurrection (universal) and the Judgment (conditional) provides the motivation and framework for obedience.

The Gathering of Israel, because it is the mission of the Church and its members to prepare the world for the Second Coming.

In short, anything relating to the Articles of Faith, the ordinances of the temple, and the necessary commandments (like obedience, the Sabbath, tithing, etc.) is considered required for the full blessings of exaltation.

Subjects Not Required for Exaltation (Speculation/Interpretation)

These are points of interest, historical theories, or interpretations that, while often believed by previous leaders (like Joseph Fielding Smith), are not currently sustained as unified, binding doctrine and do not affect one's standing for exaltation. The key non-essential subjects like;

Specific Creation Timeline: The fact of the Creation by God is essential; the exact duration, mechanics, and correlation with scientific theories are not revealed and are matters of interpretation. Joseph Fielding Smith was a strong advocate for a literal, six-day creation (in the sense of six time periods but often short ones). He strongly argued against evolutionary theory. Current Church leaders maintain a position of neutrality on the process of creation, emphasizing that God directed it.

Overly Detailed Millennial Conditions: The fact of the Millennial reign is essential; the exact status and role of non-members, the details of mortality vs. immortality on earth, and the precise nature of temple work during that time are not fully settled. Smith speculated on who exactly will remain on the earth (celestial and terrestrial people), the nature of death (change in the twinkling of an eye), and the level of mortality that remains. While based on scripture, the fine details are unnecessary for personal salvation today.

Pre-Mortal Organization/Roles: The fact of the Pre-mortal Life is essential, specific hierarchy, nature of pre-mortal knowledge, or the details of how spirits were created are non-essential. Smith and others explored things like the specific progression of God and the concept of intelligence (a term often used broadly in early LDS thought). These are considered speculative philosophical points today.

The doctrines required for salvation (or, more accurately, Exaltation) are what we call the Covenant Path starting with salvation and ideally ending in exaltation: Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and making and keeping the Temple Covenants (Endowment and Sealing).

The subjects that are not required for salvation are the overly detailed interpretations or opinions of past leaders. These discussions are interesting, and have their own logic, maybe even true, but it is not the information we are judged by.

@Pyreaux, this is going to be an off-topic question.

As you can see, I've quoted several of your posts.  Those posts appear to me as if they are largely copied-and-pasted from somewhere.  Maybe from a book, maybe from an artificial intelligence engine, maybe from somewhere else.  Or maybe I am mistaken and what I'm seeing is your exceptionally well-organized writing style. 

Can you please clarify?  Are these posts (and your many other similar ones) entirely your work, or are they largely the work of someone or something else?

The reason I ask is, I am much more interested in reading YOUR words than in reading someone, or something, else's words.  And if it's the latter, I would like to know. 

Thank you. 

Edited December 1, 2025 by manol

[Pyreaux]

11 minutes ago, manol said:

 

 

 

@Pyreaux, this is going to be an off-topic question.

As you can see, I've quoted several of your posts.  Those posts appear to me as if they are largely copied-and-pasted from somewhere.  Maybe from a book, maybe from an artificial intelligence engine, maybe from somewhere else.  Or maybe I am mistaken and what I'm seeing is your exceptionally well-organized writing style. 

Can you please clarify?  Are these posts (and your many other similar ones) entirely your work, or are they largely the work of someone or something else?

The reason I ask is, I am much more interested in reading YOUR words than in reading someone, or something, else's words.  And if it's the latter, I would like to know. 

Thank you. 

I do cobble together sources. Like the first is all me, I think I gleaned the definition of "dominion" from somewhere. Third one I recall is based on Jeff Lindsay and maybe a bit of Light Planet, but not verbatim.

[theplains]

On 11/30/2025 at 2:46 PM, Navidad said:

Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith offered personal views, speculation and opinions on the subjects that are not required for salvation. 

Apparently? Then he should have called the book "Speculations and Opinions of Salvation".

[theplains]

On 11/28/2025 at 3:03 PM, InCognitus said:

ETA:  Back to the original question.  Do you believe that the "homoousious" God that the Roman Emperor Constantine invented WILL lead to salvation?  Or do you believe it is leading people astray?

There is one God, eternally existing as 3 divine personages. How that is possible, I cannot
comprehend. Teaching the Mother, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spirit children of their
respective heavenly parents, who then became Gods, is leading people astray.

Oh ... and I don't have any CFR that specifically uses the phrase "this is official doctrine".

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, theplains said:

Apparently? Then he should have called the book "Speculations and Opinions of Salvation".

He didn’t name it, his son in law did.  Sometimes I think it matches JFS’s ideas about his own ideas (he was one who, imo, thought there was one way to read scripture and his interpretations followed that one way) and other times not (he was unhappy about the book in general).

Bruce R McConkie very much admired his father-in-law and saw him as the voice of authority it seems…except when it came to publishing this book.

Brother McConkie named his own book Mormon Doctrine against the First Presidency’s wishes, so he tended to be rather grandiose in how he phrased somethings.  I am grateful that apostles are more cautious these days. 

Edited December 1, 2025 by Calm

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

There is one God, eternally existing as 3 divine personages. How that is possible, I cannot
comprehend. Teaching the Mother, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spirit children of their
respective heavenly parents, who then became Gods, is leading people astray.

Oh ... and I don't have any CFR that specifically uses the phrase "this is official doctrine".

If those believers in Christ who overcome the world by faith are “made partakers of the divine nature,” so much so that they become “the sons of God” and “joint heirs with Christ” in all things that he himself possesses, even to the point that they will be crowned kings in heaven entrusted with the scepter of divine authority, and also the most extraordinary right to be seated upon the very throne of Christ’s holy dominion and power, therefore in what remaining ways will these exalted individuals still not measure up to “the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ?” And please refrain from claiming that we Latter-Day believe we will eventually supplant Christ and that he will no longer be our God because that false notion is most definitely NOT what we believe! So in what specific ways will those who are enthroned as the sons of God not inherit all things that Christ himself possesses? Again, please be very specific as to which specific divine attributes those who overcome the world will still be found lacking?

Edited December 1, 2025 by teddyaware

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

About 20% of the US is Catholic, so even if one assumes all non Catholic, nonLDS Christians don’t worship the Trinity or the Godhead—which is a big assumption I think is likely incorrect, it is still incorrect to say “the Christian world in America worships only Jesus” even if one only means it broadly speaking.

I would agree there is a strong focus on Jesus among many denominations and nondenominational groups, but that does not mean there isn’t also worship of the Father and the Spirit as well.  From what I have seen the Spirit is frequently mentioned.  Perhaps a way to phrase it (and Navidad and other nonCatholics can correct me if I am wrong as there is a high probability I am) is that Jesus and the Spirit are seen as the more active members of the Trinity or whatever term one might use while the Father is the grounding, the ultimate source.  Practically speaking perhaps it is easier to relate to Jesus as the Father may feel distant or more of an authority figure and the Spirit is more of an unknown, mysterious, but to push it to only worshipping Jesus and not the Trinity goes against most mainstream Christian groups’ doctrine or creeds.

Added:  okay, I may be wrong and/or really out of date about nonTrinitarians being a relatively small group.  I want to know how they define Christian in this survey though.

https://www.arizonachristian.edu/2025/03/26/new_research_reveals_most_christians_reject_trinity/#:~:text=Though two out of three,Christians—affirm this foundational tenet.

Times have changed it seems if many Americans are getting their theology from political pundits. 
 

https://georgebarna.com/2025/04/most-americans-including-most-christian-churchgoers/#:~:text=Trinity - George Barna-,Most Americans—Including Most Christian Churchgoers— Reject the Trinity,Christians%2C believe in the trinity.

I believe that one reason why Catholics and LDS get along so well is because we are both regarded as "not Christian" by the Christian world. Catholics don't count here. They aren't what I term "a New Testament church". They have a rich culture and history and balanced perspective on God's word. The red-letter Bible readers are like 90% New Testament and don't really see Jesus in the Old Testament. I am speaking in generalizations based on my experience as a missionary in the suburbs of Dallas TX, the online communities I participate in, and many conversations I've had with Christians throughout my life.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

There is one God, eternally existing as 3 divine personages. How that is possible, I cannot
comprehend.

You are asserting your beliefs, but you are still not answering the question, which was this:

Do you believe that the "homoousious" God that the Roman Emperor Constantine invented WILL lead to salvation?  Or do you believe it is leading people astray?

In your post on 11/25/2024, you said:  "I don't believe the Nicene Creed teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one being." 

But in my last post I included several statements from modern Christian sources where they are interpreting the Nicene Creed as teaching the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is "one being"*.   Do you believe that those who believe such things are being led astray by the word "homoousious" that the Roman Emperor Constantine added to the Nicene Creed and then later Roman emperors required that all people believe it? 

* Sources:  The Got Questions website, The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White (1998, Bethany House Publishers), p.26-27, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity - An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., 1989 Baker Book House, pp.12-13, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Robert Morey,1996, World Bible Publishers, Inc., p.60).

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Teaching the Mother, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spirit children of their
respective heavenly parents, who then became Gods, is leading people astray.

But only you seem to be teaching that Mother, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spirit children of their respective heavenly parents.  Are you the one trying to lead people astray?  That's what it seems like to me.

You can't seem to come up with any sources where The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches what you said above.

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Oh ... and I don't have any CFR that specifically uses the phrase "this is official doctrine".

Are you saying here that you can't back up your claims about our doctrine and are withdrawing those claims?  Otherwise the CFR still stands.

And, I didn't ask for a CFR that specifically uses the phrase "this is official doctrine".  Are you trying to lead people astray about what I asked for?  You know what I asked. 

Edited December 1, 2025 by InCognitus