Ten things people actually say, five from each side of the table. Each card names what is really being asked, points to the descriptions on the map that answer it, and resolves to the four sentences.
Practice as:
SCN-L01 · Latter-day Saint learner
"You believe in a different God"
I don't think Latter-day Saints are Christian. You believe in a different God.A Baptist friend
What is really being asked
Whether the God you worship is the God of the Bible — and whether the differences are total or located.
I understand why it feels that way, so let me be exact rather than defensive. We worship the Father of Jesus Christ; we confess Jesus as the Son of God, Lord, and only Savior; we believe the Holy Spirit gives life. On those the creeds and our scriptures say the same thing. Where we really do disagree is the nature of God's being: your confession says God is without body or parts, and we believe the Father has a glorified body and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three persons one in purpose. That's a real difference, and I won't minimize it. But it's a difference about how God exists, not about which God we love and pray to.
Avoid. Do not say "we believe the same things" — the divergence on divine embodiment is direct and your friend knows it. Do not answer a question about God with a testimony of the Church.
You're right, and I'd rather find those places than paper over them. Take 'Creator.' We both confess God as Maker of heaven and earth, and we mean it. But your tradition teaches creation from nothing, and ours teaches that God organized eternal elements — so the word is shared and the picture behind it isn't. Same with 'Spirit': we both say God is spirit; we also believe spirit is refined matter. On the other hand, when we say God is merciful, or just, or holy, I don't think there's a hidden difference at all. So the honest answer is: some words we share all the way down, some we share at the surface. Want to go through a few?
Avoid. Do not concede that every shared word is hollow; most of the positive language about God's character is shared in the same sense.
"If you have revelation, why talk about shared truth?"
If you believe God restored the truth through Joseph Smith, why do you keep saying you share our faith? Either the churches lost it or they didn't.An evangelical acquaintance
What is really being asked
Whether 'restoration' means the rest of Christianity was wrong about everything.
Restoration doesn't mean replacement. When I read the Nicene Creed, most of what it says about God — living, true, almighty, Father, Son, Lord, judge, giver of life — I believe exactly as written. What we believe was restored is priesthood authority, ordinances, and some teachings the creeds don't contain: that we lived with God before birth, that families can be eternal, that we can become like Him. Those are additions relative to the creeds, and I hold them as revealed. But they don't erase what Christians have always taught about God's character. I'd put it this way: much is shared, some is understood differently, a few things we directly disagree on, and some things we add. All four are true at once.
Avoid. Do not say the creeds are 'an abomination' as a conversation opener; the app teaches the map, not the polemic. Do not imply other Christians lack the Spirit.
That's fair, and I want to respect the difference. Your tradition teaches that people share in God's life — His energies — without ever sharing His essence; the gap between Creator and creature stays infinite. We teach that we are literally God's spirit children and can receive His fulness. So the shared part is real: both of us believe salvation is more than forgiveness — it's being transformed into the likeness of Christ. The difference is also real: you'd say the likeness never becomes kinship, and we'd say it already is kinship. I'd rather say that plainly than claim the Fathers taught what we teach.
Avoid. Do not claim Irenaeus or Athanasius taught Latter-day Saint exaltation. The paper codes theosis as an antecedent, not an equivalent.
I used to think that too. But look at what we already share with the Baptist family down the street: they worship the same Father, trust the same Savior, and try to keep His commandments. That's not nothing — it's most of what the creeds say about God. Unity of faith can mean shared devotion and common discipleship without pretending we agree on everything, and it can mean respecting their conscience the way we want ours respected. Our job is to know what we believe clearly, name the differences honestly, and love them either way. If the Spirit brings them further, wonderful. If not, they are still Christ's.
Avoid. Do not turn 'unity' into 'everyone must think like me.' Do not treat other Christians as projects rather than neighbors.
I do want to tell them about Jesus — which is exactly why I want to know what they already believe about Him. Their scriptures call Him the Only Begotten Son, Lord, and Savior; they pray to the Father in His name; they'd affirm nearly everything our confession says about God's holiness, mercy, and justice. Where we really part ways is the nature of God — they believe the Father has a body, we confess He is spirit without body or parts — and on what salvation finally includes. If I lead with 'cult,' I'll never get to those real differences, and I'll be arguing against beliefs they don't hold. Understanding first isn't compromise; it's how you speak the truth in love.
Avoid. Do not repeat claims the sources don't support (e.g., that Latter-day Saints worship Joseph Smith or deny Christ's divinity).
I believe you believe in Jesus — that's clear from how you talk about Him, and I don't doubt your devotion. I'd honestly say we share a lot: one Father, Jesus as Son of God and Savior, the Holy Spirit, a real call to holiness. Where I think we're different — and I'd rather say it than have it sitting between us — is about who God is in His being. My church confesses one God in three persons of one substance, without body or parts. Yours teaches that the Father has a body and that the three are separate beings. That's not a small thing to me. So 'just like you' isn't quite right, but neither is 'nothing like you.' Can we talk about the real differences?
Avoid. Do not use 'not Christian' as a conversation-ender; name the specific divergence instead.
Sources on this card: Nicene Creed · Westminster Confession II.1
SCN-C03 · Learner from another Christian tradition
"God has a body"
The Bible says we're made in God's image. God has a body of flesh and bone — Joseph Smith saw Him.A Latter-day Saint friend
What is really being asked
How to respond to the single largest divergence without caricature — and where the scriptures each side cites actually sit.
This is the place I think we most disagree, so let me be careful. When Paul calls God 'invisible' and Jesus says 'God is a Spirit,' my tradition takes that as describing what God is — without body, parts, or passions. You read those as describing what mortals can perceive, not what God is. So we're reading the same verses and reaching different conclusions about God's nature; that's a direct disagreement, not a misunderstanding. What I'd add is that your view isn't random — it flows from believing we are literally God's children in His image. I don't share the conclusion, but I understand the reasoning, and I'd rather argue with the real thing than a cartoon of it.
Avoid. Do not say Latter-day Saints think God is 'just a man'; their sources say glorified, exalted, and perfect. Do not claim 1 Timothy 1:17 settles the question for them — the scope of 'invisible' is exactly what's disputed.
I'll admit that phrase used to sound to me like 'grace fills in whatever you couldn't earn.' Then I read what your own leaders say about it — that no one can earn heaven, that salvation can't be bought with obedience — and that in your Book of Mormon 'all we could do' turns out to mean repenting. So I think we agree that grace is a gift no one merits and that real faith bears fruit. Where we still differ, I think, is in the structure: you'd say ordinances and covenants are how grace is received and kept, and you distinguish being saved from being exalted. I'd frame it differently. But 'works-salvation' isn't a fair label for what you actually teach.
Avoid. Do not equate 'after all we can do' with Pelagianism; the sources deny it. Do not assume 'saved' means the same thing in both vocabularies — ask.
They did add — they'd say God added, by revelation — teachings the creeds never contained: that we lived before birth as God's spirit children, that marriages can last forever, that people can become like God. Those are real additions and I don't accept them. But adding isn't the same as replacing. Their scriptures still confess God as living, true, almighty, holy, merciful, judge, and Savior, in the same sense we do. So the fair picture has layers: a large shared core about God's character, a few direct disagreements about His nature, and a set of added claims about where we came from and what we're for. Whether that adds up to 'Christianity' is a judgment we each make — but let's make it about what they actually teach.
Avoid. Do not claim their additions have no precedent anywhere in Christian history; the study marks theosis and premortality as having antecedents. Do not collapse 'added' into 'denied.'
Sources on this card: Abraham 3:22 · D&C 132:19 · Irenaeus (antecedent note in the study)
Build your own
Pick the descriptions that belong to your conversation. The builder sorts them into the four sentences for you; the wording of each sentence never changes, only which descriptions sit under it.
