The problem with your argument is that you simply assume the very thing you're trying to prove. You define "Christian" as "someone who accepts the Nicene Creed, post-apostolic tradition, and your particular understanding of the Trinity." Then you point out that Latter-day Saints don't accept those things and conclude they aren't Christian. That's not an argument. That's circular reasoning. The apostles never recited the Nicene Creed. Peter never taught *homoousios*. Paul never told converts they had to affirm fourth-century metaphysical definitions before they could be called Christians. What did they preach? Faith in Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God, His atoning death, His resurrection, repentance, baptism, and discipleship. Latter-day Saints affirm every one of those things. You say Christianity is the faith of the "One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Fine. Now demonstrate from Scripture that this institution could never fall into apostasy, corruption, doctrinal confusion, or loss of authority. Because the New Testament repeatedly warns about exactly those dangers. You appeal to tradition. Latter-day Saints appeal to prophets and revelation. The real question is whether God still speaks. If He does, your argument collapses. You say LDS theology teaches a "different God." Yet the New Testament consistently depicts the Father and Son as distinct persons. Jesus prays to the Father. The Father speaks to the Son. Stephen sees Jesus standing at the right hand of God. The text says what it says. What's actually happening here is that you've elevated later creedal interpretations above the plain biblical text and then declared anyone who disagrees "not Christian." And let's be honest: if acceptance of fourth-century councils is what makes someone Christian, then Christianity isn't being defined by Christ and His apostles. It's being defined by bishops centuries later. Latter-day Saints worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We pray in His name. We trust in His atonement. We follow His teachings. We covenant to take His name upon us. You are free to argue that our theology is wrong. What you are not free to do is redefine Christianity so narrowly that devotion to Jesus Christ suddenly becomes irrelevant while allegiance to post-biblical creeds becomes the determining factor.