clbent04

My outsider understanding is that LDS believe Jesus Saves! They are happy that most people will earn some type of heavenly reward. However, knowing the Celestial Kingdom is available and having been taught how to reach it--and the closest fellowship with Heavenly Father--anything less would feel like a great loss. Perhaps even like hell. 
I'm a Pentecostal, so only believe there is one heavenly realm (though perhaps with levels of rewards within it). Even I would be most disappointed to learn in glory that I could have done better for my LORD, and that my reward is therefore less than it might have been. 

Then I understand your position. We tend to justify our beliefs before creating justifications we can believe in. For example, "Since I believe (x) it's important that (y) holds and therefore (z) does not," as indicated below.
But I would say, even with your semantics, that it is equally important to specifically name Jesus Christ as the source of “good” in any estate, since the eternal principle of faith in Christ exists in all of them, and our union or perfection in Him is the ultimate aim. Moroni 7 is focused on Christ: see how often the following terms are used: faith in Christ, faith in his name, faith in him, faith in me, and the context for the discussion of faith as linked with hope (through Christ) and charity (the pure love of Christ) as introduced in verse 1. It is all Christ-centered.

And I beleive it is this aspect of faith in Christ that frees you from that worry which you had previously. What other principle of light would have freed you to see God's mercy, understanding and forgiveness (to the same degree as a personal faith in and relationship with Him)? Who would worry about God's condemnation if they had not known of it or had no faith in Him?

Without having read the thread or the details of it, but just looking at the question:
Is Faith in Jesus Christ More Important for our Salvation than the Condition of our Hearts?
The simple, plain and obvious answer is yes. Faith in Jesus Christ is more important for our salvation than the condition of our heart.
The reason for Jesus Christ's atonement is EXACTLY because of the guaranteed failure we'll all have in our heart's conditions. It is through faith in Him (and associated repentance) that we are redeemed BY Him, not by ourselves and our condition, status, prowess, etc.,etc.

Amen to that bud! 

It's not so much my preference as it is my understanding of God and how I believe God sees all His children and interacts with the world at large. I spent most my life overly concerned about how God will judge the world. Now I'm happy to leave that to the worry of others who might be stuck like I was in overly focusing on how God might condemn. I believe God is more merciful, understanding, and forgiving than most of us give Him credit for.

No hard feelings. I appreciate your responses. I’m aware this thread is a bit scatterbrained on my part due to me trying to put words to thoughts I’ve never articulated before. What I can say is it’s one of those things where if we both put in enough brain power to sort out, we’d likely come to the conclusion that either we were saying the same thing all along in different ways or the differences are so minimal they’re immaterial. Instead of doing the work to get there, I’m content just leaving it where it is knowing that we both have good intentions and are coming from good places. 

I hope not to be terribly offensive with this, but . . .
When I talk to lay Christians about the LDS notion of the Godhead, I find that most of them don’t really find it that objectionable and aren’t particularly attached to their understanding of the concept of the Trinity.  (Internet-warrior Christians, of course, are a different matter entirely.)
I think “different Jesus” is, to a significant degree, a scare phrase/crutch used by a subset of mainline Christian clerics and apologists who feel like they can’t defend the notion of the Trinity on its own merits and would prefer their parishioners just quit asking questions.
As far as the OP goes:  I think the Church over time has gone back and forth about whether, from a theological standpoint, it’s a big deal that outsiders consider/call us “Christians”.  At times we’ve felt it’s important in order to reflect glory to our master, Jesus Christ; at others, we’ve felt the “brand” was irretrievably tainted and not worth pursuing (I believe President Young was of the latter opinion.)  But from a socio-political standpoint, I think, it has consistently been a very big deal.  Because frankly, as Americans, we have a significant national heritage of doing some pretty horrific things to “non-Christians”; and we tend to (rightly or wrongly) view use of that epithet towards us as being a sort of “battlespace prep” by a “Christian” majority that (we fear) is proud of what they did to us in the 19th century and wouldn’t pass up an opportunity to do it all over again.  

I believe faith in Jesus Christ is not only faith in the supreme being Jesus Christ, but also in all things related to truth and light since He is the source of all things good. Faith in Jesus Christ to me means that we follow and embrace the light inside or outside the name of religion. 

I don’t feel the need to respond further. Thank you for responses. I may revisit at a later time. 

"Essential"--meaning of the same essence. Jesus, according to Evangelicals, is of the same essence as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. For most historic Christians this essential unity is what allows us to say our Trinitarian God is one. LDS theology, as I understand it, says that Jesus is so united with the Father and the Spirit, in purpose, that it is appropriate to say God is one. Essential unity (unity of essence) is not required. This to my understanding, is the key difference. Sadly, some "major on the minors" or want to discuss side issues that are more sensational. 

My examples focus on the fact that faith in man and faith in Jesus Christ are not the same thing.  And if you have faith in the light of Christ, well, that's faith in Christ.  I also mentioned that believing good things about or having hope for people is not the same as faith in Christ.  I'm all in favor of looking as positively as you can on others (I believe God expects us to see others as He does), but I cannot find any way to believe that faith in mankind is ever the same as faith in Christ.  Indeed, you'll have no trouble finding scriptures that tell you not to have that kind of faith in man - to have it only in God.

My next truck will be a Tundra.

I think at some point it very much does. Not sure I can identify what point that is, though.
My attitude is that if some aspect of the gospel is carefully explained to me in scripture and other sacred sources, it must be because that's something very important that I need to pay attention to. It must be something relevant for my understanding of God and ability to progress. Since the scriptures go to great pains (at times, not always) to distinguish between the Father and the Son, and since e.g. we are particularly instructed not to pray to Jesus Christ unless he is literally standing before us in the flesh, but rather always to the Father in the name of Christ, I assume that such identification is deeply important at some level and vital to my understanding of the divine.
Now, whether it is equally vital that a little child or new investigator (I believe the missionaries today call them "friends") be aware of this important distinction is less obvious to me. I suspect that knowing that God is in his heaven and that we can talk with him is probably enough to start building your foundation, even if you're not completely clear on who is who.

Every time I've looked into a situation like this, the critic typically doesn't dismiss that the LDS Church believes in Jesus Christ; they discredit the Church as a Christian church due to not being trinitarian.

But there are a lot of people still who know nothing about the Church other than "Mormon" and "LDS" or "Latter-day Saint" - but usually just "Mormon".  And those people are convinced by the words of the people you mention that "Mormons aren't Christians".  Because usually, the people you mention don't bother to say something like, "They say they believe in Jesus Christ, but they don't believe in the trinity."  Rather, they say something like, "Mormons aren't Christians."

I agree with what you said here. I didn't word a few of posts as well as I could have to accurately convey what I was trying to express. I believe giving credit to Jesus Christ is important, but since He has many names, I don't think saying the specific name "Jesus Christ" is important. If I want to say God instead of Jesus Christ, my faith is neither diminished nor magnified.

My central point through this thread has been focused on how God came to save the world, not condemn it. I've posted this topic largely thinking about those I've observed in this world condemning others in the name of Jesus Christ. 
When I see people wanting others to say specific phrases like, "I accept Jesus Christ into my heart", or something along those lines where it's expected to be repeated verbatim in order to get that organization's sign off that that person has been saved, that to me has more of a focus on exclusion and condemning rather than saving. 
I think many religious organizations are guilty of condemning and overstepping boundaries of judgement that are God's and God's alone.

I agree with what you said here. I didn't word a few of posts as well as I could have to accurately convey what I was trying to express. I believe giving credit to Jesus Christ is important, but since He has many names, I don't think saying the specific name "Jesus Christ" is important. If I want to say God instead of Jesus Christ, my faith is neither diminished nor magnified.

My central point through this thread has been focused on how God came to save the world, not condemn it. I've posted this topic largely thinking about those I've observed in this world condemning others in the name of Jesus Christ. 
When I see people wanting others to say specific phrases like, "I accept Jesus Christ into my heart", or something along those lines where it's expected to be repeated verbatim in order to get that organization's sign off that that person has been saved, that to me has more of a focus on exclusion and condemning rather than saving. 
I think many religious organizations are guilty of condemning and overstepping boundaries of judgement that are God's and God's alone.

It appears to me that you're utterly missing the point. It's not a matter of giving Christ sufficient praise, as if his glory depends somehow on my reverencing him enough. I will not be saved unless Christ saves me. I cannot be saved without knowing and accepting Christ's salvation. So yes, it matters that we "give credit specifically to someone named Jesus Christ."

Faith in Christ is the first principle of the gospel, but choosing it is a matter of the receptivity of the heart to discern that which is good as illuminated by the light of Christ. We all have this opportunity to choose to have faith in Christ and act on it, but do not always condition our hearts to do so.

I addition to what @Carborendum shared, our hearts are what choose faith, so their condition is paramount. They cannot choose faith without the light of Christ to shine upon the "word" they hear. I consider this a form of grace, for everyone, everywhere has it, though it may be disregarded by some to a great degree. 

Some good "name" scriptures to ponder:
And, to be completely clear: no one believes that just speaking Christ's name has some magical power.  It is acting by authority (see Acts 19:13-15 - you cannot assume priesthood authority, it must be conferred properly) and doing as Christ would do (in other words, keeping covenants), acting in harmony with God's will, etc. that makes invoking Christ's name effective  In a certain sense, the above are saying "be good" - because you can't "sin in Christ's name" - the idea is absurd.  From the Bible Dictionary entry for Prayer:
And that's just the tip of the "name" iceberg.  Lots of good study opportunities here.

Most of Christianity can recite John 3:16 by heart:
...But I like verse 17 even better:
Make no mistake, the day will come when the wicked will be condemned, but the Lord will give them every possible chance to repent and turn to him before that day comes. (And that day doesn't come, as far as I can tell, until the end of the Millennium.)