the Mormons have some weird ideas, but how factually correct about theological details does one need to be in order to be saved?
I mean, what was the theology of the paradise-bound thief on the cross next to Christ?
1 John makes it clear that you need to understand the truth in order to be saved. In Acts, we see that a person needs to believe in his heart and confess with his mouth. Clearly, when Luke was writing that someone needed to believe in his heart, he is referring to something specific and not some generality that can vary.
Historically, that "something" has been outlined in the various creeds of the faith. That Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, was both God and man, lived a perfect life, was crucified, died and on the third day rose again. That he suffered the righteous wrath of God in our place to pay the sin debt we owe God and that he imputes his righteousness to us.
Those are the basic tenets of the Christian faith and are call primary doctrines. In other words, they are non-negotiable. There are other doctrines, called secondary doctrines, such as infant baptism, gifts of the Spirit, etc, where Christians can hold different views and still be genuine Christians.
” how factually correct about theological details does one need to be in order to be saved?”
You certainly can’t be saved if you follow a false prophet and believe that you are saved by works and not by grace.
>>I mean, what was the theology of the paradise-bound thief on the cross next to Christ?<<
Those are my thoughts also. The “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” from the Bible has been polluted by most religions in America today. They act as if you need to “add to” what was said.