In a poorly-researched anti-Mormon book from a Reformed author, we read the following assertion:
The Mormons embrace the heresy of Arias [sic]. They see Christ as a created being. (Richard E. Carroll, Mormonism and the Bible [Mustang, Okla.: Tate Publishing, 2015], 65).
This is false on a number of levels.
Arianism is the theology that states that, while Christ pre-existed, he did not pre-exist eternally; instead, he came into existence ex nihilo prior to the Genesis creation. There are a number of groups that have an Arian Christology, most notably the Jehovah’s Witnesses though they add an extra “twist” on this theology by identifying the pre-mortal Jesus as the archangel Michael.
With respect to Latter-day Saint belief, it is a distinct teaching of LDS Christology that Jesus has eternally existed, His nature being that of an intelligence, with all the attributes inherent within intelligence (cf. Abraham 3; D&C 93). There is no “creation” (ex nihilo) of Jesus, as Arianism teaches. While probably a post-Joseph Smith concept, “spirit birth” is wherein an intelligence is clothed upon with a spirit body, analogous to our spirit being clothed upon with a mortal physical body; if Carroll believes that “spirit birth” is supportive of Arianism, he would have to conclude that the Incarnation is also “Arian,” both of which are far-fetched and ignorant of the theology of Arius et al.
Furthermore, Carroll, as a Trinitarian, does believe that “Jesus” was created. In Trinitarian Christology, “Jesus” is a single person with two natures and two wills, a la the Hypostatic Union, as defined at Chalcedon in AD 451. The human nature and will of Jesus did not actually pre-exist the Incarnation. Indeed, many Trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that one cannot speak of “Jesus" pre-existing unless pre-existence is normative of what it means to be “human.” Much work has been done in recent years in what is called, “Spirit Christology,” focusing on what precedes “Jesus”—the Word in John 1—as God. What follows are two quotes from leading studies on this issue, and how only holding that all humans, not just Jesus, pre-existing can one speak of the “pre-existence of Jesus.”
The first comes from Bernard Byrne, "Christ's Pre-existence in Pauline Soteriology," Theological Studies, June 1997, 58/2:
By the same token, it is important to stress that in speaking of pre-existence, one is not speaking of a pre-existence of Jesus' humanity. Jesus Christ did not personally pre-exist as Jesus. Hence one ought not to speak of a pre-existence of Jesus. Even to use the customary expression of the pre-existence of Christ can be misleading since the word "Christ" in its original meaning simply designates the Jewish Messiah, a figure never thought of as pre-existent in any personal sense. But in view of the Christian application of "Christ" to Jesus, virtually as a proper name and in a way going beyond his historical earthly existence, it is appropriate to discuss the issue in terms of the pre-existence of Christ, provided one intended thereby to designate simply the subject who came to historical human existence as Jesus, without any connotation that he pre-existed as a human being.
The second comes from Roger Haight, "The Case for Spirit Christology," Theological Studies, June 1992, 53/2 (emphasis added)
And with the clarity that historical consciousness has conferred relative to Jesus' being a human being in all things substantially like us, many things about the meaning of Incarnation too can be clarified. One is that one cannot really think of a pre-existence of Jesus . . . But one cannot think in terms of the pre-existence of Jesus; what is pre-existent to Jesus is God, and the God who became incarnate in Jesus. Doctrine underscores the obvious here that Jesus is really a creature like us, and a creature cannot pre-exist creation. One may speculate on how Jesus might have been present to God's eternal intentions and so on, but a strict pre-existence of Jesus to his earthly existence is contradictory to his consubtantiality with us, unless we too were pre-existent.
Of course, “Mormonism” answers this “problem” as we believe everyone had personal pre-existence, not just Jesus (see here for a discussion). Furthermore, there is no doctrine creatio ex nihilo in LDS theology to begin with, so an important core of Arianism is already precluded by LDS theology.
In his book comparing and contrasting Latter-day Saint theology and practices with those of Jehovah’s Witnesses (a group that do have an Arian Christology), Alonzo Gaskill wrote:
Latter-day Saints differ with Witnesses on the degree to which Jesus can be classified as God (with a capital G). Like Witnesses, some might call Mormons Arian because they see Jesus as subordinate to the Father. However, unlike Witnesses or Arians, Mormons do not see Jesus as “a god” or of “like substance with the Father.” On the contrary, the LDS take is that Jesus is fully divine, a full participant in the Godhead, and (in His post-resurrected state) fully like the Father in His nature, attributes, powers, glory, etc. Yes, Mormons see Jesus as placing Himself in subjection to the Father throughout His mortal ministry. However, they sense something changed with regards to His status at the point he was resurrected. The shift in Jesus’s language about Himself after the resurrection is frequently highlighted. For example, in Matthew 5:48, Jesus (prior to His death and resurrection) said to those living on the Eastern Hemisphere: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” However, after His resurrection, Jesus said to those on the Western Hemisphere: “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect” (emphasis added). In LDS theology, Jesus was one with the Father during His pre-moral and moral states. However, He was physically different than the Father during those periods—and He was entirely on His Father’s errand. Nevertheless, after His resurrection Jesus’s physical nature became as the Father’s, by which He assumed a status slightly different to that which He had previously had. He was now fully like the Father. (Alonzo L. Gaskill, Know your Religions, Volume 3: A Comparative Look at Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, 66)
Even critics of the Church will admit that Latter-day Saint Christology is not "Arian." Let us examine one critic from the 19th century and another (very errant) critic (who strongly dislikes me) from the modern period:
Alexander Campbell in his review of the Book of Mormon, "Delusions" from the Millennial Harbinger 2, no. 2 (7 February, 1831) wrote the following:
Mormon was very orthodox, for he preached in these words, A.D. 362: - 'That Jesus was the very Christ and the very God.' He must have heard of the Arian controversy by some angel!!
In spite of being a vehement critic of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, Campbell did realise that neither preached an Arian Christology. Commenting on the above criticism from Campbell of the high Christology in the Book of Mormon, RoseAnn Benson wrote:
Campbell was correct in stating that neither the prophet Mormon nor Joseph Smith taught Arianism. Jesus Christ is subordinated to his Father, but not because of the statements of the Nicene Creed. Smith taught that “christ came according to the words of John, & he was greater than John because he held the keys of the Melchesedic Priesthood & the kingdom of God & had before revealed the priesthood to Moses. Yet Christ was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness.” Joseph Smith, 22 January 1843, in Wolford Woodruff’s Journal, 2:216. In other words, the premortal christ had priesthood authority and appeared to Moses and other Old Testament and Book of Mormon prophets for the purpose of dispensing that power. He is the Father of heaven and earth, and the Creator of all things from the beginning and is the God who condescended to come to earth to redeem his people. He has always been a member of the Godhead, but subordinate to his Father as his Son, to whom he obeyed, praised, and prayed. (RoseAnn Benson, Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith: 19th-Century Restorationists [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 2017], 269 n. 28)
An example of a modern critic of the Church who rejects the claim LDS theology is "Arian" wrote once in response to a fellow Evangelical who falsely stated that "Mormonism" teaches Jesus is "created":
Another, much smarter, less disingenuous critic is Paul Owen, one of the three editors of the 2002 book, The New Mormon Challenge: Responses to a Fast-Growing Movement:
1) Mormons do not call the Son a “mere creature.” They believe he is God the eternal creator.
2) The fact that Mormons view Jesus as the Spirit-brother of Lucifer is rather insignificant, when understood within the broader Mormon ontology. For Mormons, all personal beings have the same kind of nature, though not the same powers, nor status. Lucifer is the same kind of being as we are in LDS theology, though more powerful. So for the LDS, it is no more blasphemous to call Jesus the brother of Lucifer than it is for the author of Hebrews to call Jesus our brother (2:11-14). (Paul Owen, in response to James R. White)
As we see, the charge that the LDS Church teaches Arianism only reflects ignorance of (1) Arianism and (2) Latter-day Saint theology.