According to thee. So your specious criteria is indeed simply not being in formal submission to the pope? And how is this consistent with defining Catholic as adhering to Catholic distinctives such as papal infallibility, Marian sinlessness and perpetual virginity and bodily assumption, the nature of the Eucharistic, etc.?
But if one cannot deny these and be Catholic, then how can one deny the apostle's creed, and Scripture as being the supreme authority as literally being the Word of God, and salvation by grace thru faith, and other Prot distinctives of the Reformation, and be Protestant? Or do you not care about being consistent in order to take pot shots?
In any case, how does Mormonism attack those evangelicals whom you oppose here who hold to the above, and actually conform more to Catholicism in core Truths than Mormonism?
How do you think you all appear to the only real Christians (Catholics) with your bizarre denials of basic Catholic doctrines.
Which is based upon what? What is the basis for your assurance of truth?
Is your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God?
Or is your basis for determination of Truth that of the weight of evidence, of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, like an evangelical's must be?
Heresy is heresy.
That itself is no more true than that "sin is sin," as while it makes all sinners, there are varying degrees and penalties, but only by ignoring such can you make Mormons as Prots and Herod as Peter.
The rest of your questions are red herrings.