Maybe you missed the point. Protestants & Catholics disagreed on who was Christian for centuries. You’ve named many differences between LDS & “Christians”. There many differences between Catholics & Protestants as well such as authority, baptism, faith vs. works, etc.
I guess the point is, what makes you more authoritative on who’s Christian, than the Catholics who claimed likewise for centuries? Because LDS differ on Christian dogma?
If a Catholic confronted you & claimed you weren’t Christian because you don’t accept the Pontiff & the line of Authority, or because you don’t believe that works are part of the saving process, as they did for centuries, would he be correct?
Christians have killed each other for centuries over these very points. Seems like kind of a ridiculous argument to me.
If a Catholic confronted you & claimed you weren’t Christian because you don’t accept the Pontiff & the line of Authority, or because you don’t believe that works are part of the saving process, as they did for centuries, would he be correct?
________________________________________
Im 62
Thats never happened to me in my lifetime...
Catholics and Protestantsd agree on the virgin birth of Jesus
The Trinity
That the LORD Jesus Christ is and has always been, God
Jesus shedding His blood on the Cross and dying on the Cross for our salvation
That there were no gods before God
Mormons do not believe any of those tenets of Christianity...
Allow me to give two word pictures which I think outlines what we're talking about.
Let's say for now we compare the Protestant-Catholic feuds to a type of Hatfield-McCoys' feud. These families actually lived in differing states. (McCoys, Kentucky; Hatfields, WV).
The thing is: They actually all lived in the same Tug Valley, largely separated by the Tug River.
Let's say for argument sake -- to make this word picture fit -- that there were boundary disagreements somewhere as to what was really Pike County, Kentucky -- and what constituted Mingo County, WV. Let's say a # of citizens lived among and across these boundaries -- and there was just plain disagreement over where the actual boundaries were meant to be.
Even though the real Hatfield-McCoy battles began over a McCoy returned Union soldier killed by Confederate-minded Hatfields in 1865, let's say in my analogy that many murders occurred over pure boundary issues. Somebody might have a residence in one state, but was killed for being perceived to be in the other; or, somebody's property straddled both properties, but was killed for not being considered a true "West Virginian" or not being a Confederate or not being a true "Kentuckyian." [Certainly, in the real Tug Valley, the McCoys were at a disadvantage in that the Valley leaned heavily Confederate].
Let's say in my word picture that eventually peace was sown by reformers who were able to emphasize that, "Hey, we're all residents of the same Tug Valley. We're all Americans. Let's unite over those two points of unity."
The Reformer added that he wasn't going to sweep under the rug the differences of Union vs. Confederacy; or KY vs. WV; or Pike Co. vs. Mingo Co.; or ill-will over past injustices (murders, etc.). But the reformer emphasized that just as God was a diverse trinity--a "tri" within a "unity," they, too, could be both diverse and to some degree united.
Now. Where do the Mormons fit into to this word picture?
Well, you're argument is like somebody coming into the Tug Valley region and saying:
"McCoys & Hatfields disagreed on who was a true Tug Valley representative citizen for generations...There many differences between McCoys & Hatfields...You've named many differences between Americans and Kolobians. I guess the point is, what makes you more authoritative on who’s a Tug Valley resident or who's a true American, than the Hatfields who claimed likewise for generations? Is it because Kolobians differ on similar truth claims? Tug Valley residents have killed each other for generations over these very points. Seems like kind of a ridiculous argument to me."
Do you see what you're doing? You're using local disagreements (Hatfields & McCoys) -- which, indeed, were serious...no need to downplay that -- to reduce the differences between say, Americans and Kolobians. (And, btw, ask Mormons...they'll tell you they think they pre-existed on a star near Kolob).
Give us a break, Confab! What? Just 'cause the Hatfields & McCoys did what they did...
...you claim we can't determine who's a true resident of...
...planet Earth?
(Or who's a true citizen of America?)
(Or who's a true citizen of the Tug Valley?)
Believe me, if Kolobians came into the Tug Valley and claimed, "we're citizens of Tug Valley," too, ya think the boundary disagreements in my analogy makes it too difficult of a question as to determine if Kolobians are Tug Valley residents (or aliens), too?
Imagine me doing the same thing you're doing: Imagine that I point back the 30s & 40s when...
...the Utah Mormons were having it out with the fundamentalist Mormons (over polygamy)
...& the Missouri-based RLDS would have nothing to do with the Utah Mormons
...& the Utah Mormons were mad @ the small Temple Lot offshoot restorationists 'cause they wouldn't sell the very property that Joseph Smith prophesied the Mormon Jesus would return to near Independence, MO.
* Temple Lot had claim to the prophesied property.
* The RLDS had claims to Smith's copyrighted revision of the KJV Bible as well as claims to Joseph Smith's bloodline -- his child, grandchild, and great-grandchild taking over as head "prophets" of the RLDS.
* The FLDS had claims to being the only Mormons still being faithful to Doctrine & Covenants 132.
* And the Utah Mormons had claim to being the biggest, richest & most well-organized.
Obviously, they're all divided. They all had their own head "prophets" who disagreed with each other -- over even who was the true & faithful Mormon remnant.
Now what if I came into this and said (similarly to what you have said):
"The RLDS & FLDS & LDS & Temple Lotters disagreed on who was a true Mormon for generations...
"...There many differences between these four groups...
"...We can agree many differences exist between LDS and its offshoots. I guess the point is, what makes you more authoritative on who’s a true Mormon? -- Especially given that the LDS who have claimed these other groups aren't Mormon..."
[Note #1: see Lds "prophet's" Hinckley comments on the Larry King show about fundamentalist Mormons, for example...where Hinckley said there was no such thing as a fundamentalist Mormon].
[Note #2: I know RLDS Josephite missionaries were shot at in Utah in May 1864 by Lds. Union Vedette (May 13, 1864): "RLDS Missionaries Beaten and Nearly Murdered by LDS" http://www.truthandgrace.com/1864UnionVedette0513.htm]
Bottom line: My point is that if I claimed Christians were Mormons, too,
and that because the Mormons couldn't agree among themselves who the real Mormons were,
does that mean then that the brand name "Mormon" is so convoluted & so up for grabs that Christians could be determined to be in the running to claim it, too?...
...and then for keepers, how'd it be if I reacted to people who said that Christians couldn't be Mormons with comments like 'Seems like kind of a ridiculous argument to me?'"
Nice try, tho, Confab on your wedge arguments. They tend to work pretty well on people. Mormons claim all the time that the denominations are so divided that one prophet and one church is needed and that's it -- as if the Mormons were all unified...[of course, they have to define the fLDS out of existence -- like Hinckley did; or they have to ignore or try to downplay Temple Lot & JST (revised Bible) realities...etc.]
With advocates abroad like yourself, no wonder people slide down a religious Bahai-like pathway where they run everything together about God and begin to conclude things like...
...a fundamentalist Mormon-is-a-Mormon-is-a-Christian-is-a-Jonestownite-is-a-Branch-Davidian-is-a-Heavens-Gate-ian-is-a-Urantia believer-is a Church Universal & Triumphant-is-a-Wiccan-Witch-is-Voodoo practitioner-is-a-New-Ager-is-a-whirling dervish-is-a-Hindu-is-a-Sikh-is-a-Muslim!
So just 'cause differences exist and competing claims to authority over what is the true religion exists and some overlap upon each other on things...no true faith exists? Or they're all in doubt? Or they can all claim to be "Christian," too to various degrees?
Neither do Calvinists and Arminians,
or tongue speakers versus not.
We don't do DEFENSE at all (unless someone gets really riled) and we avoid rabbitholes and red herrings like the plague.