Yolland -- where in this discussion have I said Christianity is the ultimate universal truth? That's not at all what I'm talking about here. I'm standing up for the truth that Mormonism is not Christianity.
As I said, "I can understand skepticism concerning why Mormons sometimes categorize themselves as 'just another sect of Christians,'" since after all they do have their own wholly separate additional scriptures as well as a very large body of practices and doctrines entirely unique to them, far more extensive than the differences between say Catholicism and Lutheranism. But if you seek only to contest the claim that it makes sense to unproblematically lump them in under the 'Christianity' label, then why say stuff like this:
The fact is Mormonism is a cult. It's taken Christian terminology and twisted it to mean something completely different
........
That's completely contradictory to what the Bible says (and frankly, if I'm honest, more in line with Satan's wish for power. I know you'll say I'm being hateful in saying this, but he did want to be like God and that's what led to his fall. there's no denying this.)
........
And the Book of Mormon was translated by divine providence? Then why was the original translation written in a low reading level with poor grammar?
.........
It just doesn't sound divine to me.
Why the need to ridicule? Why not point out the doctrinal, scriptural and practice differences without the derisive, contemptuous tone, then leave it up to the reader or listener to decide for themselves whether it makes conceptual sense to label Mormonism as Christianity? The level of emotion you display about this would seem to suggest it's about something more than just questionable theological distinction-drawing for you. It ain't hard for the average non-Christian to spot that Mormonism is doctrinally much further from any decent-sized Christian sect than the rest of them are from each other. You don't need to go for the jugular in order to hit home that point, and I don't understand who you think is going to see it as a "finest moment" if you do, nor why.
What if I said Christians were Jewish? I'm really Jewish, Yolland. I'm just like you are. You're Jewish and I'm Jewish. What would you say?
That already exists; it's called Jews for Jesus, and its purpose is to destroy Judaism and Jewish identity by strategically subsuming it (through aggressive proselytizing) within Christianity, where it can 'live on' mounted and stuffed as a charmingly exotic, lovingly curated monument to an unenlightened past. But I'm not really seeing the analogy here, because for us, that's not an objection about proper theological framing, nor certainly about Christianity being a 'twisted' version of Judaism, or a Satanic power-wish, or a 'non-divine-sounding' religion, none of which are at all how we view Christianity. It's more analogous to what Native Americans feel when some WASP guy who happens to have maybe a Lakota great-grandfather renames himself 'Eagle Little Feather,' then goes around aggressively propounding his own amalgam of Lakota traditions with other ideas drawn from the New Age lexicon, all further sweetened by regularly flaunting his blood-quantum cred
: that their culture, their people, their spiritual traditions, which have already suffered so much attrition from their historically marginalized position, are emphatically not up for sale to anyone seeking the personal gratification of winning others over to his spiritual views, whence they can help him grow his church, his sweat lodge, his book sales or whatever. But you're not in a position like that, and so I don't understand what all this agitation is for. How is it a threat to you if someone believes very different things from you about Jesus' place in the universe, yet still considers and presents themselves as a Christian? It gives them an unwarranted leg-up in proselytizing perhaps, is that the concern?
