Mormonism is a Denomination within Christianity

At this point of the discussion, I find myself entering troubling waters which I have to be very meticulous in entering. By following my pattern of argument, you have accepted to take a philosophical route instead of a theological (biblical interpretation) one. I do believe that the original manuscripts are authoritative and inerrant. Inerrant means free from error, but what I think we have trouble understanding is what error ACTUALLY means. In other words, while I believe that the original manuscripts are inerrant, I also believe that they are filled with mistakes, problems, contradictions, etc. Now you may be wondering how I can say the Bible is inerrant when I also say that it is flawed? Like I said, the word "error" isn't really understood very well. Do we say that God made an "error" when baby's with deformities are born or good people die for no apparent reason? When something horrible happens in our life and we can't explain it, do we suggest that God made a mistake? Of course not (well at least I don't). Divine wisdom is beyond our comprehension, which the ancients like Plato and Aristotle understood. My point is that the Bible is flawed and it has mistakes. Their are contradictions and theological discrepancies that just can't be overlooked. But that doesn't mean it isn't divinely inerrant. It just means that the bible is riddled with human mistakes that God, for some reason, allowed. Now for the translations: You are absolutely right in saying that the different english translations are "good towards the end of capturing the original meaning." But when it comes to theological and intense studying purposes, much discretion is required; meaning one should not be limited to one translation. Let me give you one theological problem that shows up between the NIV and NKJV, and see how just a word can cause a religious nightmare: Ironically, the first mistake is in the first chapter of Genesis. In Genesis 1:5 it states in the NIV: "...the evening and the morning were the first day." The NKJV says the exact same thing, but give a note for clarification on the actual meaning of the Hebrew. Many Christians don't understand that the ancient Hebrew was very ambiguous. One word could mean something, but also have a secondary emphatic meaning as well. The NKJV in Genesis 1:5 states that the Hebrew actually may translate to "evening was, and morning was, a day, one." Most Jewish Bibles translate it that way. This difference is crucial in identifying because it infers that maybe their was no "first day." That creation out of nothing is not just limited to just that: stages of creation from nothing. Judaism teaches that creation out of nothing is only an aspect of the creation account. As famous Jewish scholars, like Leo Strauss, point out- the most important aspect of the Genesis 1 creation account is creation out of separation and distinction, not nothingness. If we take this notion that their was no "first" day, it becomes extremely compatible with evolution and the Big Bang, which fundamentalist today completely denounce. Do you know understand the huge theological and biblical controversies that arise in the difference of not just english translation, but translations in general because of the difficult understanding of the Greek and Hebrew. Actually, DR. Ehrman does does not overlook the great care the of the JEWISH scriptures. It is true that the Jewish scribes took great care of THEIR texts. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they got a great understanding of the original Hebrew. But notice how were only talking about Judaism and the Old Testament (Tanakh). The New Testament, all of which is in Greek, were copied by Christians who were not professional scribes, but only knew how to speak or write Greek: "As we have seen, outside the Christian communities, in the Roman world at large, texts were typically copied either by professional scribes or by literate slaves who were assigned to do such work within a household. That means, among other things that the people reproducing wanted the texts. The copyists were by and large reproducing the texts for others. One of the important recent findings of scholars who study the early Christian scribes, on the other hand, is that just the opposite was the case with them. It appears that the Christians copying the texts were the ones who wanted the texts – that is, they were copying the texts either for their own personal and/or communal use or they were making them for the sake of others in their community. In short, the people copying the early Christian texts were not, for the most part, if at all, professionals who copied texts for a living; they were simply the literate people in the Christian congregation who could make copies (since they were literate) and wanted to do so." Misquoting Jesus (pg. 50)Bart D. Ehrman As for 2 Timothy 3:16. I find it interesting how you state: "I don't believe the 'correction' refers to Scripture itself; rather to people holding to counterscriptural beliefs." You must understand that while YOU believe that, other people will believe otherwise (such as taking the verse literally with the text). I personally take both stances theologically, that both the scripture and "people" are subject to correction. But don't you understand my point now? If people can't agree on the subject of a single verse, how can we ever agree on the definition of a Christian when using the Bible as the foundation? Not long ago Pope Benedict denounced all other Christian denominations as a deviation from the "true faith." If in Catholicism the Pope is Christ Incarnate (and thus has same authority as the Bible), do we accept what the Pope says? The meaning of a Christian has to have a universal understanding, to the extent that it fits into God's Will and decrees. In other words, the definition of a Christian should have universal agreement only insofar as it keeps to what is morally and socially just in the eyes of God. Now, I will bring us back on course of how Mormonism IS a denomination within Christianity. Scripture is IMPORTANT. It is essential. But were not debating whether Mormons follow the Bible's message "correctly." I'm sure I would probably loose that debate. What were debating about is whether a Mormon is a Christian. By discluding the Bible from such a meaning of a Christian, I do believe I have proven so. Now, I should have probably not quoted from the Bible, for now I opened it up for you to bust out your own verses like John etc. I only quoted the Bible for the extension common sense and not theological authority (like you did). I'm not going to shoot down the verses, because I personally believe in them as well. But my point for quoting was to use historical and commonsensical rhetoric. I used biblical verses appropriately in this debate (historically), while you're verses are strictly arbitrary (theological), as according to the pattern of this debate in which i'm claiming that the Bible is not the ultimate factor in the meaning of being a Christian. I don't only implicitly refer Gnosticism, but other Christian sects that were denounced as "heretical" by the early Church fathers. The Church fathers were arbitrary in their denunciations. They allowed philosophical ambiguity meddle in divine absoluteness. They believed that only one mindset can be right, while others were wrong. Keep in mind, Jesus was a heretic in relation to Judaism. Mormonism is a denomination within Christianity because they believe in Jesus Christ and they abide to the moral and social decrees of God. The Bible is authoritative and important, but it doesn't define who can be a Christian. "I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it." -Joseph Smith Jr. (Founder of Mormonism)