Mormonism is a Denomination within Christianity

My belief is that Mormonism is a form of Christian belief, thus valid enough to be called Christian. Just like a Lutheran is called a Christian Just like a Baptist is called a Christian And so forth and so forth. Mormonism is a denomination within Christianity. Now, I shall outline my argument in this fashion- A) Establish my Argument 1) State my Criterion 2) Use Biblical evidence and more to support my Criterion 3) Background Information on Mormonism 4) Establish Mormonism as a denomination within Christianity through rhetoric Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) is a denomination within the Christian Faith. And here is my Criterion: The definition of "Christianity" in the modern world is so shrewd and bias that we have lost the true meaning of being a Christian. So I will establish a new definition of Christian as my standard to support my argument. THE WRONG DEFINITION: Being defined as a "Christian" is not embedded in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The concept of the Trinity was not established until 300 years after Jesus and Paul. Nor is the concept of Trinity found in the bible. Nowhere in the Bible is there explicit support for the "orthodox" doctrine of the trinity. The famous "Johannine Comma", found in the KJV and other Textus Receptus supported translations, (1 John 5:7-8) would be the only scriptural support for the Holy Trinity. Unfortunately, the earliest manuscripts we have of the New Testament (The Alexandrian Text) completely exclude the "Johannine Comma":"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and the three are one." 1 John 5:7-8 Strong textual evidence supports the conclusion that this passage was only added on by later scribes in the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Holy Trinity was deemed to be "orthodox." The idea of the trinity is "a historical development not a given from the early years of the faith" (Bart D. Ehrman "From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity") The Basic idea of the Trinity is that there are three persons: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit- and these three are all equally God and of the same substance. But in despite of these three persons, they are but one God. Obviously there are logical discrepancies in this statement. Now, I will never argue against the wisdom of God. Nonetheless argue with God on His own substance. But like Dr. Ehrman said, the Concept of the Trinity was not founded by Jesus, or by the New Testament, But by MAN alone. "This Doctrine of the Trinity, which has become a central doctrine of Christianity, does not appear to be a doctrine pronounced by the historical Jesus, Paul, or any other Christian writer during the first few hundred years or so of Christianity... It was not there in the beginning." (Bart D. Ehrman "From Jesus to Constantine...") Going further into the historical facts of the Trinity, historical speculation shows that this doctrine was primarily established for political measures. In other words, to dismiss the "heretics" of the faith (From the Arians to the Gnostics). "Heresy" means "wrong belief" Yet, what puzzles me is why MAN is allowed to choose who has the "wrong belief" or the "right belief?" (Orthodoxy). Keep in mind, the early Christians didn't have and organized New Testament until the ladder half of the 3rd Century. These 2nd and 1st century Christians had to talk and debate amongst themselves so they could establish some concept of the faith. Now, last time I saw, every person is different Ultimately leading to different opinion thus different interpretations of Christ. But, unfortunately, the idea of "majority rules" came to establish Christian beliefs. And so the majority established what was "heresy" and what was "orthodoxy". "Mormon doctrine diverges from the orthodoxy of established Christianity, particularly in its polytheism, in affirming that God has evolved from man and that men might evolve into gods, that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct beings, and that human souls have pre existed." (Encyclopedia Britannica 2006) The big difference, in my opinion, between Mormonism and mainstream "Orthodox" Christianity is in the acceptance of the Trinity and the essence of a human being. They don't believe in the Trinity (Like the Jehovah's Witnesses) in the way that most Christians believe in it. Are we going to stoop down to the level of "Majority Rules" again? There is a lack of Consensus Gentium. Was it not Paul who asked the Rhetorical Question? "Is Christ Divided?" And as C.S Lewis says: "All Christians are agreed that there is, in the full and original sense, only one 'Son of God'" (C.S Lewis "Mere Christianity") What it seems to me is that Mormons meet some aspects of the Christian faith. So they must be Christian. Here is my definition of Christianity CRITERION: A Christian is a believer and follower of Jesus of Nazareth. Simple enough, right? It's not some complex formula or necessary doctrine. This is all that The 12 Apostles had. Too believe in Christ Jesus. But that poses a problem. As I stated before, every person is different, thus forcing different opinions: "When you find yourself wanting to turn your children, or pupils, or even your neighbors, into people exactly like yourself, remember that God probably never meant them to be that. You and they are different organs, intended to do different things. On the other hand, when you are tempted not to bother about someone else's' troubles because they are 'no business of yours' remember that though he is different from you he is part of the same organism as you." (C.S Lewis "Mere Christianity") We are all ONE in the body of Christ. Not many, but one. To believe in Jesus of Nazareth is to be a Christian. And since Mormons believe in Jesus of Nazareth Mormons are Christians. Simple Logic. I find that most support the illegitimacy of Mormonism through scripture. I could counter all the biblical verses thrown at me by other biblical quotes but that would be pointless and rather irrelevant to the other argument I'm going to propose. Instead, I will argue that the popular Christian belief of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Only) is a rather disruptive creed. I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired but at the same time I am not going to deny that their are many mistakes in the Bible. I would have to write a book to explain the problems of the Bible, but instead I will suggest one: I suggest "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D Ehrman "... how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes -- sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) Incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways" (Bart D. Ehrman "Misquoting Jesus") I won't be writing a dissertation on HOW the Bible is flawed, but I'm going to say that IT IS flawed. Unfortunately for Dr. Ehrman, this flawness of the Bible forced him too loose his faith. For me, it just gave me a stronger faith in Christ. The idea of Sola Scriptura (through scripture only) is flawed and rather foolish. We don't get to God by reading the Bible. It helps, yes, but it is not the ultimate factor. We have countless of different translations (The NIV, NRSV, NKJV, KJV, NLT, etc) And they all have places where they differ theologically from one another! Scripture is important. But it is not the way to God. Not the way to Jesus. Their are hundreds of other Gospels, Epistles, Acts, Apocalypses that were not accepted into the New Testament. Scripture is not salvation