One problem should be brought out that in my experience, that of others, and from what I have read, there is nothing in the way of a body of systematic theology, despite the hierarchal nature of their church.That of course stems from the imposition of a charismatic hiearchy on it congregationalist basis.
I have no idea what you mean.
PtA has gotten it more or less
I'm not sure this fits what Ialmisry is trying to say, but what I've read about doctrinal authority in the LDS church appears to me a mix of the charismatic idea that God is still revealing new doctrines to us today and the Roman Catholic idea of papal infallibility, as seen in the statement that only the First President of the Mormon church is authorized to proclaim dogma on behalf of the church
The point is that this authority is grafted onto a sola scriptura/each believer interprets the Bible trunk. An odd mix. From things I've picked up it seems the idea of the head of the house having revelations for the family harmonizes it somewhat, but it still makes for a bizarre mix. Which shows when one tries to discuss theology with even their missionaries.
When I worked in DC during the 80's I knew lots of Mormons, members of the Utah church, who, for instance, still believed in polygamy and preached it (enticing a devout Baptist from TX I knew).
I find this hard to believe, when I have never met one in 22 years of the LDS Church, knowing like a thousand members and living in UT for several years. That doesn't mean it isn't true, just hard to believe. Anyone endorsing polygamy is not really a member, and will be exed if found out.
Don't know what to tell you. I can't believe I just happened to meet the only ones who so believed. Back in Oprah's earlier days she had someone from Utah who had several wives. She identified him as Greek Orthodox, and a couple of his wives stated that they were not Mormon, but several stated their Mormon beliefs as the reason why they had this. There was some discussion about how mainstream/accepted this was in Utah, but I didn't know enough at the time to really follow it, but it was clear that they were not fundamentalist break offs, but mainstream (i.e. LDS) Mormons who claimed church officials looked the other way.
It is rather hard to disown plural marriage (the reason for the federal ban on polygamy in force today, something Muslims want to challenge) when you believe in a Heavenly Mother (with others) with Elohim. Since "half-truths and generalizations" about fits the sermons I got from practising Mormons, if that is what the beliefs in the cartoon are, the producers are hardly to blame.
Basing "facts" off of contact with members who either don't know or refuse to live the teachings of the church doesn't sound like the best idea to me. I think they still are to blame.
The problem is that the hiearchy states things that are just flat out lies or obfuscates. And the lack of systematic theology, regular for a evangelical sect but odd for a hiearchal church, basically puts much of what individual Mormons proclaim within the pale.
The complaint that the "Mormon Jesus" suggests that the Mormons worship a different Jesus. It's not a suggestion: it's a statement of fact, as much a fact that the Prophet Isa of Islam is different from the Christ of the Church.
I have heard this "different Jesus" line regarding the Catholics too due to the filioque, as covered in the book "The Truth" by Clark Carlton. I'm not sure where the dividing line is between the real Jesus and a "different" one but I wouldn't call it a fact.
The Mormon Jesus has nothing in common in theology with the real one, and very litttle if anything common in history with the real one.
It may be guilty of sensationalism, but in the face of the active campaign of the Mormons to pass themselves off as mainstream conservative Protestants, well taken. As far as Mormon history is concerned, it is quite, quite subdued.
So, since you don't approve of the way the LDS Church advertises itself, it is fair to portray it unfairly. Just wanted to be clear. Also too, I know of no LDS who consider themselves or wish to be considered protestants. Christian, yes, but protestant, never.
They aren't Christian either. They try to pass themselves off among the Protestants by default: they share the protestant disgust of the Catholic Church.
And talking about things they don't want to talk about is not portraying it unfairly.