Okay, so we are in disagreement. What is your definition of Christianity? I was making my case for my definition, I just want to see you explicitly state yours and give your case for that definition. After all, part of the purpose of conversing is to meet someone with, to use a metaphor, better kung fu than you, and copy them. Not just agreement and/or arguement.
Okay. I would say divinity of jesus H is part of it. But just having that particular belief does not make one a xian, I think. The extra beliefs on top of that matter. If believed jesus H was god/son of god, but also that Abraham, Krishna, Mohammed, joe smith and L Ron Hubbard were also all god/ sons of god, could you still call me a xian? How about if I also believed in reincarnation? I'd say no. All that other stuff negates the title of xian.
In xianity - or any religious, political, philosophical system - it is not only important to believe certain things to hold the title. It is also important to not
believe other things. If you call yourself a xian, there are certain things you cannot
believe. You cannot believe that the gods of the hindu pantheon are actual gods or are benevolent. You cannot believe Satan is equally powerful as yhwh. You cannot believe Mary was an alien from Alpha Centauri. You cannot believe yhwh corrected the teaching of jesus H through Mohammed.
I know mormonism is not as wildly divergent as calling L Ron Hubbard a messiah. But I think it is divergent enough to say, it ain't xian. On a scale of xianity, I would illustrate thusly:
what is illustrated are the 3 religions' relative distance to xianity, not each other. I think lds is closer than the other two, but I would still say it's not xian. I know some things about mormonism, and I've read parts of the book of mormon. But I would not say I am expert enough in it to argue the point exhaustively.