Sometimes
Protestant apologist attempt to respond to the charge that Protestantism is
splintered, as Protestants disagree on many primary
doctrines, not secondary doctrines merely (e.g., baptismal regeneration). It is
not rare for some to attempt to charge the critic of Protestantism and Sola
Scriptura of belonging to a group that has its own dissidents, but it is a
false comparison (the official teachings of the various Protestant
denominations vs. dissidents rebelling against the official teachings of one
Church).
Catholic
apologist Phil Blosser wrote a response to Catholic critics; I have slightly
reworked it to suit a Latter-day Saint context:
It will not do to object that the charge of
Protestant disunity can be turned back on the LDS Church. It is true, as
Protestant apologists enjoy pointing out, that the “scandal of liberalism” and
disunity can be found among Latter-day Saints just as it is among Protestants
(e.g., those who reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon; “spiritualise”
the First Vision and other foundational events in both Latter-day Saint and
biblical history, etc). But there is this ineluctable difference. The problem
of disunity on the Protestant side is the disunity between the official teachings of different
denominations, not, as on the LDS side, the disunity between official Church
teaching and the views of various
dissidents who happen to also be (at least nominally) church members. Hence it
is beside the point that liberals theologians and even professing atheists can
be found who call themselves “Mormons,” perhaps in some cultural sense, as
there are secular Jews. This does not mean that LDS teaching is divided against
itself. The conflict is between the Church’s unified teaching and the
dissenting opinions of various dissident individuals and groups. By contrast,
Protestant disunity is between the conflicting official teachings of various
denominations.
For more, be
sure to read my book critiquing Sola Scriptura:
An online
version can be found
