"Christology" seems like a nice safe big word. Its associations feel scholarly and intellectual rather than Biblical or spiritual or emotional. As such, since it seems to be impersonal, it sidesteps and obscures the basic question Jesus asked, "Who do you say I am?" (Matthew 16:15).

I don't assume that I am "100% right" on many things. Understanding the nature of God is not on my list of things completely understood. But it doesn't take 100% comprehension for me to be sure that people who deny the direct teachings of scripture about the nature and character of Christ are in grave jeopardy, not of my disapproval, which means nothing, but of missing what God has offered.

And don't worry too much about the Mormons being identified as "Christians." Their primary resource, The Doctrine and Covenants, explicitly states that the LDS church is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (DC 1:30). More recently LDS president Ezra Taft Benson affirmed this doctrine, saying "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165). Institutionally, the Mormons don't share your sense of inclusion. Individually, God will judge, and only his determination matters. The word "Christian" has a particular Biblical meaning, which differs from the way is is commonly used in our times. Agrippa understood that a "Christian" is what someone becomes when they are persuaded that what Paul taught was true (Acts 26:28, in context with vv1-27) and Paul affirmed that being persuaded to become a Christian meant becoming what he himself was (Acts 26:29). Paul presented things that needed to be believed in the process of being persuaded to become a Christian. He also warned of things that would amount to deserting the Christian faith if accepted, such as latter day gospels whether taught by angels or men (Galatians 1:6-9). You suggest that being Irish and being Christian are somehow analogous. However, one is born Irish, by virtue of regional and genetic origin. One is not Christian by default, but only by willful acceptance of and adherence to what is called "the gospel of Christ" in the New Testament.

Essay, the mustard seed seems to be particularly nettlesome, since you have mentioned it at least three times. The mustard seed is not the smallest seed in the world. It is not even the smallest seed in "the Holy Land." Did Jesus say it was? Did he make a botanical error? Commit a horticultural faux pas? The truth is, I expect that no matter what I say, the impact will be pretty much like seed sown on the path, or water on a duck's back. I wonder, in teaching language to others, do you teach English the same way you read the Bible, especially with regard to context and idiom?

Here are Jesus' words from Matthew, about the mustard seed:
Matt 13:31-32 He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so thatTHE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES." (NASU)
And the parable from Mark:
Mark 4:30-32 And He said, "How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? "It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, 32 yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches; so thatTHE BIRDS OF THE AIR can NEST UNDER ITS SHADE." (NASU)
We could do a word study, and note that the word "seed" in the Greek New Testament is used in reference to what men purposefully plant (garden seeds) and the human reproductive germ ("sperm," our word comes from the Greek word "sperma" used in Matthew and Mark). It is not used in the New Testament of weeds or things that grow wild. Rather, in that 13th chapter of Matthew, Jesus refers to "good seed" and "weeds" in the parable of the weeds (13:24-30, 36-43). It is "weeds" in contrast to "good seed," not "bad seed." In fact, because of this consistent New Testament usage, the meaning presented for "sperma" in Strong's Dictionary is "something sown, ie seed." Consistent with this New Testament usage, was the mustard seed the smallest that was sown by the people Jesus was talking to? Yes, it was. That he was talking about what was sown, and only what was sown, is evident in the language of the parable itself. That he is talking about the cultivated gardern or field, not the whole wide world, is stated in the parable, and would have been clear to the hearers. That the mustard seed was the smallest seed they planted was evident to the hearers, not an issue. That the size of the mustard plant (about 12 feet tall, I understand) exceeded that of other garden plants (or herbs) is true, and not an issue. That herb gardening was common among Jesus' people, including those who lived in towns, was also true (see Luke 11:42, for example). It takes a broad stretch to turn Jesus' statement with all its limiting modifiers in the parable and in context and turn it into an absurd botanical error as implied. I'm sorry the language nettles you as it does. When I visited the "Holy Land" I saw wildflowers, including nettles, some of which certainly had seeds smaller than the mustard. That would have been evident even to a casual observer in Jesus' day as well, even aside from divine knowledge. But the seeds of the wild flowers were not "sperma" sown in the soil of the garden.

A sower went out to sow... Good seed, weeds, what will it be?