bytebear

A side note about apostacy. They weren't ALL wrong in their teachings, although they did teach some things that were incorrect. The reason they were ALL wrong is because they did not receive authority through the laying on of hands by one having authority. I can start a church tomorrow that is exactly like the LDS Church, with the same scriptures, hymns, Sunday school lessons, ordinances and rituals, but unless I have recieved authority correctly, my church is false. So, the LDS claim isn't a corner on the market of truth (since we make no claims to know it all), but we do claim sole rights to God's authority. Thomas S. Monson was ordained by apostles who were ordained by apostles who were ordained by apostles, who were ultimately ordained by Joseph Smith who was ordained by apostles (Peter, James and John) who were ordained by Jesus Christ. That is the meaning behind what God told Smith about why he should not join those "corrupt" churches. That chain of authority was broken some hundred or so years after the death of Christ.

It would be far easier for classification if the term "Christian" didn't hold exclusivity to the worship of Jesus Christ. How about we call those who want to exclude Mormom from the Christian club something else. I think they should be "Creedalists." So now we have Mormons and Credalists. And Mormons would be perfectly happy being excluded from the Creedalists. but not from Christianity.

I would agree with you except that Christianity is not monolithic. In fact, if you want to set it up like a tree, with Christians stemming from Jews, then Catholics stemmed from Christians, and protestants stemmed from Catholics, so today's Christians are far removed from the Christians of the Bible. Mormons historically stemmed from protestantism, although the claim is they are really a restoration of the early Biblical Christians. So when someone says they are a "Christian" what do they mean? Early Bible Christian? Cathoilc? Protestant? Eastern Orthodox? Evangelical? Trinitarian? Gnostic? They all are Christians, and yet their doctrines are not all the same. Even if you lump them together with trinitarianism, there are Christians who are left out, and that isn't the original premise. It isn't based on doctrinal distinctions, but on who "really" believes in Jesus, just as who "really' believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (vs. Abraham Essau and Mohomed). But, even Muslims believe in Abraham as a prophet, in essentially the same way we do. God was just a lot more violent then.

The problem I have is the terminology. "Christian" means a believer in Jesus Christ. If we called Jews "Abrahamists" then to say that Christians don't believe in the God of Abraham, then that would be false. Add to that the fact that Latter-day Saints believe the center of their faith is Jesus Christ. Now it is fair to say that Mormons are not Catholics because that term does not exclude a belief in Jesus Christ nor do they have a cultural or historical connection with Catholics, just as Christians have no cultural or historical connection to Judaism (at least not recently). If Jews started telling Christians that their God is not the same as the God of the Old Testament, then the Christians would take offense, as they should