Mormons are Christian

A Christian is defined as someone who believes and adheres to Christ. Mormons do so, and believe in most commonly accepted facts about Jesus and the Bible. Written mainly as a response to 'Mormons are not christians', but anyone can argue. I don't know why anyone contests this, so I will wait for an opponent to give me something to prove wrong.

This is a very simple issue, or at least it is as far as I will argue it.

I believe that Mormons are not Christian (the adjective, for the nitpicker commenting below) because words ought to have meaning, and saying that Mormons are Christians strips the word "Christian" of any substantial meaning.

Everyone here probably agrees that Protestants and Catholics are Christian.

The only thing that these two very different groups can claim to have in common is their Christology. The theology, practices, everything possible common thread diverges at some point. The only thing they have in common is their Christology, the Christology of the Nicene Creed. In every other way, the beliefs of a Christian are variable.

And now we want to throw the Christology out the window.

1800 years into the history of Christianity, it is decided that we are to throw the only real unifying and omnipresent belief of the Christian religion to the dogs.

We can't have this.

Christian used to be a word like thunder. When a man spoke of Christendom, he was speaking of a civilization that failed often, but always SOUGHT to be a light to the world. Christianity was the light of the Dark Ages and the driving force of a continent.

Now a Christian is any man who feels vaguely that it is good to help other people. He holds to the ethical teachings of Christ, and though he thinks Buddha and Muhammed were equally great men, he is to be called a Christian.

Vote con because words ought to mean something. Vote con to reverse the degradation of a word that used to sound like a hammer on steel in the forge of the world.

If nothing else,
Vote con because Christians ought to have the same Christology.

The fact that Protestants and so forth are commonly accepted as Christian does not in any way affect whether or not Mormons are. Mormons believe in his divinity, life, teachings, and his status as our savior. His name is actually in the official name of their church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There's one thing it has that others don't- the continual declaration that Jesus is the Christ. I don't understand how you can say that the Christology differs- point out some actual differences and show how they affect fundamental belief and I might have something for you there.

"The fact that Protestants and so forth are commonly accepted as Christian does not in any way affect whether or not Mormons are."
Huh? Who was considered Christian before doesn't affect who should be considered a Christian now?

"His name is actually in the official name of their church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
So? I'm proposing a theological/historical definition of Christianity. What someone's official name might be does not particularly concern me.

"There's one thing it has that others don't- the continual declaration that Jesus is the Christ."
Well this is just blatantly wrong. I can't think of any mainstream denomination of sect that denies that Jesus is the Christ.

Ok, stuff Mormons and Christianity as it was practised for 1700 years disagree on:

God the Father does not have a physical body.
The Trinity
God is eternal and we are aeveternal
God is above nature and the creator of nature
God the Father and Jesus Christ are homoousian
God was always divine
Christ is the new Adam
Original Sin's role in the Crucifixion

You aren't reading my argument clearly- I stated in the part you pasted that it was the protestants and Catholics, commonly accepted as Christian.

The topic of this argument is that Mormons are Christian. If they have his name in the title of their church,
is it not somewhat of an indication of their belief in him?

And I didn't say that anyone denies him. I said they didn't proclaim his divinity as often or as clearly.

Most of those differences have to do with the spiritual definition of God, not the personage we're discussing here (though you guys do think they're one and the same.) The one contrast applying to Christ is that he is the same being as God, and that has nothing to do with pretty much everything important that he did. The important things that he taught and did were not dependent on what he did, since either separate or homosousian (you spelled it wrong), he could have saved us from our sins and taught about compassion and whatnot, according to both religions.

The definition of Jesus as the Christ is totally dependent on the fact that he atoned for our sins, something that is as much or more the key of the Mormon religion as much as any other. No differing of opinion on his life or being prior to that act is as pivotal or vital to Christianity.

For the record, Mormons also believe in the bible, including the New Testament, the real documentation of his life. They also have added to the scriptures with the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (Further declaration of his name) which further records his acts on Earth (3 Nephi, Chapters 11-18).

The fact that Mormons believe in Christ and his divine role, name their church after him and declare it led by him, believe in the Bible as documentation of his life, and continue to receive revelation from him, culminates into a truth that is impossible to call not Christian.

The problem with your argument is that you do not give standards for your definition. If a Christian is someone who merely agrees that Christ is the messiah, then Mormons are Christian. But I don't think that definition is defined enough. I think that when defining a Christian, the definition ought to be historical and theological. If Mormonism is a recent development in history, it is not historically Christian. If Mormonism disagrees with just about every Christian in history in its theology of Christ, it is not Christian. Your definition is unsupported, and therefore I believe mine to be superior.

"I said they didn't proclaim his divinity as often or as clearly."
Irrelevant, but I doubt it's true anyway.

"Most of those differences have to do with the spiritual definition of God, not the personage we're discussing here (though you guys do think they're one and the same.)"
And since we think them one and the same, and you don't, they are very relevant.

"The one contrast applying to Christ is that he is the same being as God, and that has nothing to do with pretty much everything important that he did."
I disagree very much. The doctrine of the Incarnation is vitally important to Christianity. It is certainly one of the primary mysteries of the Catholic faith. I don't see how you could deem an all-knowing, all-powerful, and eternal God becoming man to be unimportant.

"homosousian"
I did not spell it wrong. And if I did (which I didn't) your spelling was infinitely worse. My spelling got 11,500 hits on google, a wikipedia page, and no alternate spelling. Your spelling got 2 hits on google, both from books.google.com/books?id..., and a prompt: "Did you mean: 'homoousian.'"

"The definition of Jesus as the Christ is totally dependent on the fact that he atoned for our sins, something that is as much or more the key of the Mormon religion as much as any other."
That's demonstratively false. For instance, one of the big beefs during the Reformation was how we are saved. Christians differ on what atonement even means.

"No differing of opinion on his life or being prior to that act is as pivotal or vital to Christianity."
You're claiming that WHO CHRIST IS is unimportant to CHRISTianity? Does that even make sense?

------------------------------------recap---------------------------------------
Words ought to have meaning. My opponent gives you no basis for his claim than his opinion of what Christian ought to mean. I gave you historical and theological reasons why Mormons are seperate and distinct from Christianity. The Christ I worship is one person of the Trinity. The Christ I worship is the master of creation and not a part of it. The Christ I worship can only do what He did because He was God.

I ask you to vote con because definitions ought to be definite, and Christians ought to believe in the same Christ.