Who annoited Slick (or you) the ultimate arbitrator of who is or who is not Chirstian?
"All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the "elect" have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason."
Whos authority to define Christianity would you recognize?
The LDS theology speaks for itself. They are the ones who say they’re not Christian. Joe Smith said it himself that they are not part of the Christian faith.
First of all, we're dealing with broad labels. Jesus had disciples who were zealots; tax collectors; etc.
I'm sure some of those "identity labels" faded as they grew to know who Jesus truly was. And that's also possible of "Mormon" as an identity label.
#2, Vigilanteman you of all people should know that as the liberals try to redefine the family and redefine marriage (trying to call homosexual unions as "marriage"), that boundaries exist.
If every union is a "marriage" then nothing is a marriage. It loses its distinctiveness. If every relationship constitutes a "family" then labor unions are "families" and any mix or match.
If every religion="Christianity," then you'd have to conclude that...
...a fundamentalist Mormon-is-a-Mormon-is-a-Christian-is-a-Jonestownite-is-a-Branch-Davidian-is-a-Heavens-Gate-ian-is-a-Urantia believer-is a Church Universal & Triumphant-is-a-Wicca-Witch-is-Voodoo practioner-is-a-New-Ager-is-a-whirling dervish-is-a-Hindu-is-a-Sikh-is-a-Muslim!
Nice that you advocate, Vigilanteman, by parallel extension of your argument that fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims are "Christian," too!
That's all you've got? An ad hominem?
Perhaps asking a similar question of the Powers that Be in SLC might help: Who appointed THEM as the ONLY 'mormons'??
*The following is a letter from Elder Lance B. Wickman, General Counsel of the Church to publishers of major newspapers, TV stations and magazines. It was sent out on Tuesday, June 24, 2008.
Recent events have focused the media spotlight on a polygamous sect near San Angelo, Texas, calling itself the “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” As you probably know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has absolutely no affiliation with this polygamous sect. Decades ago, the founders of that sect rejected the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were excommunicated, and then started their own religion. To the best of our knowledge, no one at the Texas compound has ever been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Unfortunately, however, some of the media coverage of the recent events in Texas has caused members of the public to confuse the doctrines and members of that group and our church. We have received numerous inquiries from confused members of the public who, by listening to less than careful media reports, have come to a grave misunderstanding about our respective doctrines and faith. Based on these media reports many have erroneously concluded that there is some affiliation between the two – or even worse, that they are one and the same.
Over the years, in a careful effort to distinguish itself, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gone to significant lengths to protect its rights in the name of the church and related matters. Specifically, we have obtained registrations for the name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Mormon,” “Book of Mormon” and related trade and service marks from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and corresponding agencies in a significant number of foreign countries.
We are confident that you are committed to avoiding misleading statements that cause unwarranted confusion and that may disparage or infringe the intellectual property rights discussed above. Accordingly, we respectfully request the following:
Stated simply, we would like to be known and recognized for whom we are and what we believe, and not be inaccurately associated with beliefs and practices that we condemn in the strongest terms. We would be grateful if you could circulate or copy this letter to your editorial staff and to your legal counsel.
We thank you for your consideration of these important matters.
Sincerely,
Lance B. Wickman
General Counsel