Offenders For A Word Falls Short

[Darren10]

This is neither the topic nor useful place (very heated) to discuss this in detail but I'm sure you're familiar with how a Evangelical would present this.

1) OT teaches monotheism - only 1 God in existence; Jehovah

2) The NT presents the Father as Jehovah

3)The NT presents the Son as Jehovah

4) The NT presents the Holy Spirit as God along with the Son and Father.

All I’ve been trying to say here is that Evangelicals hold a certain belief about Jesus and our belief is different to yours and to us the difference is so great that we do not think you follow the same Jesus.

In that regard I am not saying anything different to your Prophet Brigham Young

"Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230).

Careful what kind of "monotheism" you proclaim the New Testament teaches. The New Testament does not teach a strict montheistic belife structure like that of the Jews or of Muslims. These two faiths proclaim one true God to the point that there is absolutely no room to accept Jesus and the Holy Spirit as being one with God. They flat out reject Jesus Christ as divine and as being the literal Son of God. The "monotheism" you believe the New Testament teaches is that God exists as one (monos) being but *only* as three persons each of them God but that in substance they are one (monos) being. There is no such room for this kind of acceptence in strict monotheism.

Frankly, I've toyed with the idea to present a new post proclaiming that the LDS theology is true monotheistic worship. My main reasoning is that the LDS believe God the Father is literally a singular (monos) being in and of Himself. He is not one being yet two other persons as His being. The exact same thing can be said of the Son in LDS theology: that He too is one singular (monos) being and worshipped as God in LDS theology. There are those that say "see, this makes the LDS polytheistic and thus not Christian," but in actuality it does not. In LDS theology, faith, and worship all glory goes to one singular (monos) being - God the Father. So, worshipping the Son gives glory to the Father. Following the Holy Ghost gives glory tothe Father and the Son and when given to the Son it is given to the Father for the nature ofthe Son is to glorify the Father. "28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14); "25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me." (John 10). We can plainly read that Jesus worked in the name of the Father and that the Father was greater than He. Despite the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost being three separate divine beings in LDS theology, only one (monos) being receives all praise and glory: the Father. In turn the Father raises up and exalts the faithful above all things. This is done through the atoning blood of the Lamb (His literal Son on earth) Son and the Holy Spirit of sanctification.

Further as to the oness ofthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, speaking to the resurrection and subsequent eternal judgement of the resurrected beings (you and I), the LDS believe, "but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil." (Excerpt from Alma 11). In LDS theology the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "one Eternal God". Although three separate beings, LDS worship is singular (monos) as thew three beings function is "one Eternal God".

As for the Father and the Son being Jehovah, fine. LDS theology most definitely applies the titular "Jehovah" upon the Father and the Son. In fact you can look up the scriptural references from LDS doctrinal canon:

God the Father—Jehovah

Jesus Christ—Jehovah

Do not neglect that the Old Testament procliams "Elohim" as well as "Jehovah". This said, there is most definitely a patter where "Jehovah" applies strictly tothe Son and Elohim to the Father.

Our critics claim that there is no difference in the Old Testament between Elohim (a Hebrew term often translated as "God") and Jehovah (a name often translated as "Lord" and rendered in capital letters in the King James Version). Yet we believe that the terms generally refer to two separate beings, God the Father and Jesus Christ, and that Christ before He was born was known to the Israelites as the God of Israel or Jehovah. Early Christians also shared this view, as other serious scholars of Christianity have noted. For example, non-LDS scholar Margaret Barker recognizes that the early Christians identified Christ with Jehovah in the Old Testament. The following excerpt is taken from her book, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God (London: SPCK, 1992, pp. 192-193, as cited by Kevin Christensen, Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies, FARMS Occasional Papers (Provo: FARMS, 2001), pp. 24-25):

The evidence that the first Christians identified Jesus with the God of the Jews is overwhelming; it was their customary way of reading the Old Testament. The appearances of Yahweh or the angel of Yahweh were read as manifestations of the pre-existent Christ. The Son of God was their name for Yahweh. This can be seen clearly in the writings of Paul who applied several 'Lord' texts to Jesus. . . . Now Paul, though completely at home in the Greek world, claimed to have been the strictest of Jews, educated in Jerusalem and zealous for the traditions of his people. How is it that he, of all people, could distinguish between God and Lord as he did in 1 Corinthians, if this was not already a part of first century Jewish belief? He emphasized that this distinction was fundamental to his belief: "there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 8:6). This is, to say the least, a remarkable contradiction of Deuteronomy 6:4,

if he understood that verse in the way that we do, as a statement of monotheism

. If, on the other hand, it was a statement of the unity of Yahweh as the one inclusive summing up of all the heavenly powers, the

'elohim

, then it would have been compatible with belief in God Most High also. (emphasis in Barker's original text)

Note that Barker finds the evidence for the identity between Christ and Jehovah in early Christian thought to be "overwhelming."

In the Old Testament, Jehovah/YHWH and Elohim are not always interchangeable, though they can be (just as "God" and "Lord" could be interchangeable). McGregor and Shirts point out that there are many examples of expressions like "sons of God" or "sons of the most High" but apparently none for "sons of the Lord" or "sons of Jehovah" (Russell C. McGregor and Kerry A. Shirts, "Letters to an Anti-Mormon," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1999, p. 139).

Why Do Mormons Believe "Jehovah" Refers to Christ and "Elohim" to the Father?

The pattern shown here is that Jehovah is recognizedas Christ and Elohim as the Father. Jesus was born to the "Most High God" and as Barker (as cited above) pointed out Paul declared, ""there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 8:6)". Paul distinguished "Gos" from "KLord". And "LORD" is the word used as a replacement to "Jehovah" in several Old Testament writings. While "Jehovah" may absolutely apply ot the Father and to the Son, one needs to be cautious in its application. As cited above, Russell C. McGregor and Kerry A. Shirts point out that scriptures do not proclaim anyone as 'sons of Jehovah'.

The Holy Spirit is presented in scripture as a third divine being who testifies of the Father and of the son. He is one with the Father and the Son inthat the Holy Spirit will not do anythng against either the will of the Father or the Son. In fact, "monos" is NEVER used to describe the oness of the Godhead of the Bible. "Heno" is used but unlike "monos" it can be interpreted as "unity" as well asa numerical "one" wereas "monos" is always strictly "one" (and I think as "first").

[KevinG]

Isn't exegesis important? Shouldn't we try to figure out what the authors actually meant when they wrote the words?

Ask Jesus trumps exegesis every time. I did. He answered. I follow Him in faith. I am a Christian and a Mormon.

[Darren10]

Really, that's news to me. So did JS teach that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were with the Father when he was a man on another planet? Or how did the Godhead exist before Jesus was the first born spirit son of the Father?

There is no official LDS doctrine saying the Father was once a mortal man on his own planet, blah, blah, and blah.

[KevinG]

I guess Akboy's strategy here is to ignore all criticism and just keep posting the same thing again and again.

Not too convincing.

Well he did construct the perfect argument to prove Mormons aren't Christian and even used the eminent Dr Peterson's work as the catalyst. You just aren't cooperating.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Ask Jesus trumps exegesis every time. I did. He answered. I follow Him in faith. I am a Christian and a Mormon.

Not to mention I don't need others to define me as Christian...I just need Christ too.

[KevinG]

I think you misunderstood my intention. I never said this was the time or place for such a debate. I said that in order to even have the debate in the first place it would be very helpful if both sides recognised the differing views held by each side.

On this thread many people have been unable to understand why an Evangelical would want to say Mormons aren't Christians. I've simply been trying to explain that based on what we believe the NT teaches we believe we must be clear is saying you aren't.

It seems to me that again and again LDS won't accept that the Evangelical thinks the differences are too big. I know the LDS position is that the differences aren't but until it is recognised that Evangelicals think they are any debate is pointless.

I don't know about you but I don't make a habit of declaring others aren't following Christ because of exegesis or other doctrinal differences that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the atonement and salvation through faith in Christ.

[KevinG]

There is no official LDS doctrine saying the Father was once a mortal man on his own planet, blah, blah, and blah.

Yeah I noticed that pot shot woven into his "mere opinion". DJ either needs to lay off the anti-Mormon literature or learn more about the Saints. Perhaps both.

[Akboy]

I don't know about you but I don't make a habit of declaring others aren't following Christ because of exegesis or other doctrinal differences that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the atonement and salvation through faith in Christ.

Then it sounds like you don't understand the Evangelical/Protestant position on this. The 'saved by grace, not works' doctrine is absolutely fundamental to our gospel and doctrine of following Christ. They don't believe someone can really be following Christ without those doctrines. So when EVs say 'Mormons aren't Christians because of their doctrine of grace,' it has EVERYTHING to do with the atonement and salvation through Christ.

I emailed Daniel Peterson about this topic a while ago and he was kind enough to answer some of my questions.

I’ll be interested to see your account of what part of the “debate” -- I’ve actually seen little genuine debate on this topic -- Offenders for a Word misses. I have never encountered a cogent attempt at a rebuttal of the thesis of Offenders. This has been more than a little bit disappointing. Perhaps you’ll be the first to offer one.

Best wishes,

Dan

So I read the book and did my best to give a rebuttal. I wasn't expecting any LDS to say something like 'Okay, we're not Christians,' but I hope I've helped you guys see the issue a little better from our point of view. It's not about claiming you don't have faith. It's about holding to our own faith with philosophical consistency.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Akboy

[Darren10]

Then it sounds like you don't understand the Evangelical/Protestant position on this. The 'saved by grace, not works' doctrine is absolutely fundamental to our gospel and doctrine of following Christ. They don't believe someone can really be following Christ without those doctrines. So when EVs say 'Mormons aren't Christians because of their doctrine of grace,' it has EVERYTHING to do with the atonement and salvation through Christ.

Evangelicals believe that man needs to do nothing except show faith in Jesus Christ and that Christ's works will save man through grace. The LDS very much believe that it is by grace by which man is saved but to access that grace man must do his part. Desoite how much man tries, he will always fall short of perfection and will always be under "debt" to God for God will always bless man more than he deserves and is capable of achieving for himself.

I emailed Daniel Peterson about this topic a while ago and he was kind enough to answer some of my questions.

Great, email him again and show him the great work you've done here. He's a man that can use a good laugh.

So I read the book and did my best to give a rebuttal. I wasn't expecting any LDS to say something like 'Okay, we're not Christians,' but I hope I've helped you guys see the issue a little better from our point of view. It's not about claiming you don't have faith. It's about holding to our own faith with philosophical consistency.

Besdies doing yet again what you said from the git go what you were not here to do, how about holding on to your faith with some doctrinal consistancies? For a good long while philosophy has become the doctrine and it should be the other way around. It is this aspect which the LDS reject, ergo,; the creeds of man in order to serve God through Christ. The LDS does not in any way, shape, or for denouce any religion's christianity but their creeds it most definitely does.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Darren10

[Akboy]

Great, email him again and show him the great work you've done here. He's a man that can use a good laugh.

I did right after I posted the thread.

Besdies doing yet again what you said from the git go what you were not here to do, how about holding on to your faith with some doctrinal consistancies?

You already pointed that out and I explained it in post #71. In the OP, I said the purpose of this thread is to respond to the book and discuss the definition and limits of the term 'Christian.' Does that mean I'm not allowed to mention or clarify my doctrinal position? A major part of this discussion involves comparing and contrasting beliefs. How am I supposed to do that without mentioning what I believe?

How do you know we don't hold on to our faith with doctrinal consistency?

For a good long while philosophy has become the doctrine and it should be the other way around. It is this aspect which the LDS reject, ergo,; the creeds of man in order to serve God through Christ.

You're reading way too much into my choice of words. By 'philosophy,' I just meant our belief system in general.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Akboy

[Darren10]

You already pointed that out and I explained it in post #71. In the OP, I said the purpose of this thread is to respond to the book and discuss the definition and limits of the term 'Christian.' Does that mean I'm not allowed to mention or clarify my doctrinal position? A major part of this discussion involves comparing and contrasting beliefs. How am I supposed to do that without mentioning what I believe?

Of course you can proclaim what you believe. in fact, that's on of the points of starting threads. But when you say something like, "it's about holding to our own faith with philosophical consistency," after saying that if one strays from that consistency, he/she cannot be called a "Christian", you're at the very least alluding to those who are not of your faith and the consistency of your faith as "non-christians". Also, this tread has definitely evolved to blatantly declare Mormons as nonchristian and you have come out to support that claim. and, by the way, what is that claim based upon? Mormon theology, not their Christian works. As I noted before, your original application to defining a "Christian" and your expression of surprise as to why Mormons get all worked up when told they are not Christian does not apply. You focus was on behaving like a Christian to be one. Your position exluded believing like one.

How do you know we don't hold on to our faith with doctrinal consistency?

I hinted at this with my supporting arguments saying, "For a good long while philosophy has become the doctrine and it should be the other way around. It is this aspect which the LDS reject, ergo,; the creeds of man in order to serve God through Christ." The creeds are philosophical declaratives dictating to what the doctrines mean. In short time these philosophical pillars have become doctrine to many Christians. The "Holy Trinity" is a prime example of such. Many times I've encountered the argument that Mormons are not Christian because they do not believe in the Holy Trinity. That meks no sense to me since the Bible never declares anything about the Holy Trinity. So where did the term come from? It came from the creeds of the early Christian Church. This is also how it has becomer standard doctrine. "Creed" means "belief" and a belief is necessarily subject to change or alter. Doctrines are not. Therefore, there is noting unchristian about saying, 'I believe in Jesus Christ as my personal Redeemer and the literal Son of God but He is not the 'second person of the Holy Trinity'"

Also doctrinally inconsistent is the Evangelical regular dismissal of works. Are not works emphasized by biblical apostles? Were they not preached by Jesus' chosen Apostles? Absolutely yes. Faith and works go hand-in-hand.

Here's my philosophy based upon the doctrine that "faith without works is dead". Man works to strive to do God's will and God opens up His grace. Not at all because man "deserves" it but because God is infinitely merciful. When one recieves Gods's blessing of edification or of whatever various forms of blessing it be, man's faith increases. As faith increases, so does man's desire to do more of God's will. Doing more of God's will acccess more of God's merciful blesings. This is cyclical and designed by God to be such. You believe in Christ the Lord? Good! You have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Redeemer? Excellent? Now, what do you think Christ *wants you to do*? Will failure to do so cause Christ's grace to be withdrawn? I think so. There is *always* repentence because, again, God is merciful upon us all.

Contrary to many Evangelicals' belief, akcnowledging the need for works does NOT make one unchristian. Even Jesus advocated works. Period. So saying, "so when EVs say 'Mormons aren't Christians because of their doctrine of grace,' it has EVERYTHING to do with the atonement and salvation through Christ," is so patently wrong.

You're reading way too much into my choice of words. By 'philosophy,' I just meant our belief system in general.

Perhaps you are correct that i'm reading too much into your words. "Theology" would have been much more applicable to what you wanted to say than "philosophy". Afterall, Christians follow a theology, not a philosophy.

[Akboy]

Of course you can proclaim what you believe. in fact, that's on of the points of starting threads. But when you say something like, "it's about holding to our own faith with philosophical consistency," after saying that if one strays from that consistency, he/she cannot be called a "Christian", you're at the very least alluding to those who are not of your faith and the consistency of your faith as "non-christians".

So I can proclaim my beliefs, but I can't explain my narrow understanding of 'Christian'? What good does it do to discourage discussions of legitimate belief systems? We're not going to stop having faith in our beliefs and we're not going to stop sharing our faith and belief system with others. The best way to avoid arguments then is for both sides to be willing to have clear, open discussions about their beliefs so there aren't misunderstands about what we each believe.

Also, this tread has definitely evolved to blatantly declare Mormons as nonchristian and you have come out to support that claim.

I know perfectly well why I made and continue to post in this thread. If you insist I'm just here to say 'Mormons aren't Christian,' then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for that. Are you claiming I'm lying when I say that isn't the purpose of the thread? Every single one of my posts in this thread have been an attempt to discuss how broad or narrow 'Christian' should be. There have been a few paragraphs that explain my belief, but you can't pick one part out of context and claim I'm just bashing Mormons.

Contrary to many Evangelicals' belief, akcnowledging the need for works does NOT make one unchristian. Even Jesus advocated works. Period. So saying, "so when EVs say 'Mormons aren't Christians because of their doctrine of grace,' it has EVERYTHING to do with the atonement and salvation through Christ," is so patently wrong.

What do you mean by 'wrong'? We really do believe our doctrines of grace, the atonement and salvation are foundational to following Christ. So what exactly are we supposed to say? Do you want us to make some statement like 'Okay fine, we'll consider Mormons to be Christians, but we still don't believe their gospel is following Christ'? That statement would be a nonsensical oxymoron in our view.

Yes, Jesus advocated works, but that fact doesn't automatically mean he linked works with salvation or grace.

If you're want to read a bit more, you should check out The Divine Conspiracy.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Divine-Conspiracy-Rediscovering-Hidden/dp/0060693339

Seriously, I think you would like it. It does a great job of explaining how faith without works is dead, not because we'll lose grace without works, but rather a living faith will produce works naturally. I've read one of your books. Would you consider reading this one?

Edited August 1, 2012 by Akboy

[Deborah]

So I can proclaim my beliefs, but I can't explain my narrow understanding of 'Christian'?

Proclaiming faith and re-defining words to fit your own narrow meaning are not the same thing. I personally don't care if you consider us Christian or not; fortunately God is the judge of that. However, you have been grossly misleading on what LDS do believe and it seems that you have redefined our beliefs to be able to hold on to your bigoted understanding of what something means. Furthermore we give you scriptural support for our beliefs and you alter the meaning of the scriptures to fit your narrow beliefs. I am so glad I believe in a God who is much more accepting of others even when they may not profess belief in the exact same way as I do. That is why we can accept you at your word that you are Christian even though your beliefs are not consistent with the Bible.

[KevinG]

Akboy no one is saying you don't understand your own doctrines. However by "your own doctrines" you may want to specify which ones those are. Speaking for all Evangelicals as though they are one in mind and doctrine is a bit of an overreach.

What we are saying is that you don't understand LDS doctrines and beliefs if you somehow think we believe anything will get us to heaven other than faith in Christ.

The Bible requires both faith in Christ and obedience to Him. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in faith in Christ and obedience to Him. We are Christian or followers of Christ. There have been many discussions and articles on this very subject. Study them please so you do not continue to argue from ignorance.

Here is a good place to start. Lots of good citations: http://en.fairmormon.org/Latter-day_Saints_aren%27t_Christians

Edited August 1, 2012 by KevinG

[mfbukowski]

So I read the book and did my best to give a rebuttal. I wasn't expecting any LDS to say something like 'Okay, we're not Christians,' but I hope I've helped you guys see the issue a little better from our point of view. It's not about claiming you don't have faith. It's about holding to our own faith with philosophical consistency.

"Philosophical consistency" ?

I think we have no problem whatsoever with that, and you have not even responded to the arguments I have raised showing your IN-consistency. So thanks for teaching us all you know about consistency, but there wasn't much there.

[Darren10]

If you're want to read a bit more, you should check out The Divine Conspiracy.

http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0060693339

Seriously, I think you would like it. It does a great job of explaining how faith without works is dead, not because we'll lose grace without works, but rather a living faith will produce works naturally. I've read one of your books. Would you consider reading this one?

Take The Divine Conspiracy's argument one step further. Don't you believe that it is mere faith in Christ by which you receive the grace of God?

[Darren10]

Akboy;

We really do believe our doctrines of grace, the atonement and salvation are foundational to following Christ. So what exactly are we supposed to say? Do you want us to make some statement like 'Okay fine, we'll consider Mormons to be Christians, but we still don't believe their gospel is following Christ'?

That is exatcly wha you said you are not here to say. Yet you're saying it. I don't care if you believe this and I'm more than happy to respond to it if that were the main topic you were proposing but it isn't. Furthermore it's a statement which says precisely what you said you are not here to say.

[wenglund]

Let's see...here we are on page 9 (by my count) offending each other for a word, and this somehow show a shortfall in the book by that title?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

So I read the book and did my best to give a rebuttal. I wasn't expecting any LDS to say something like 'Okay, we're not Christians,' but I hope I've helped you guys see the issue a little better from our point of view. It's not about claiming you don't have faith. It's about holding to our own faith with philosophical consistency.

Now that you have come to the forum and presented your view and have gotten feedback I hope we've helped you see the issue a little better from our point of view. It's not about claiming you don't have faith. It's about holding to our own faith with philosophical consistency.

[Darren10]

Also, Akboy, once again, note that your position that Mormons are not Christian is for a purely theological reason, not a behavioral or moral reason. Thus you're nullifying your own argument that a Christian is a "follower of Christ".

Edited August 1, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Let's see...here we are on page 9 (by my count) offending each other for a word, and this somehow show a shortfall in the book by that title?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nice!!!

[Akboy]

Take The Divine Conspiracy's argument one step further. Don't you believe that it is mere faith in Christ by which you receive the grace of God?

It would be hard to discuss The Divine Conspiracy's argument unless you read it. I really think you would like it.

Akboy;

That is exatcly wha you said you are not here to say. Yet you're saying it. I don't care if you believe this and I'm more than happy to respond to it if that were the main topic you were proposing but it isn't. Furthermore it's a statement which says precisely what you said you are not here to say.

I've already answered this in my response to you in post #162. Can you please stop taking me out of context?

Also, Akboy, once again, note that your position that Mormons are not Christian is for a purely theological reason, not a behavioral or moral reason. Thus you're nullifying your own argument that a Christian is a "follower of Christ".

You clearly don't understand the evangelical/protestant position. It's not about just theology, behavior or morals. It's about all of the above. I'm sure you don't like it when people come in here and simplify and misrepresent your beliefs. Please don't do the same to my beliefs.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Akboy

[Flyonthewall]

I may be stating the obvious, but IMHO, "Christian" is a super category that includes all who believe in Christ as the Son of God and redeemer of the world.

Under "Christian" comes Catholic, Protestant, LDS, and Misc. I include Misc as a catch-all for groups that don't quite fit under the other 3, but still believe in Christ.

Under Catholic, there are sub groups such as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

Under Protestant there are sub groups too numerous to list, but Evangelical would be one of the sub-groups. Under Evangelical, there would be still more sub-groups

Now some of the sub-groups under Christian are now trying to usurp the definition of Christian to mean their particular flavor of belief...My believe is now the definition of Christian - if you do not believe as I do, then you are not Christian.

This is tantamount to a dog or a cat proclaiming that if you are not a dog or a cat, then you are not a mammal.

The only thing a dog or a cat can define is being a dog or a cat.

Similarly, the only thing an Evangelical Christian can define, is being an Evangelical Christian. Evangelicals can only say that LDS are not Evangelical Christian, and we will agree with that. We are also not Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, or a whole host of other sub-groups of Christian.

LDS recognize there are differences in what we believe about Christ, but that doesn't mean we think you believe in a separate entity. We have the ability to understand that different people or groups can hold different beliefs about the same person.

Heck, we believe Joseph Smith to be a Prophet of God. Using the logic of those that state we believe in a different Jesus, then those people that revile Joseph Smith must be referring to a different person than the one we refer to.

[Zakuska]

We are also not Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, or a whole host of other sub-groups of Christian.

Praise the Lord for that!

[Vance]

Also, Akboy, once again, note that your position that Mormons are not Christian is for a purely theological reason, not a behavioral or moral reason. Thus you're nullifying your own argument that a Christian is a "follower of Christ".

Good point!