Which is an excellent example of why the question is fundamentally a fruitless rhetorical exercise. There are so many definitions of “Christian” that any given practice is both Christian and not, depending on what definition one uses. For a lot of folks, “dedicated to the teachings and atonement of Jesus Christ” is not sufficient to claim the name. For some it’s not even necessary. Lots of people claim to possess an authoritative definition…usually it boils down to “those who believe as we do are Christian, those who do not are not.”
.
I’d argue that the modern theological linking of Protestants is rather thin. UCCs are definitely Protestant, but don’t adhere to the inerrantcy of the Bible and believe that Muslims and Jews can go to heaven. There is more of a historical linking at this point in time.
(Heck, at this point we have a Pope who thinks atheists can get to heaven - some form of Universalism isn’t an out there position)
I agree…modern “protestantism” as a catch-all is increasingly removed from the “five solae.” (As a quibble, though–sola scriptura does not necessarily mean inerrancy.)
Keep in mind that the Mormon doctrine provides that Joseph Smith was met by Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Ghost, who at that time did ordain and confirm the Priesthood of Melchizedek upon Joseph. That is, the authority to act in the name of God the Father. If that’s the case, why would Mormons choose to accept what other “Christians” have to say about Christianity? After all, those Christians are not attending a true church.
Well, yeah–they’re all Gentile, so who cares what they think? OTOH, there has long been a lot of pressure on the Saints to appear as mainstream as possible. They’ve long sought to be considered “normal” and non-culty by Gentiles, particularly after Edmunds-Tucker, and that means promoting themselves to be just as “Christian” as any other group.
(I was under the impression that it was Peter, James, and John who conferred the Priesthood of Melchizedek, while John the Baptist had conferred the Aaronic? But whatevs.)
You are following a Catholic (as the lineage goes) line. The Bible prophesizes the corruption of the Church (Church as in the one started by Jesus. which was the Catholic Church), that Church being removed from Earth, and again restored. So Peter, James and John are no longer practicing with a license. The line restarted at Joseph Smith and so did the Church. By restored, I’m referring to the power to act in Gods’ name on earth. The priesthood was restored.
I’m sorry, I’m not following at all, and I assume it’s because I’m not being clear.
My understanding was that it was Peter, James, and John who appeared to Joseph Smith as angels under the authority of God to restore the Melchizedek priesthood, (as John the Baptist appeared to him and Cowdery to restore the Aaronic), rather than the Trinity.
(Which is just a minor thing, completely unrelated to the broader discussion at hand.)
.
It was the Godhead. All 3.
Cool, thanks–TMYK! Where is that documented?
When I visited the Mormon visitor center in Salt Lake City, a large statue of Jesus greeted me.
Say what???
Ah, now that I actually have some google space…
It appears as though the church assertsthat the entire priesthood (Melchizedek as well as Aaronic) was restored in the revelation of 1829, through Peter, James, and John who appeared to Smith and Cowdery.
I’m not sure where I got John the Baptist in there.
Don’t feel bad, Joseph Smith published 5 different versions of the event.
Because of course he did. 
It seems pretty clear to me that they’re Christians. Weird Christians, maybe, but Christians.
I would not, however, call them “Protestants”, nor would I apply that label to the Jehova’s Witnesses or the Christian Scientists.
I would probably fall into the camp of not classifying Mormons as Christians. My understanding is that Mormons view Jesus as a truly righteous dude who was born of a virgin, performed wondrous miracles, but was not himself god. The view the Jesus=God is pretty much the definition of Christian in my opinion. Otherwise you would also have to also say that Muslims are Christian because they believe that Jesus was a truly righteous dude who was born of a virgin, performed wondrous miracles, but was not himself god.
I was recruited by a Mormon once (long, long ago and far away), who presented his faith as “Christian, only more so.” Nothing about magic underwear, golden plates, revelations, or other obvious batshit weirdness. It was enough to get me to attend * one* meeting (service).
It wasn’t enough to get me to attend a second.
[
](No true Scotsman - Wikipedia)
If the scope can be reduced to “followers of Christ” there is no question that they are Christian.
This seems to be a defining trait of Abrahamic religions. to self claim ecclesia with the parent version and debase other divergent groups as sects or cults.
When Brigham Young moved to Utah, set up his own alphabet, money system and imposed an early form of communism they were correctly labeled a sect or a cult.
But that really changed after the conclusion of the Utah War in 1858, and they have been moving toward the mean ever since.
Solus Christus, etc are present and if you consider that moving back to a model with a living profit, similar the Pope as being a major change from most Protestantism and may change the connotative meaning, but it is not like other sects haven’t changed their version of the bible that may be functionally similar.
Heck even if you look at the KJV, more modern versions have replaced “you” with “ye” which only serves to make it sound more old timey…and it came to pass…
LDS allowing salvation for non-Christians may be the big one, but it is far closer to the other Protestant visions than the Catholic concept of beatification.
They follow some concepts like universal priesthood of believers in a far more true manor than most denominations.
That said this is an unanswerable question, groups self-label and also assume that they are the correct church. And as it is far easier to see differences than similarities, even if they are minor there will probably be on consensus until it can be viewed with the distance of history by disinterested parties.
I’m not sure I agree with that. Certainly not sola scriptura, and I think one might argue a couple other solae.
But I’m on board with your broader point.
.
I do not think they are Protestant, both because of their origins and in current times they have some similarities to other conservative churches but also distinct differences. However, what most people know is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and maybe the tiny fundamentalist sects who we won’t talk about. The second biggest group in the LDS movement (a distant second) is the Community of Christ. Again, not Protestant, but in practice they more closely resemble mainstream Protestant churches.
They are Christian because they say they are. Some ultra Protestants get into No True Scotsmanning Mormons (or Catholics) but I don’t think that is a good practice.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are in a similar niche as Mormons.
Having visited Adam-Ondi-Ahman I would say Mormons are not Protestant, too many beliefs outside of mainline Protestantism. But Adam-Ondi-Ahman is really cool (I am a backslid lesser path Buddhist not Mormon or Christian), a place in what became Northern Missouri where Adam and Eve went to live after getting notice in Eden, and home to 600 Mormon farm families and J. Smith before they were expelled from MO in 1839. This is an extremely holy place for the Church but you would never know, just a few thousand acres of wooded hills and cropland, completely open to anyone who drives there and wants to walk down to the boulder upon which Joseph Smith used to preach to the faithful. There is a caretaker there, a very nice, very intelligent fellow I imagine to be a high ranking Church Elder, but don’t know if that’s true. He told me the only problem they ever have at Adam-Ondi-Ahman is with the Faithful who insist on chipping off pieces of the Smith boulder.