You keep avoiding my point.  Please answer this: Do you deny that the statement "Mormons are not Christians" causes confusion about what Mormons believe?

No, your definition of Christian IS obscure. If you poll people in the street as to what "Christian" means, they will give a definition that Mormons easily fit into.

It really doesn't matter to me how you define things for you. What does bother me is that you make statements, "Mormons are not Christians", that give people the wrong impression about my faith.

Right, that's what I gather too, but it still doesn't answer my question. The reasonable Catholics here have admitted that Mormons share in their devotion to Christ. And surely they must recognize that by saying we are not Christian causes many to doubt our devotion and belief.  This is misleading and wrong. Yet they insist that their obscure definition is more important than the misleading side effect. Why?

An election is far too chaotic a system to form any meaningful predictive model very far in advance.  The thing that bothers me most about the Silver model is the way people have been treating it for so long.  I always see liberal pundits in particular joking about how they keep hitting refresh on their browser to see how event X affects the race.  And they've been doing it for months! If his methodology has any true predictive power let him apply it to weather or the stock market and lets get some real value out of the thing.

Why are other Christians more concerned with insisting we are not Christian because of a definition that very few are familiar with, than with the false impression it leaves when you do so?

Not to nitpick but I didn't say "original definition" I said "original usage", it is important to acknowledge that there is no clear biblical definition.  Also, I was using disciple in the sense that Mormons use the term which is not restricted to the Apostles.  It's pretty clear from Acts 26:28 that Christian did not mean Apostle which you seem to be arguing for here.  So what did Christian mean? We're stuck with something close to it's practical meaning today: a follower of Christ.

Also, your analogy with the Syrophoenecian may reinforce for you what you already believe but there's objectively nothing in there that helps define a Christian.

A church having the right to define orthodoxy is a tautology. The question is not orthodoxy but the meaning of the word Christian. The original usage of the word (and its meaning to most today) is a disciple of Christ.  We try to be that in every meaningful way.  I'm not trying to downplay our doctrinal differences and I'm NOT trying to demean your councils.  I just think this word is not subject to councils.

One thing that surprises me about this is that there isn't more contribution here from protestants.  A protestant friend once told me he didn't think either Mormons or Catholics are Christian. Ironically the reason he gave me seems to be the reason that is at the center of Rachel's definition: baptism.  The Catholic emphasis on baptism as a necessity for salvation is a thoroughly un-Christian idea to him.  Is this not a widely held protestant view? Isn't an infant who is baptized a Christian to a Catholic and an unbaptized infant not a Christian?  Would any protestant make that distinction?

I certainly have gotten a better understanding from this discussion, thanks again for starting and participating in a wonderful thread! Could you clarify Rachel? Would you be willing to call us --modifierX-- Christians given that you believe the councils have the authority to define "Christian" and we are apparently excluded from that definition? Joseph would you?

By the way, as I said before I think that it's important for the group who adhere to the collective wisdom and understanding of the councils to have their own designation, and it's appropriate for Mormons to be excluded from that group.  I just don't think that Christian is the right word, for reasons I pointed out in post #456 and #457.

Excellent, then you agree that it is not really the place of councils to define what a Christian is?

I'm not trying to make the meaning of "Christian" anything, I'm just pointing out that to many many people it means belief in Christ as the Savior.

I'm also not arguing that there aren't very real and important differences between what we believe about Christ and what you believe.  I'm actually very happy to acknowledge that.

Sorry I just read an earlier post (there are 455 before mine so forgive me for not being thorough) that I wanted to mention. I agree very much with Joseph Stanko who talks about replacing "Christian" in Rachel's post with thing X.  Go read his posts (specifically #444 and #452) he says it very eruditely. If we're talking about X then I agree with Rachel entirely as I previously said.  I want to emphasize though that: 

1. Thing X may equal "Christian" for you but when you say Mormons are not Christian people generally DO NOT think of thing X.  This can be confusing and misleading.

2. Christ is a sensitive and important name and no matter how well intentioned and historical your or my definition of "Christian" we should all probably be careful in rigidly defining it.

Thanks for your post Rachel! I really appreciate your good will in all this, and as a Mormon I'm not at all offended by what you have said.  However, it doesn't quite seem like you understand our problem with this.  My main problem is not with your definition of what a Christian is but with the false perception that is caused by saying we are not Christians.  When most people hear you say Mormons are not Christians they don't think "I guess they don't adhere to the ecumenical councils definition", rather they think "I guess they don't believe or follow Christ".

Don't you think that since the word is "Christian" only He should be able to say who is or isn't a Christian?  If it were any other word I would agree with you 100% but since it is His name it's not really fair for ecumenical councils to have the final say.  My personal feeling from reading the New Testament numerous times is that Christ would be accepting of anyone who came and followed Him to bear His name.

1. Well if you succeed in convincing me not to try to convince anyone then I guess you get your first "win".

Looked up THINKING, FAST AND SLOW and it looks very interesting.  Wish I had time to read all the good stuff people are pointing out to me here.  Guess I'll just put it on my "to-read" bookshelf on goodreads and hope I get to it.  It also made me think of Arthur C. Brooks book about making moral arguments rather than efficiency arguments. I know that's sort of the opposite of what I'm asking for here but as I said before, I think this is sort of a special area.