I think it would be better to stick to answering the question rather than its converse, but this is at least somewhat thorough.

@curiousdannii, the problem with questions calling for a specific example (and to be fair, I just asked such a question also) is that it's more-or-less impossible to post an answer that asserts no such examples exist. In this case, however, I think the inability to find positive examples, combined with the breadth of negative examples, is at least somewhat useful. (I'd be quite interested to learn of a positive example, however! As I previously noted, I very nearly asked exactly this question.)

Personally I don't see a problem with a lack of answers being an answer to these denomination survey questions. But it can help to show just how consistent the denominations are.

+1 "the vast majority of Christian denominations" That suggests some do regard the Mormon church as a Christian church. Hmmm ...

Right. In particular, this answer is the result of an attempt to do a fairly exhaustive survey of most major denominations. The claim thus being that the an of "no" is justified, at least if one limits the search to major denominations. (An exhaustive survey is basically impossible, for obvious reasons. Anyway, I'm not a fan of "answered by non-answer", as it's unclear if that is an answer or merely indicates a question that no one cared to answer.)

@OneGodtheFather, or it might just be a CYA statement/phrasing, since — as noted — it's nearly impossible to assert that all Christians believe something, without essentially invoking "no true Scotsman".

As in the scientific realm, an experiment (or an enquiry) with a negative result is still a valid result. Thus with this fair and balanced and extensive survey. (Up-voted +1.)

I'm not sure the No is justified. Except for LCMS and WELS and probably GOAoA (I didn't read that one), it's about whether the LDS baptism is a proper baptism. This has implications regarding whether someone converting has to be baptized again or not. I would not see this as denying the label "Christian", unless you apply a very restrictive definition of "Christian" other than "following Jesus Christ". In fact, LDS don't consider other baptisms as valid, but wouldn't deny the label christian (after all, what good is that?), and don't expect others to accept their baptism.

Did the GOAoA article even mention the LDS? (And by their definition, the historical person Jesus of Nazareth fits most of the requirements for a cult leader!)

@kutschkem, a church that "recognizes the baptism of other Christian denominations" and does not recognize LDS baptisms certainly implies that LDS ≠ Christian (according to that church). This follows from elementary logic.

@alephzero, yes? (Admittedly, only briefly. Also, they did not use "LDS", but "Mormon".) I added some additional links. They don't outright say "LDS are not Christian" quite so directly (as e.g. RCC, LCMS, WELS), but their opinion is still pretty clear.

Could I add that the WELS (and I'm sure many other synods) does not recognize the LDS as a Christian church, but still recognizes that some LDS people are Christians.

@MathewAlden, emphasis on "some", but yes. Actually, while that isn't exactly the question, I had been thinking of adding something to that effect. Thanks for reminding me 🙂.

You've trimmed out one of the most important phrases from the RCC statement - they go on to say '..."are not to be considered as belonging to an "ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church", but simply as non-baptized...' (emphasis mine) As it stands, the statement consists of multiple double negatives that make its meaning non-obvious.

@GalacticCowboy, which is to say LDS baptism is (per the RCC) not in any sense a Christian baptism. What they are saying is that you are either a) in full communion with the RCC, b) Christian but not in communion with the RCC, or c) not Christian. (Most denominations use the same three categories, albeit of course substituting "RCC" with themselves.)

Precisely, which is why that phrase is important. Your quote above excludes it which leaves the meaning muddy. ("... are not to be considered ... not in full communion...")

@GalacticCowboy, I see; your complaint is with the double negative in (aggressively simplifying) "are not non-Catholic Christians". Unfortunately, that's the way the source is written, and I don't want to paraphrase too aggressively. I added "Mormons are to be considered non-baptized" to the end, that quote appearing two paragraphs later.

I'm curious - how many of these churches, if any, have official statements saying that the Catholic Church, for example, is Christian? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

@MichaelW., that's an interesting question. "The LCMS recognizes all Trinitarian church bodies as Christian churches" (from the above link). I didn't find such an overt statement for WELS, but AFAICT they feel likewise. (Going to stop there, because this is a comment; ask this as a new, proper question?) I'd guess that Trinitarians generally recognize each other, and there may be cross-recognition between Trinitarans and Unitarians.