“Is a Christian a Christian;” instead of “Is a Mormon a Christian?”

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Praising the CEO of a fast food company and endorsing its products is inappropriate in Elder’s Quorum.

I'm sorry, but if somebody in my Elder's Quorum knew that Walmart was selling a knockoff Chick-fil-A Sauce that tastes as good as the real thing and they didn't share that information, I would be pretty upset.

That kind of knowledge is more valuable than a good number of the comments that usually get made in Elder's Quorum.  

 

[Damien the Leper]

On 4/15/2019 at 2:20 PM, The Nehor said:

Praising the CEO of a fast food company and endorsing its products is inappropriate in Elder’s Quorum. Then again in my Sunday School class I teach I had to cut off a discussion about how Pelosi was a Gadianton and how Trump was the anti-Christ. Why do people seem to take some perverse glee at dragging politics into our church meetings? Why are those who are most eager to do so also hopelessly ignorant about it in the first place?

The worst I encounter are those who erroneously claim that theological, social and fiscal conservativism is somehow (miraculously?) synonymous with a truly faithful Christian. Those persons make me want to celebrate the Feast of St. Nicholas everyday.

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Obviously, LDS doctrine says that the current non-LDS christian churches are (at best) apostate christian churches with apostate christians. But there are plenty of teachings, some scriptures, and previous temple material that (at worst) equates non-LDS Christianity to the church of the devil, being led by Satan, and thus not being Christian at all.  Other teachings by individual LDS prophets refer to ¨so-called Christians¨ (Brigham Young), ¨´Christian´ churches¨ (Joseph F. Smith - that´s quotation marks around Christian, implying it is only a label, and contrary to reality), that there were ¨no Christian churches [before the LDS Church was restored]¨ which implies there were no Christians either (Orson Pratt) and, only other church is ¨Babylon¨ (George Q. Cannon).

I remember you said you were nonLDS, did you say never LDS?  If so, would you mind clarifying?

Just looking for some context for your posting.

At times we get posters who love to tell others what they believe, even what they have to believe...all while proclaiming that belief wrong rather than coming here to try and understand others (I am including the Saints who spend the majority of their time making pronouncements about the purpose, errors, etc. of other faiths as well). 

To get something more official, all one needs to do is go to LDS.org and type in "other Christians" to see how church leaders since the 70s viewed other Christian faiths plus there are some references to past teachings.  

Contrary to what many nonLDS seem to think ( and a small percentage of LDS), we are not required by God to be locked into every viewpoint held by our previous leaders even if spoken across the pulpit.  Infallibility has never been part of our doctrine.  And given we have seen leaders change their own views at times over the years, we should respect them enough not to lock them into eternal positions.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

What is doctrine for Latter-day Saints

[filovirus]

If a person follows the advice and example of Christ to the best of their abilities and understanding, then yes, they are Christian. And fortunately it is not for me to decide, but it is between them and God.

[Calm]

Most of the time our leaders and members need to deal with others denying that we are Christians, so we may not have that much explicit comments addressing who else are Christian because for most in our faith it is a nobrainer and one doesn't spell out what everyone already knows.

So most "what is a Christian" comes up in the context of Saints are Christians rather than who else are, such as this What is a Christian

Quote

“Some people erroneously believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members are not Christian. We have difficulty understanding why anyone could accept and promote an idea that is so far from the truth. …

“A dictionary defines a Christian as ‘one who professes belief in Jesus as the Christ or follows the religion based on [the life and teachings of Jesus],’ and ‘one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.’ Thus two characteristics identify Christians: (1) they profess belief in a Savior, and (2) they act in harmony with the Savior’s teachings. Faithful members of the Church, called Saints or Latter-day Saints, qualify clearly in both characteristics. In our belief and our action, we demonstrate that ‘Jesus Christ himself [is] the chief corner stone’ [Eph. 2:20] of our faith.”
—Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Christians in Belief and Action,” Ensign, Nov. 1996, 70.

As far as the temple implying other Christian faiths as actually churches of the devil, what it shows is a man of faith being deceived, something that occurs to us as well as other faiths.  Our leaders are constantly warning us about being deceived by Satan, giving into the temptations he pushes, so most of us need to put ourselves in the place of the minister as much as Adam and Eve to learn about what the temple can tell us about living a disciple's life.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

While differentiating between some expressions of our shared discipleship, there is clearly no doubt in President Hinckley's view others are Christian as well.  They are not "My so-called Christian colleagues" for him.

Quote

President Gordon B. Hinckley was once asked by a minister why Latter-day Saints do not wear crosses or display them in their buildings.

President Hinckley said to him: “‘I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.’

“[The minister] then asked: ‘If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?’

“I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley, see “The Symbol of Christ,” New Era, Apr. 1990, 4.

From the same link.

[Joshua Valentine]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I remember you said you were nonLDS, did you say never LDS?  If so, would you mind clarifying?

Just looking for some context for your posting.

At times we get posters who love to tell others what they believe, even what they have to believe...all while proclaiming that belief wrong rather than coming here to try and understand others (I am including the Saints who spend the majority of their time making pronouncements about the purpose, errors, etc. of other faiths as well). 

To get something more official, all one needs to do is go to LDS.org and type in "other Christians" to see how church leaders since the 70s viewed other Christian faiths plus there are some references to past teachings.  

Contrary to what many nonLDS seem to think ( and a small percentage of LDS), we are not required by God to be locked into every viewpoint held by our previous leaders even if spoken across the pulpit.  Infallibility has never been part of our doctrine.  And given we have seen leaders change their own views at times over the years, we should respect them enough not to lock them into eternal positions.

Never LDS.

I certainly understand what you are saying here - both about LDS.org searching and about fallibility.

I haven´t looked into the history of this fallibility principle in Mormonism - that would be interesting to see where it started and whether it too developed over time and in what ways.

Not that you accused me of this, Calm, but for the benefit of others who may be ¨trigger happy¨ with such accusations - I am certainly not telling anyone what their beliefs are.  I simply pointed out that the Great Apostasy teaching of the LDS Church justifies at least deeming other ¨Christians¨ more precisely as ¨Apostate Christians¨. Obviously it is my opinion, but this seems an incontrovertible direct result of the teaching itself.  I´ve heard a non-LDS Christian or two consider the ¨Apostate¨ adjective an appropriate solution to whether or not LDS are Christians. From a non-LDS Christian view, LDS are Apostate Christians; from an LDS view non-LDS Christians are Apostate Christians. This is perfectly legit and honest. It is what is implied whenever LDS speak of LDS Christians having ¨more¨ than non-LDS Christians or how non-LDS Christianity ¨lost many plain and precious¨ things.  The teaching that God removed authority from pre-restoration churches would also indicate that God was declaring them not Christian (enough, at least, if not outright). The teaching of one church of God and the other of Satan also seems obvious and quite unfriendly - all without need of official interpretation. But then official interpretation was given by pre-70´s official teaching...

As for the teachings of previous LDS leaders: as I mentioned, they were given with scriptural/doctrinal justification, which (admittedly casually) I do not see in the post-70´s statements by LDS leaders that are friendly and inclusive. It is this connection to scripture and long-time teaching that I think makes the previous position more robust and justified than the current neighborly position. Now if the current position was not based on a very general, liberal definition of christianity and, even better, if it had some scriptural/doctrinal/long-time teaching support offered with its proclamation by recent prophets, it would be more of a toss up.

Also fallibility cuts both ways - either previous leaders were wrong or current leaders are wrong.  To assume that recent are correct reminds me of some term for the bias that modern knowledge/wisdom is inherently better than older/ancient knowledge/wisdom.

So if either sets of teachings can be wrong (fallibility) then the tie-breaker seems to be consistency with doctrine. At the least, that leaves us with Apostate Christians. A more thorough study would indicate if it gets more decisive, less inclusive, or even less friendly than that. As described above.

[bluebell]

From my perspective, if someone claims to worship Christ, then they are a Christian.  They might be a good christian or a bad christian, but that is not for me to judge so I don't ever try to hinge the definition of Christian on those terms. 

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Obviously, LDS doctrine says that the current non-LDS christian churches are (at best) apostate christian churches with apostate christians. But there are plenty of teachings, some scriptures, and previous temple material that (at worst) equates non-LDS Christianity to the church of the devil, being led by Satan, and thus not being Christian at all.  Other teachings by individual LDS prophets refer to ¨so-called Christians¨ (Brigham Young), ¨´Christian´ churches¨ (Joseph F. Smith - that´s quotation marks around Christian, implying it is only a label, and contrary to reality), that there were ¨no Christian churches [before the LDS Church was restored]¨ which implies there were no Christians either (Orson Pratt) and, only other church is ¨Babylon¨ (George Q. Cannon).

Please provide full quotations or links to these comments so we can see them in context.

17 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

LDS leaders up until, perhaps the 80s, were more than willing to do all of this and justified it by scripture and revelation, which is their jurisdiction. Although LDS prophets since then have said things that indicate that members do and should accept non-LDS Christians as Christians (Hinckley), they do not do it from scripture and revelation and interpretative justification (as the previous LDS prophets did).

Please provide full quotations for context or links to the claims you are making for previous leaders to show they are justifying it by scripture and revelation and not starting with revelation, but then interpolating.  And please provide full quotations or links for more modern prophets to demonstrate they are not starting from scripture and revelation and then sticking with it.

17 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Orson Pratt said:
¨But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of people Christian Churches, because they profess to be. They say, "We have built chapels unto the name of the Lord; we call our Churches Christian Churches, they are called the Church of Christ, St. John's Church, St. Paul's Church, St. Peter's Church, and after others of the ancient Apostles;" and one who had never studied the pattern which God has given of the Christian Church would almost really believe that they are Christian Churches.

Unless Orson Pratt's comments are repeated as teachings, there is no reason we need to consider them as doctrine.  His definition was his own.  I don't have to view it as inspired or insightful or even reasonable.

17 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Question for thought: If a Christian, or for example Truett Cathy, supported organizations that send missionaries to LDS or warn non-LDS Christians that the LDS Church is not a Christian church, would you still consider that person a Christian?

Of course, why would I view someone else intent on bringing people to Christ as any different than myself?

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

I haven´t looked into the history of this fallibility principle in Mormonism - that would be interesting to see where it started and whether it too developed over time and in what ways.

If you haven't, then you don't understand what doctrine is in terms of Gospel belief.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Not that you accused me of this, Calm, but for the benefit of others who may be ¨trigger happy¨ with such accusations - I am certainly not telling anyone what their beliefs are. 

No, you may not be intending to, but you are framing what you see as our beliefs, past and present and what we should take as the implications of teachings.  So you are telling us what our teachers are teaching...not just quoting them, but providing commentary on what is viewed as revelation and what isn't, that is defining what we believe as a faith.

If you are going to be doing that, you need to provide documentation of your claims, full quotations, not just your paraphrases.

Now if you want to present it as 'this is how I interpret their comments' or even state 'I find it hard to understand how others can interpret them differently', that is not problematic...it is the stating of your interpretation as fact, same with your additional commentary, your creating of context others should be viewing teachings in rather than simply referencing teachings and explaining your reactions as your reactions that is problematic.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Never LDS.

I certainly understand what you are saying here - both about LDS.org searching and about fallibility.

I haven´t looked into the history of this fallibility principle in Mormonism - that would be interesting to see where it started and whether it too developed over time and in what ways.

Not that you accused me of this, Calm, but for the benefit of others who may be ¨trigger happy¨ with such accusations - I am certainly not telling anyone what their beliefs are.  I simply pointed out that the Great Apostasy teaching of the LDS Church justifies at least deeming other ¨Christians¨ more precisely as ¨Apostate Christians¨. Obviously it is my opinion, but this seems an incontrovertible direct result of the teaching itself.  I´ve heard a non-LDS Christian or two consider the ¨Apostate¨ adjective an appropriate solution to whether or not LDS are Christians. From a non-LDS Christian view, LDS are Apostate Christians; from an LDS view non-LDS Christians are Apostate Christians. This is perfectly legit and honest. It is what is implied whenever LDS speak of LDS Christians having ¨more¨ than non-LDS Christians or how non-LDS Christianity ¨lost many plain and precious¨ things.  The teaching that God removed authority from pre-restoration churches would also indicate that God was declaring them not Christian (enough, at least, if not outright). The teaching of one church of God and the other of Satan also seems obvious and quite unfriendly - all without need of official interpretation. But then official interpretation was given by pre-70´s official teaching...

As for the teachings of previous LDS leaders: as I mentioned, they were given with scriptural/doctrinal justification, which (admittedly casually) I do not see in the post-70´s statements by LDS leaders that are friendly and inclusive. It is this connection to scripture and long-time teaching that I think makes the previous position more robust and justified than the current neighborly position. Now if the current position was not based on a very general, liberal definition of christianity and, even better, if it had some scriptural/doctrinal/long-time teaching support offered with its proclamation by recent prophets, it would be more of a toss up.

Also fallibility cuts both ways - either previous leaders were wrong or current leaders are wrong.  To assume that recent are correct reminds me of some term for the bias that modern knowledge/wisdom is inherently better than older/ancient knowledge/wisdom.

So if either sets of teachings can be wrong (fallibility) then the tie-breaker seems to be consistency with doctrine. At the least, that leaves us with Apostate Christians. A more thorough study would indicate if it gets more decisive, less inclusive, or even less friendly than that. As described above.

The definition of the word apostate is someone who has renounced a religion or religious belief; someone who purposefully turned away from something they once believed in favor of something else.  So, while Christianity, in our theology, can be in apostasy (because it has fallen away from what it once was) that does not make non-LDS Christians apostates.  They have not fallen away from anything.  So no, non-lds Christians are not "more precisely" apostate Christians, not when using the actual definition of the term nor when explaining how members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view them.   

 

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

The worst I encounter are those who erroneously claim that theological, social and fiscal conservativism is somehow (miraculously?) synonymous with a truly faithful Christian. Those persons make me want to celebrate the Feast of St. Nicholas everyday.

It is the ones that think heaven is running according to laissez faire capitalism that weird me out.

[The Nehor]

I do not have a factual objection to calling all other Christian faiths apostate but I do not because it is offensive and I personally strive never to offend. What? Stop laughing!!!!

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not have a factual objection to calling all other Christian faiths apostate but I do not because it is offensive and I personally strive never to offend. What? Stop laughing!!!!

I think given the current definitions and connotations of the two words, a better term ( it informs rather than confuses) to be applied to Saints by nonLDS Christians (or anyone else if they choose) as well as a better term for Saints to apply to nonLDS Christians is "heretical" (if the need arises to make that distinction).  That gets directly to beliefs, does not imply rebellion (how can one rebel when any rebellion that might have taken place was hundreds of years before one's birth), or belonging to what organization.

Apostate should be reserved to those who actually removed themselves from a belief (I have no problem with Joseph Smith and other early leaders and anyone else who converted while leaving another faith to be called "apostate" that denomination just as I don't have a problem with those who either leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or get excommunicated for rejection of certain foundational beliefs being called apostate...but it gets confusing to me to tack on apostate to Mormon or LDS because that makes it sound like they are a certain type of Saint when they are not.)

When talking about Christianity in general, I don't see "apostate" as a valid adjective for other Christian faiths given how we view the both terms today.  Christianity is not a specific set of agreed upon beliefs, but a more global awareness of people who believe in Christ.  Even the belief as Christ as Redeemer and Son of God is starting to blur.  So while these other Christian faiths might be considered originally apostate from a particular form of Christianity, they aren't apostate from Christianity themselves, so I think it is more confusing than informative to label them that way.  Heretical Christians are still Christians and therefore in my view not "apostate Christians".

Edited April 17, 2019 by Calm

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is the ones that think heaven is running according to laissez faire capitalism that weird me out.

Kinda the same thing. Sorta. But I agree.

[Damien the Leper]

I know a local stake president who wishes people would stop calling LDS Arian. I agree with him. The LDS church is not Arian any more than it is Pellagian or Sabellian. Good grief!!

[Joshua Valentine]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

The definition of the word apostate is someone who has renounced a religion or religious belief; someone who purposefully turned away from something they once believed in favor of something else.  So, while Christianity, in our theology, can be in apostasy (because it has fallen away from what it once was) that does not make non-LDS Christians apostates.  They have not fallen away from anything.  So no, non-lds Christians are not "more precisely" apostate Christians, not when using the actual definition of the term nor when explaining how members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view them.   

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I think given the current definitions and connotations of the two words, a better term ( it informs rather than confuses) to be applied to Saints by nonLDS Christians (or anyone else if they choose) as well as a better term for Saints to apply to nonLDS Christians is "heretical" (if the need arises to make that distinction).  That gets directly to beliefs, does not imply rebellion (how can one rebel when any rebellion that might have taken place was hundreds of years before one's birth), or belonging to what organization.

Apostate should be reserved to those who actually removed themselves from a belief (I have no problem with Joseph Smith and other early leaders and anyone else who converted while leaving another faith to be called "apostate" that denomination just as I don't have a problem with those who either leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or get excommunicated for rejection of certain foundational beliefs being called apostate...but it gets confusing to me to tack on apostate to Mormon or LDS because that makes it sound like they are a certain type of Saint when they are not.)

When talking about Christianity in general, I don't see "apostate" as a valid adjective for other Christian faiths given how we view the both terms today.  Christianity is not a specific set of agreed upon beliefs, but a more global awareness of people who believe in Christ.  Even the belief as Christ as Redeemer and Son of God is starting to blur.  So while these other Christian faiths might be considered originally apostate from a particular form of Christianity, they aren't apostate from Christianity themselves, so I think it is more confusing than informative to label them that way.  Heretical Christians are still Christians and therefore in my view not "apostate Christians".

These are good points and quite right. In fact, I believe it was ¨heretic¨ that was actually suggested by the non-LDS Christians that I mentioned on the issue of calling LDS Christians or not.  I had apostasy on the brain (after looking up all those quotes Calm is asking for [they´re coming by the way]) and was writing when I usually sleep; I apologize for the rather silly error.

Yes, so I think ¨heretical Christian¨ is a good designation for either party by the other party.

Perhaps one factor that led me to conflate them is that I thought I read in those quotes references to ¨Apostate¨ Christianity/Christendom as not the historical group who apostatized (as you both correctly pointed out is proper) but the non-LDS Christians that were the LDS leaders´ contemporaries. I could be wrong on this, so I´ll double check as I get the quotes and citations ready for you, Calm. Hopefully it will be tonight, certainly no later than tomorrow.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Joshua Valentine said:

 

These are good points and quite right. In fact, I believe it was ¨heretic¨ that was actually suggested by the non-LDS Christians that I mentioned on the issue of calling LDS Christians or not.  I had apostasy on the brain (after looking up all those quotes Calm is asking for [they´re coming by the way]) and was writing when I usually sleep; I apologize for the rather silly error.

Yes, so I think ¨heretical Christian¨ is a good designation for either party by the other party.

Perhaps one factor that led me to conflate them is that I thought I read in those quotes references to ¨Apostate¨ Christianity/Christendom as not the historical group who apostatized (as you both correctly pointed out is proper) but the non-LDS Christians that were the LDS leaders´ contemporaries. I could be wrong on this, so I´ll double check as I get the quotes and citations ready for you, Calm. Hopefully it will be tonight, certainly no later than tomorrow.

I don't know how consistent they used to be.  There were some harsh feelings for other Christians, wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they called them apostate.  Just believe they would be wrong.

I am not someone who believes God's usual revelations are word perfect once they get inside the minds of men..  For one thing, unless for a limited space and time, they need to be translated to all languages and since there is never perfect correspondence with meanings and connotations, then one translation and it is not 'quite' what God said.  And I am not so sure God cares we use the precise right words in most cases because we all understand words differently so even a relatively simple sentence of belief will mean different things to everyone who hears it.  The only way to get the sense that God wants us to take from it is to go ask God for it.

[Joshua Valentine]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Please provide full quotations or links to these comments so we can see them in context. (1)

Please provide full quotations for context or links to the claims you are making for previous leaders to show they are justifying it by scripture and revelation and not starting with revelation, but then interpolating.  And please provide full quotations or links for more modern prophets to demonstrate they are not starting from scripture and revelation and then sticking with it. (2)

Unless Orson Pratt's comments are repeated as teachings, there is no reason we need to consider them as doctrine.  His definition was his own.  I don't have to view it as inspired or insightful or even reasonable. (3)

Of course, why would I view someone else intent on bringing people to Christ as any different than myself? (4)

First (4): I appreciate this rhetorical question, Calm: a recognition of the spirit of missionary efforts from, I suspect, a missionary.

1) See list below (Part 1).

2) See bottom of list below (Part 4) - I did claim this observation of recent LDS leaders to be a ¨casual¨ one, recalling only Hinckley directly dealing with Christian relations. I tried to find others but this is what I found by Hinckley.  See my commentary in the citation note.

3) That is your choice, of course. But Pratt was not in a vacuum. And these teachings of his were printed side by side with the teachings of other leaders and were congruent with their other teachings as I referenced and quote below. He was an apostle at the time, but unfortunately my kindle version of the Journal of Discourses does not indicate whether specific speeches were part of a General Conference or not.

 

1) Quotes Requested

¨So-called Christian¨ by Brigham Young (seem pretty straightforward so no context):

 

"When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was groveling in darkness."

- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 5, p. 73

 

"With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world."

- JoD, v. 8, p. 199

 

"The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God"

- JoD, v. 8, p. 171

 

Also Joseph F. Smith:
 

¨It is well understood that the teachings of the so-called Christian churches have been declared in all the world for many hundreds of years.¨

-J. F. Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 3, p. 459

 

-----------------------

 

¨Christian¨ churches - Joseph F. Smith:

 

¨Doctrine of Apostasy Proved by First Vision.Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the ‘Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men."

- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 3, p. 282 (or p. 623?)

 

----------------------

 

No Christian Churches during The Apostasy (bold), Calling Oneself Christian (bold underline), Content Defines Christian (bold italics), conflating apostasy with heresy (bold underline italics), and Babylon - Orson Pratt:

 

“But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of people Christian Churches, because they profess to be. They say, "We have built chapels unto the name of the Lord; we call our Churches Christian Churches, they are called the Church of Christ, St. John's Church, St. Paul's Church, St. Peter's Church, and after others of the ancient Apostles;" and one who had never studied the pattern which God has given of the Christian Church would almost really believe that they are Christian Churches. But there has been a long apostacy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance, and they are represented in the revelations of St. John as a woman sitting upon a scarlet colored beast, having a golden cup in her hand, full of filthiness and abominations, full of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; that in her forehead there was a name written—"Mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots." This kind of a church has existed in great abundance, for as John the Revelator says, she was to have her dominion upon many waters, and she was to make all nations drunken with the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”

- Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 18:172, p. 172, March 26, 1876

 

Called Christians (bold), Content Defines Christian (bold underline), Babylon (bold italics) - Orson Pratt:

 

“This class of men, calling themselves Christian, uniting with the various forms of the pagan religion, adopting many of their ceremonies and institutions, became very popular, and finally some of the pagans embraced Christianity and were placed, as it were, upon the throne, and what they termed Christianity became very popular indeed. How long has this order of things existed, this dreadful apostacy, this class of people that pronounced themselves Zion, or Christians, without any of the characteristics of Zion? It has existed for some sixteen or seventeen centuries. It has spread itself and grown and gone into the four quarters of the earth. It is the great ecclesiastical power that is spoken of by the revelator John, and called by him the most corrupt and most wicked of all the powers of the earth, under the name of spiritual Babylon, or in other words Babel, which signifies confusion. This great and corrupt power is also represented by John as presenting a golden cup to the nations, full of all manner of filthiness and abominations.”

- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 14:346, p. 346, March 10, 1872

 

Babylon - George Q. Cannon:

"After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon."

- George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, p. 324

 

-------------------------

2) Extra Quotes

 

¨Called Christians¨ - Gospel Principles, Ch. 16, no page (in app)

¨The organization that Jesus Christ had established no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy.

Soon pagan beliefs dominated the thinking of those called Christians. The Roman emperor adopted this false Christianity as the state religion.¨

 

Calling Oneself Christian - Orson Pratt:

¨If we can find a church that has the gifts and the signs spoken of by the New Testament, we can find a true Christian Church; but if we can´t fid such, we have no reason to believe that there is such a Church on the earth. ´But,´ says one, ´we call ourselves Christians.´ That is a very easy matter; but calling yourselves Christians or Christian churches does not make you such.¨

 

-Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 18:43, p. 44, July 11, 1875

 

3) More Conflation of Apostasy with Heretical:
 

“... all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ.... in large part the worship of apostate Christendom is performed in ignorance, as much so as was the worship of the Athenians who bowed the Unknown Gods.”

- Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 269, 374-375 (also that content defines)

“This great apostacy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now. A short time after the death of the last of the Apostles, the Christian Church, what few of them remained, were persecuted from mountain to mountain, from den to den, from one cave of the earth to another, and from nation to nation until they were entirely exterminated and rooted out of the earth. Well, what was left? An apostate Christianity, a Christianity without revelators, without any voice of God, without any Prophets to unfold the future, without visions, without any communications from the heavens.”

- Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 18:43, p. 44, July 11, 1875

 

4) Lack of Doctrinal/Teaching Support for ¨Christian¨ - Hinckley:

“We can respect other religions, and must do so. We must recognize the great good they accomplish. We must teach our children to be tolerant and friendly toward those not of our faith. We are not out to injure other churches. We are not out to hurt other churches. We do not argue with other churches. We do not debate with other churches. We simply say to those who may be of other faiths or of no faith, ‘You bring with you such truth as you have, and let us see if we can add to it’”

-Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 277. Really all of Ch. 20 is pretty relevant - while it could be argued that he is using or arguing from doctrine - 1) it is not to argue that Christians are Christians, 2) it is about how LDS ought to treat Christians, 3) he actually differentiates between doctrine and what he is arguing when he says that doctrine should not be compromised in kind interactions with Christians. That is, when making this point, he could have said doctrine should not be compromised and doctrine says they are Christians. I still have no doubt that he would call non-LDS Christians Christians, but the overall treatment is about treating Christians with respect, not calling non-LDS Christians Christians, let alone from doctrine. There may be better quotes out there, perhaps.  But, if my memory serves, Hinckley did call others Christians consistently.

 

[Joshua Valentine]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

No, you may not be intending to, but you are framing what you see as our beliefs, past and present and what we should take as the implications of teachings.  So you are telling us what our teachers are teaching...not just quoting them, but providing commentary on what is viewed as revelation and what isn't, that is defining what we believe as a faith.

 

I am communicating what leaders said (assuming they believed it [not as you said ¨our beliefs¨]) which I frame as relevant for the OP´s request for what (some significant) LDS believed and for doctrine (which I try to evidence by these teachings - whether taken as doctrine or not). So I am using your teachers´ teachings to evidence a position on the topic of the OP. I don´t think I am telling you what to believe about their teachings. I did provide commentary claiming that the doctrine of the Great Apostasy gave an obvious answer (this was my strongest claim of what´s what, but while I do think it does mean what I said it means, I did no tell any LDS to believe it or claim that any LDS did). I don´t recall claiming what was and what was not revelation - I already know that´s a can-o-worms among many LDS let alone adding a non-LDS view - thus my emphasis on ¨teachings¨. So I do not believe I got anywhere near ¨defining what [you] believe as a faith¨.

 

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If you are going to be doing that, you need to provide documentation of your claims, full quotations, not just your paraphrases.

So, since I don´t think I did nearly any of that, does that mean I didn´t have to provide documentation? 🤔 So the fact that I gave any documentation was above and beyond!😁
 

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Now if you want to present it as 'this is how I interpret their comments' or even state 'I find it hard to understand how others can interpret them differently', that is not problematic...it is the stating of your interpretation as fact, same with your additional commentary, your creating of context others should be viewing teachings in rather than simply referencing teachings and explaining your reactions as your reactions that is problematic.

I´m with you on this, especially coming from your perspective described in your reply here.

I would point out that since I never actually said ¨you believe¨ or ¨you ought to believe¨, that on the spectrum of ¨telling us what we believe¨ I am relatively in the neutral area between not telling you what you believe and telling you what you believe.  If I´m right about that, then it would perhaps be a better policy to assume the best of my statements, instead of interpreting the worst. I don´t blame you for assuming/interpreting the worse (you didn´t really assume the worst), as you don´t know me nearly at all, and I´m sure you have come across numerous less pleasant people here. Hopefully, with time and further interaction, you will get to know me as someone who does not seek to offend LDS and, usually, even tries to avoid offense, but that I also have too much to say to constantly explicitly state all of the qualification required to defend against all possible offense being taken (I have too much to say and qualify a lot already). There will always be a risk of offense simply because I do not agree and am willing to explore issues from an opposing position (as I think has probably happened in this case), but I do try to minimize unnecessary offensiveness.

Always appreciate your contributions here, Calm.
And, at the risk of a different type of offense😬, I´ll ask wasn´t your profile name Calmoriah a few years ago?🤔

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

And these teachings of his were printed side by side with the teachings of other leaders 

And many of those teachings are still being taught while this one is not, an indication of how valued as a teaching it is viewed imo.

Quote

And, at the risk of a different type of offense😬, I´ll ask wasn´t your profile name Calmoriah a few years ago?🤔

I was in the hospital for surgery and was high on mor-phine.  Seemed like way too much work to type out my alias so I trimmed it and thought myself so clever (cal too similar to others and too blah...).  Asked the mods to change it and they sweetly instantly complied.

Rather embarrassed when the morphine wore off, but my friends said they were entertained by that and some less than coherent posts, so I decided to leave it as a monument why one should never make important decisions when stoned.  It is not as brilliant as it seems.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Calm

[Navidad]

On 4/15/2019 at 1:39 PM, Calm said:

Just because we can claim to be Christian doesn't mean we can deny the name to others.

I like this concept. It appears that at times both LDS and non-LDS Christians have spent a lot of time denying the name to each other. 

[Navidad]

On 4/15/2019 at 1:38 PM, RevTestament said:

I believe anyone who believes and tries to follow Christ is a Christian. Many have been misled by false teachings "of man" (spurred on by Satan) into false forms of Christianity, but however, are good people trying to follow Christ. There are many "shades" of Christianity and truth. This is true inside the Church of Jesus Christ as well. I will let Christ be the Judge of who He deems worthy of salvation. That is not up to me, nor whether they are "true Christians" or not. I will generally call anyone a Christian who considers themselves as such. 

Thanks for your always candid and helpful replies.