Church Of The Devil: An Authoritative Definition

[Catholic Girl]

You have been given scripture. Why are you asking for a guide? With all due respect...they are our scriptures. If you don't want us interpreting your Catholic beliefs for us allow us to interpret ours.

So Guide to the Scriptures is simply scripture? Funny....the title does have the word GUIDE first. One would think there would guidance.

[BCSpace]

So Guide to the Scriptures is simply scripture? Funny....the title does have the word GUIDE first.

It's doctrine which is the interpretation of scripture.

This alphabetical listing of gospel topics defines selected doctrines, principles, people, and places found in the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. It also provides key scriptural references for you to study for each topic and can help you in your individual and family study of the scriptures. It can help you answer questions about the gospel, study topics in the scriptures, prepare talks and lessons, and increase your knowledge and testimony of the gospel.

It's also published by the Church which in and of itself puts it in the category of doctrine.

[johnny]

Scott Lloyd,

Call for references.

Do you consider the LDS Magazine Ensign "official"? The Ensign article (link below) says Official LDS publications like LDS magazines carry messages that are sound in doctrine and are prepared under the direction of some officially recognized Church agency.

Dean L. Larsen, â??I Have a Question,â? Ensign, Aug. 1977, 38

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Mag...x=server#LPHit1

Show us a specific instance where "the LDS" (and by this, I presume you mean the Church as an institution) has "clearly stated" that "all other Christians are serving the devil and only LDS are Christians."

Do you consider the Catholic practice of infant baptism "pervert[ing] the right ways of the Lord" (1Nephi 13:27) ... The Book of Mormon(link below) reveals that infant baptism is an evil abomination and those who believe such a false concept shall be thrust down to hell.

The Book of Mormon - Moroni Chapter 8

http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/8

And don't try to pass off your own errant interpretation of our scripture as being what "the LDS" say.

Below is a official interpretation of your own scripture from a official LDS publication (see link below)

Bruce R. McConkie, â??The Salvation of Little Children,â? Ensign, Apr. 1977, 3

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Mag...plates$3.0

Thereupon Mormon, speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost, taught that â??it is solemn mockeryâ? to baptize little children; that they â??are alive in Christ from the foundation of the worldâ?; that it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of Christ to them; that such a belief sets at naught the power of Christâ??s redemption; that those who believe such a false concept are â??in the bonds of iniquityâ? and if cut off while in the thought shall be thrust down to hell; and that those who humble themselves and repent and are baptized shall â??be saved with their little children.â? (Moro. 8:8â??25.)

[cksalmon]

Hi guys.

I'm going to bow out of this one until I figure out a way to address the issue objectively.

Sorry for any snarkiness. This issue tends to be a knee-jerk one for me.

Best to all!

CKS

[johnny]

cksalmon,

I'm going to bow out of this one until I figure out a way to address the issue objectively.

I wonder if Mormons would consider the practice of Protestants baptizing without "the proper priesthood authority" (see official link below) "pervert[ing] the right ways of the Lord" (1Nephi 13:27)?

LDS Gospel Principles - Baptism Chapter 20

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-28,00.html

Below are some of the thoughts of Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:89 (link below):

http://journalofdiscourses.org/

Christians-those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men. The poor devils, they could not get up here and preach an oral discourse, to save themselves from hell; they are preaching their fathers' sermons-preaching sermons that were written a hundred years before they were born.

We are very tenacious, as brother George A. said, pertaining to the law of God and the institutions of heaven. We know there is no other way for men to be saved-there is no person on the earth can be saved upon any other principle than the one that saves me. Says one, "What is that?" The first step is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God; and when you have, and laid your sins aside, and think you will quit sinning, then be baptized in water, that your sins may be washed away, or blotted out, that you may receive the remission of them; and have a man that has got authority to do it lay hands upon you, that you may receive the Holy Ghost.

Can you change these ordinances? No. They are eternal; they always were and always will be; and no man or woman upon earth can be saved without them. You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be damned with your priest. There is but one way, and that is to be buried in water, buried with Christ by baptizing in water, that your sins may be blotted out by one having authority, or else it will do you no good.

[BCSpace]

I wonder if Mormons would consider the practice of Protestants baptizing without "the proper priesthood authority" (see official link below) "pervert[ing] the right ways of the Lord" (1Nephi 13:27)?

IMHO opinion, in and of itself, it's not. But what makes their authority not proper in the first place (false doctrines, not having actually been called etc.) is what 'perverts the right ways'.

Below are some of the thoughts of Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:89

Not a doctrinal work.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not sure what all that other stuff was.....way off topic.

Anyhoo, Scott Lloyd asserts that the quote he provided from his authoritative source.....

Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God.

That this quote

contradict(s) the false notion and claim that Mormonism regards the church of the devil, or the great and abominable church, as being the Catholic Church or any other specific faith group.

I do not see myself where this quote in itself EXPLICITY "contradicts" that the Catholic Church "or any other specific faith group" as the Church of the Devil or the Great and Abominable Church. Rather, it does seem to be more inclusive for our Protestant brothers and sisters as asserted by CKS.

The operative phrase here is "every evil and wordly organization". I don't think it reasonable to believe that The Church of Jesus Christ views the Roman Catholic Church or most Protestant denominations as being "evil and worldly organization." Otherwise, it would not participate with Catholic groups in the humanitarian work that I spoke of, and it would not from time to time provide support and assistance to Protestant groups in Utah (and perhaps elsewhere) for construction of their meeting facilities, as it has done in times past.

So I'm curious.....is this Scott Lloyd's own personal interpretation of this quote? Or does this Guide to the Scriptures provide footnotes or further information as to how this is quote is to be officially interpreted?

I guess I would just need to see the context.

"Guide to the Scriptures" is easily viewed on line at the Church's official Web site, www.lds.org. Click the "Scriptures" link, and you will find the "Guide to the Scriptures" link under "Study Helps." Look under the "Devil" entry. Footnotes are unnecessary, because the definition is given in the midst of a concordance-like listing of scriptural references to this topic.

The point I was making earlier, which apparently bears repeating, is that "Guide to the Scriptures" is an official Church source, unlike Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, which is a commercially published book that carries a disclaimer saying the author alone is responsible for the content. By contrast, Church-published material undergoes a strict review process to ensure compatibility with doctrine and Church stance. That is why I applied the word "authoritative" to the quote from "Guide to the Scriptures."

[BCSpace]

The operative phrase here is "every evil and wordly organization". I don't think it reasonable to believe that The Church of Jesus Christ views the Roman Catholic Church or most Protestant denominations as being "evil and worldly organization."

I was hoping you'd see that.

They are indeed worldly organizations seeing as how they were not authorized by God. The evil comes in the teaching and purpetuation of worldly doctrines and philosophies. IMHO, the doctrines of the trinity, creation ex nihilo, original sin, sola fide, sola scriptura, eternal security, etc. are indeed evil (JS-H 1:19 etc.) but the homosexual, feminist, socialist, and atheist (etc.) philosophies are far worse.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then I object just as strenuously to your interpretation of it referring to "all non-LDS Christian groups." I don't believe all such groups persecute the Saints and fight against God.

But, I wasn't referring to all such groups who persecute the Saints and fight against God. I was referring to your authoritative definition that all groups who pervert "pure and perfect gospel" are members of the great and abominable Church. Let's not change horses in mid-stream here.

You've introduced a qualifier that is not evident in your OP. Let's deal with the issue as you laid it out originally. Or, do you mean to definitively qualify your understanding of the source you've cited? What you've now said is not equivalent to what you quoted. Which is it?

Best.

CKS

The terms "church of the devil" and "great and abominable church" come from a passage in 1 Nephi that has been amply cited in this thread. In that passage, the elements of persecuting the saints and fighting against God are part and parcel of the definition. Please, I must insist that we discuss this topic in its scriptural context.

Also, other Christian groups do not in every instance pervert the pure and perfect gospel. To a great degree, they uphold and teach it. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If, in some ways they err, I ascribe it to the devil and the metaphorical "great and abominable church" he founded.

As I see it, the most egregious manner of perverting the pure and perfect gospel is that perpetrated by self-appointed adversaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who misinterpret and mischaracterize what we teach and generally bear false witness against us. In so doing they are part of the great and abominable church.

So, I take it that you're backing off your original assertion that "Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God" is part of the Great and Abominable Church?

Or, should I take it that there are, on the face of the earth, non-LDS Christian groups that do not pevert the pure and perfect gospel? You're saying that, insofar as non-LDS Christian groups err from the "pure and perfect gospel," you ascribe it to the Devil? If you ascribe it to the Devil, then obviously, it would seem, that those perpetrators are part of the "Great and Abominable Church?" Is that right?

For the most part, they perpetuate centuries-old false doctrines that they sincerely believe but had no part in originating. But that's not the sum total of what they do, much of which adds to the aggregate good in the world, blesses lives, and thus sustains and supports the work of God.

I will not fault anyone who has been innocently deceived; and if much of what they do is in line with the teachings of Christ, I will certainly not brand them as "evil and worldly." I don't agree that the Church does either, as it quite readily joins together with other Christian groups in worthy causes, and on occasion, has even helped them in constructing meeting facilities so that they can have a presence in the very center of Mormondom.

On the other hand, there are those who have quite zealously fought against the Church of Jesus Christ and persecuted its members, though not so much today as in the past, when physical atrocities, not just verbal assaults, were routine. As I indicated, these I see as fitting the "church of the devil" paradigm rather neatly.

Am I bearing false witness against your original assertion? I don't think so.

What you seem to be doing is enlarging the scope of my point far beyond what I intended. Apparently at some point, your feelings have been injured pertaining to this matter. For that I am sorry. I hope at some point you can come to see the assurance implicit in a passage from a Church-published document that "church of the devil" refers neither to the Catholic Church nor to any other specific religious group.

[Catholic Guy]

The operative phrase here is "every evil and wordly organization". I don't think it reasonable to believe that The Church of Jesus Christ views the Roman Catholic Church or most Protestant denominations as being "evil and worldly organization."

I was hoping you'd see that.

They are indeed worldly organizations seeing as how they were not authorized by God. The evil comes in the teaching and purpetuation of worldly doctrines and philosophies. IMHO, the doctrines of the trinity, creation ex nihilo, original sin, sola fide, sola scriptura, eternal security, etc. are indeed evil (JS-H 1:19 etc.) but the homosexual, feminist, socialist, and atheist (etc.) philosophies are far worse.

BCSpace,

This a sad and pathetic attempt to state that Catholics and Protestants are less evil than secular morality, but evil none the less because of beliefs in your above mentioned laundry list of things created by man and not God. You forgot to mention other things like Polygamy, abortion in the case of rape or incest, birth control, polytheism with regards to exaltation, secret gnosis for the cost of 10% of all that you have, baptism for the dead because God could not see into the hearts of all men, so on and so forth. Are these things "the teaching and perpetuation of worldly doctrines and philosophies" of men? Before you disregard the Apostolic Authority of the Catholic Church as worldly with hints of "Evil" teachings of men read your own Church history and the History of the Catholic Church.

Catholic Guy

[BCSpace]

I was hoping you'd see that.

They are indeed worldly organizations seeing as how they were not authorized by God. The evil comes in the teaching and purpetuation of worldly doctrines and philosophies. IMHO, the doctrines of the trinity, creation ex nihilo, original sin, sola fide, sola scriptura, eternal security, etc. are indeed evil (JS-H 1:19 etc.) but the homosexual, feminist, socialist, and atheist (etc.) philosophies are far worse.

This a sad and pathetic attempt to state that Catholics and Protestants are less evil than secular morality, but evil none the less because of beliefs in your above mentioned laundry list of things created by man and not God.

I have never implied that Catholics or Protestants are evil, just the organizations (as is our doctrine). Most Catholics and Protestants today have little or nothing to do with formulation of doctrines and philosophies that LDS doctrine finds evil. True they individually teach and perpetuate such, but that is inherent of the organization, not the individual, btw, can easily separate themselves from the organization.

You forgot to mention other things like Polygamy, abortion in the case of rape or incest, birth control,

Nothing to forget as all of these fit well with scripture and/or the LDS concept of agency (also scriptural)

polytheism with regards to exaltation, secret gnosis for the cost of 10% of all that you have, baptism for the dead because God could not see into the hearts of all men, so on and so forth.

As (you) stated, none of these things are extant in the LDS Church.

Before you disregard the Apostolic Authority of the Catholic Church as worldly with hints of "Evil" teachings of men read your own Church history and the History of the Catholic Church.

Done! I am quite able to demonstrate that the major doctrines of the Catholic Church are so significantly different and alien to ECF doctrine that there is no other possibility than universal apostasy before the Catholic church existed. We could start with the trinity doctrine which not only contradicts the Bible, but does not even qualify as a logical development over past doctrine in ECF times.

[johnny]

BCSpace,

Done! I am quite able to demonstrate that the major doctrines of the Catholic Church are so significantly different and alien to ECF doctrine

Please demonstrate what doctrines of the Catholic Church are different than the ECF doctrines.

Clearly Baptism for the dead was not taught by the ECF's (see thread below):

Baptism For The Dead In The Shepherd Of Hermas

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?s=&amp...mp;p=1208048694

Below are some ECF doctrine that are identical with the doctrines of the Catholic Church:

ECF - Original Sin

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/osin.htm

ECF - Infant Baptism

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm

ECF - Creation Out of Nothing

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_creation_out_of_nothing.htm

ECF - Purgatory.

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_purgatory.htm

ECF - Heaven and Hell

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/heaven.htm

ECF - The Real Presence body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_the_real_presence.htm

ECF - The Catholic Church is the one true Church

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_the_church.htm

ECF - Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

ECF - Authentic teaching and authority came through apostolic succession.

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_apostolic_succession.htm

ECF - Tradition has equally authoritative as written Tradition (Scripture)

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm

ECF - Intercession of the Saints

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_intercession.htm

ECF - Any one who dies in a state of mortal sin will suffer for all eternity in hell.

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_hell.htm

ECF -The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/indefect.htm

We could start with the trinity doctrine which not only contradicts the Bible, but does not even qualify as a logical development over past doctrine in ECF times.

Please start with the trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine is consistent with the Bible and the ECF's

ECF - The Trinity is revealed in the Bible and the ECF's

http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp

ECF - The doctrine of the Trinity was known to the Early Church Fathers.

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_the_trinity.htm

ECF - Jesus Christ was God.

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_divinity_of_christ.htm

ECF- God Has No Body

http://www.catholic.com/library/God_Has_No_Body.asp

ECF -God in Three Persons

http://www.catholic.com/library/God_in_Three_Persons.asp

ECF - The One True God

http://www.catholic.com/library/One_True_God.asp

there is no other possibility than universal apostasy before the Catholic church existed.

The Mormon "great apostasy" doctrine is a myth (see link below):

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203fea.asp

If Mormons want their claim of a complete apostasy to be taken seriously, they must display clearly biblical and historical evidence supporting it. There never has been--nor will there ever be--a complete apostasy. Mormons misconstrue the biblical passages which do refer to a "great apostasy" from the Christian Church. They read into the text a complete apostasy. The Mormon Church simply has no convincing answer to the ocean of biblical and historical evidence which contradict the complete apostasy theory.

[BCSpace]

Clearly Baptism for the dead was not taught by the ECF's

From what we have there is pretty good evidence that they did. It's part and parcel of the over-all 'salvation for the dead' doctrine which happens, uncoincidentally, to jive almost perfectly with modern LDS teaching.....

It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:27:2

And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the Apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades...For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on repenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge...If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was but to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there...Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:6

When He became a soul, without the covering of the body, He dwelt among those souls which were without bodily covering, converting such of them as were willing to Himself, or those whom He saw, for reasons known to Him alone, to be better adapted to such a course. Origen, Against Celsus, 2:43

These Apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of preaching. Accordingly they descended with them into the water and again ascended. The Pastor of Hermas, Sim. 9:16

Compare with D&C 138:30-34

"We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled." [Justin quotes some passages which the Jews evidently removed from Esdras and Jeremiah.] And again, from the sayings of some of Jeremiah these have been cut out: "The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 71-72

Etc. etc.

As for the first Christians practicing baptism for the dead:

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:29, "The present tense suggests that at Corinth people were currently being baptized for the dead." The NIV Study Bible, 1757

"despite dozens of proposed interpretations, with our limited knowledge (hence the need for modern revelation), we cannot discern exactly why the saints were baptising for the dead in Corinth and exactly what the rite entailed." R.E. DeMaris, "Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead", Journal of Biblical literature 114(1995):661

Then there is the concept alluded to by Clement of Alexandria in Stromata 6:6 "the correspondence and simultaneity for the earthly and heavenly ritual" which in this context implies that ordinances performed here are also performed in the spirit world.

Of course this is just one set of the many doctrinal evidences showing the universal apostasy.

[johnny]

BCSpace.

From what we have there is pretty good evidence that they did.

Clearly you have not shown any evidence ... clearly Mormon teachings are inconsistent with the early Church teachings.

Irenaeus is talking about "preaching His advent", clearly no mention of Baptism for the dead ...

Clement of Alexandria is talking about "preached the Gospel", clearly no mention of Baptism for the dead ...

Origen is talking about "He dwelt among those souls", clearly no mention of Baptism for the dead ...

The Pastor of Hermas is talking about "preached", clearly no mention of Baptism for the dead ...

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:29 it says "people", clearly it doesn't mention that their were Apostolic Christians.

R.E. DeMaris says "saints", others would say they were not orthodox Christians, that they were a heretical sect.

Clement of Alexandria might "allude" but clearly he does not describe the LDS practice of Baptism for the dead.

Of course this is just one set of the many doctrinal evidences showing the universal apostasy.

Clearly you have not shown even one set that would support the Mormon myth of "the universal apostasy". If Mormons want their claim of a complete apostasy to be taken seriously, they must display clearly biblical and historical evidence supporting it.

[BCSpace]

Clearly you have not shown any evidence ... clearly Mormon teachings are inconsistent with the early Church teachings.

Irenaeus is talking about "preaching His advent", clearly no mention of Baptism for the dead ...

Clement of Alexandria is talking about "preached the Gospel", clearly no mention of Baptism for the dead ...

Origen is talking about "He dwelt among those souls", clearly no mention of Baptism for the dead ...

The Pastor of Hermas is talking about "preached", clearly no mention of Baptism for the dead ...

The concept johnny misses is that the ECF taught that the gospel was preached to the dead (departed souls). Why is that if perhaps they had already heard the gospel? And why preach to them at all if baptism is out of reach since baptism is a requirement for salvation?

Clement of Alexandria might "allude" but clearly he does not describe the LDS practice of Baptism for the dead.

Yet the spectre is there. Like Bible, ECF history is not closed.

R.E. DeMaris says "saints", others would say they were not orthodox Christians, that they were a heretical sect.

Yet he calls them saints and Paul spoke highly of them in 1 Cor 15. Hmmmm....

[johnny]

BCSpace,

The concept johnny misses is that the ECF taught that the gospel was preached to the dead (departed souls).

Preaching the gospel is not even close to the LDS practice of baptising the dead.

Why is that if perhaps they had already heard the gospel?

Jesus Proclaimed the Good News to the Spirits Imprisoned ... maybe the Catholic teachings below will help you understand:

634 - "The gospel was preached even to the dead" [1 Pt 4:6]. The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption

632 - Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Saviour, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there [1 Pt 3:18-19]

And why preach to them at all if baptism is out of reach since baptism is a requirement for salvation?

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Luke.18

[26] And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?

[27] And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Yet the spectre is there. Like Bible, ECF history is not closed.

What is there are other ECF teachings and the Bible which do not support the LDS doctrines.

Yet he calls them saints and Paul spoke highly of them in 1 Cor 15. Hmmmm....

Which verse calles "them saints"?

Read again, Paul does not speak "highly of them", he simply says:

1Cor.15

[29] Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm revisiting this thread to observe that cksalmon (as we now learn) edits an avowedly anti-Mormon publication (the Evangel). Yet here he chooses not to take exception to my rather stinging indictment of such ventures, but rather tries to preserve the fiction that the Church regards specific Christian faith groups as "the church of the devil."

Hmm.

CK has informed us he will be bowing out of this thread due to his inability to be objective. We've already had him "outed" as the editor of a particular religious publication (in a thread we closed immediately for board violations against personal threads), and he was a good sport about that, but let's not make him the topic please. -mods