The Church Of The Devil

[LeSellers]

The problem with the "it's a philosophy" approach is that, as of ~600BC when Nephi was talking with the angel, the "Church" had yet to be "formed" yet.

The Church was formed no later than Sinai. The Hebrew words "congregation" and "assembly" could just as accurately be translated "church".

I believe there was a Church of Jesus Christ in Enoch, and long before that, north of Eden.

Lehi

[Mark Beesley]

I want to make sure I understand this.

Even if Joseph translated the plates "by the gift and power of God," and an angel told the three witnesses that they'd been "translated correctly," we still don't know if the word Joseph chose to use (in 1 Nephi 14:10) really describes what the angel who spoke to Nephi intended?

That is kind of a diversion from the thrust of the topic, doncha think?

[Loran Blood]

The Church of the Devil idea has always within the Church been an "ideological" construct, not a literal one referencing a specific religion.

Both Orson Pratt and McConkie were corrected and/or sanctioned when they tried to promote this idea.

This idea came originally from Protestantism, and thus given the heritage and education of Orson and McConkie, it wasn't unreasonable that "some" small numbers of members of the Church incorrectly had this belief. However, Mormonism itself always taught that the Church of the Devil is anything evil and false of the world. Most religions simply don't fit that description because they usually teach "more" truth than they teach that which is false. Plus, anyone with a more "discerning" mind can read the scriptures said scriptures in question and see that it is talking about an ideology, not any particular religion. Only by "adding" to the Word doesn't someone interpret those scriptures as being specific to a religion. The verses themselves simply do not say anything about it, just as the Bible verse that God is spirit, saying anything about God "only" being spirit. Adding to the Word is a no no.

I'd have to disagree here and broaden this somewhat. As I understand this concept, it is not an "ideological construct" (and I think the term "ideology" is probably being misused here) but any ideology and any organization, of whatever kind, be it political, philosophical, educational, fraternal, religious, or whatever, who's overall tendency is to move human beings away from light, away from truth, and away from the Kingdom of God. Once one is on the "other side" of the Kingdom, the quantity of truth to falsehood isn't so much the issue as the general tendency.

A number of organizations, ideologies, and philosophies of the Latter Days, are also, hardly marginal in their hostility to "light and truth" and to the gospel generally speaking. Many are overtly conflictual.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

They are both trying to establish world domination and world peace through different means. T

The Church of the Devil is trying to establish "world peace?"

[Loran Blood]

In the temple he claims to be the instrument of peace while at the same time threating war and horror. He's insane and so are his followers. Insane yet very cunning. Did you read 1984? War is peace.

I see where you're coming from here, although this concept could stand a good deal of fleshing out.

I don't, however, think Satan insane.

Not a bit.

[Mark Beesley]

Thanks for the comments, many of which I have found insightful and thought-provoking.

[inquiringmind]

That is kind of a diversion from the thrust of the topic, doncha think?

Maybe, but I am interested in your thoughts on this.

(Should I start another topic heading on it?)

[BCSpace]

According to the scriptures, "there are save two churches only" 1 Nephi 14:10. Catholics and Protestants, for example, are not part of the Church of the Lamb of God. Evidence for that are D&C 76 which relegates nonLDS Christians (who decide remain that way after death) to the Telestial glory and JS-H 1:19. Other religions and most philosophies don't come close. So yes, if one is not LDS (or the ancient equivalent), one is not part of the Church of the Lamb of God and therefore is a member of the church of the Devil.

The LDS Guide to the Scriptures defines the church of the Devil as "Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God." The pure and perfect gospel as revealed by God is not and cannot be found in other churches.

Like all churches, there are "actives" and "inactives" so being part of the church of the Devil is not necessarily catastrophic unless it prevents one and those around one from attaining eternal life through the required joining of Christ's (the LDS) Church.

Edited July 28, 2011 by BCSpace

[etana]

According to the scriptures, "there are save two churches only" 1 Nephi 14:10. Catholics and Protestants, for example, are not part of the Church of the Lamb of God. Evidence for that are D&C 76 which relegates nonLDS Christians (who decide remain that way after death) to the Telestial glory and JS-H 1:19. Other religions and most philosophies don't come close. So yes, if one is not LDS (or the ancient equivalent), one is not part of the Church of the Lamb of God and therefore is a member of the church of the Devil.

...

Did you miss Calmoriah's quote from the Ensign that contradicts what you said above. If it's in the Ensign it must be doctrine.

edited to add

Edited July 28, 2011 by etana

[BCSpace]

Did you miss Calmoriah's quote from the Ensign that contradicts what you said above.

Nope.

If it's in the Ensign it must be doctrine.

Yep. But the GS is newer, iirc, than the 1988 Ensign. In addition, from the current BoM student manual pg 27:

"Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles defined the great

and abominable church: “The titles church of the

devil and great and abominable church are used to

identify all . . . organizations of whatever name or

nature—whether political, philosophical, educational,

economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which

are designed to take men on a course that leads away

from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the

kingdom of God” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966],

137–38)."

edited to add

Edited July 28, 2011 by BCSpace

[ldsfaqs]

BCspace..... The McConkie quote doesn't actually support your position. It's a general statement referring to any and all things which is perversion and false.

This by the way is the "edited/corrected" 2nd edition of his book, which is the correct and accurate understanding per LDS theology. The theology refers to no "particular" religion.

Obviously any religion, person, ideology etc. which says or does false and wrong is "in that thing" a PART of the Church of the devil. But that doesn't make then entire religion, person, group, all ideology's, etc. as being a part of the Church of the Devil. As other's have said, even LDS can be a part of it, when they pervert the Gospel etc. such as liberal LDS do.

Edited July 29, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Robert F. Smith]

The problem with the "it's a philosophy" approach is that, as of ~600BC when Nephi was talking with the angel, the "Church" had yet to be "formed" yet.

This is a common misconception. John Tvedtnes long ago dealt with this issue in his book The Church of the Old Testament. The KJV and other translations frequently mask the fact that "church" is merely a modern English form of more archaic kirk and kirche, which were derived from Greek Kyriakos "belonging to the Lord (i.e. The Congregation of the Lord)." Such terms parallel LXX and NT Greeksynagoge, and ekklesia, and refer directly to and translate well-known Hebrew terms for "congregation" (kehilla, 'eda, etc.), which lie behind the modern terms. In other words, the Book of Mormon term "church" should be interpreted as "congregation." I don't know how that was rendered in the Egyptian on the gold plates, although there are several attractive possibilities.

On the other hand, the Robinson quote is excellent.

[BCSpace]

BCspace..... The McConkie quote doesn't actually support your position. It's a general statement referring to any and all things which is perversion and false.

"Indentify all" is quite clear. Plus is not just BRM, it's the Church as it is published in one of it's manuals.

This by the way is the "edited/corrected" 2nd edition of his book, which is the correct and accurate understanding per LDS theology. The theology refers to no "particular" religion.

BRM's book of itself is not doctrinal nor is it necessarily accurate. What's important though is that what I quoted comes from a published manual of the Church

Obviously any religion, person, ideology etc. which says or does false and wrong is "in that thing" a PART of the Church of the devil. But that doesn't make then entire religion, person, group, all ideology's, etc. as being a part of the Church of the Devil. As other's have said, even LDS can be a part of it, when they pervert the Gospel etc. such as liberal LDS do.

By not looking at the manual, you've missed something very important. It also goes on to state very similarly to Robinson in the '88 Ensign. Now if we assumed your understanding is correct, which it isn't quite, then we have conflict between the two. The proper understanding, which assumes both statements are correct, is that #1, BRM is correct and all these organiations are part of the church of the Devil, not just "parts", and #2, a person can be a member of or aligned with the church of the Devil, and not participate in it or do work actively against it.

But the answer to this question can be obtained much more simply. Can any church besides the LDS Church put you on the path to exaltation? The answer is no and therefore any church which can't is part of the church of the Devil.

Besides churches, any organization that leads one away from the gospel or it's commandments and principles is also by definition, part of the Church of the Devil. And wether one likes it or not, any member of these organizations is a member of the church of the Devil. What they do with what they have and if they are inclined to obey true principles when they hear it is another matter entirely.

Edited July 29, 2011 by BCSpace

[ldsfaqs]

You go to far BCspace.... A person or thing is only a part of the Church of the Devil in the thing they are part of it. An entire religion isn't of the Church of the Devil, nor is an entire person.

What you are saying is like saying that just because I swore the other day, that makes me part of the Church of the devil. That is simply false. Yes, in that act, I'm momentarily a part of it, but I myself, my entire being, etc. is not of the Church of the Devil. I'm a faithful, good latter-day Saint, certainly NOT of the Church of the Devil.

Can you not understand the difference?

BTW, I'm not disagreeing with the manual or the quote, I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of it. It's wrong. One reason I know that is because it's the very interpretation that the Church chastised with both McConkie and Orson Pratt. The doctrine is not referring to any "particular" religion, it's referring to an ideology, the one of evil and falsehood, that anyone might embrace, religion or otherwise. It is the battle between for forces of light and the forces of darkness. The Church of the Devil are the forces of darkness, and the Church of the Lamb are the forces of good and righteousness. This separation has NEVER EVER referred to a particular religion or individual. And it is the very reason we don't have ministry's against other religions, because we are to contend against evil, and the forces of darkness, not those who seek and do good, even if they are in some sort of error about some things. We follow Christ's words in Mark/Luke 9 concerning other believers not with us. Thus, it would be wise if you read his words and understand that we are not to contend against nor offend Christ's other children. By calling all others the Church of the Devil, you are doing that very thing.

Edited July 29, 2011 by ldsfaqs