The Church Of The Lamb Of God And The Church Of The Devil

[DJBrown]

The statement is apocalyptic. It simply is referring to the end, when, ultimately, in God's eyes there will only be two churches and everyone will belong to one or the other. Right now is the time to build up the Church of the Lamb in order to save as many people as possible in order that they do not become subject to the devil.

The statement does not refer to the various churches on the earth today, although, the Church of the Devil certainly exists. The Church of the Devil is working hard, just as we should be, to gain converts, in preparation for the day of which Nephi speaks.

Best,

T-Shirt

Bingo!

I totally agree.

Look up all the times the phrase "great and marvelous" occurs in the Book of Mormon. Many refer to the restoration, it is true. But just as many refer to days of great destruction and judgement from God.

[BCSpace]

And since there are save two Churches only, what church then do all nonLDS belong to according to that........?

This is the right question.

However, you have answered it for yourself that all nonLDS by that token are in the Church of the Devil; but the answer that most people realize when pondering on this, since it is obvious that most people on the earth do not belong to the Church of the Devil (since most are sincere and honest people), then it follows that all nonLDS (all people, period) DO belong to the Church of the Lamb of God (unless they are truly wicked by some measure of their behavior). Anyone who perpetuates that which is good, is within the Church of the Lamb of God, as far as the fortunes of this world and its history.

Incorrect. They belong to the church of the Devil on paper and that is a stumbling-block for them because it prevents them from hearing the word of God, the fulness of the gospel as implied by rthe aforementioned D&C 35. So likewise, and LDS person may belong to the Church of Christ on paper but spiritually be of the church of the Devil.

The statement is apocalyptic. It simply is referring to the end, when, ultimately, in God's eyes there will only be two churches and everyone will belong to one or the other. Right now is the time to build up the Church of the Lamb in order to save as many people as possible in order that they do not become subject to the devil.

Also incorrect. The context of 1 Nephi 14 is the history of the world in which the two churches exist. The question to ask is what spirit posesses you now.

[cinepro]

LDS have always believed and interpreted it according to it's intended context. That is it's describing good and evil, not an actual "Church".

Overstate much?

In 1 Nephi chapter 13 we read of Nephi’s vision of the great and abominable church – whose founder was the devil (6) – which would take many precious teachings away from the scriptures (26-29). Some Latter-day Saints have supposed that the “great and abominable church” refers to the Roman Catholic Church. The source of this belief is often laid at the feet Elder Bruce R. McConkie who made such charges in his first edition of Mormon Doctrine:

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization.(McConkie [1958], 130.)

Then speaking of harlots in the figurative sense, he [Nephi] designated the Catholic Church as ‘the mother of harlots’... (Ibid., 314-315.)

[under the heading, “Church of the Devil”] The Roman Catholic Church specifically – singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being ‘most abominable above all other churches’ (I Ne. 13:5). (Ibid., 129.)

Later editions of Mormon Doctrine (the second edition didn’t appear until 1966) removed such references, but not before the LDS bestseller popularized the belief among many Latter-day Saints. (See Quinn 2002, and Mauss, 162-3.¹) McConkie, however, was not the first general authority to suggest that the Book of Mormon’s “great and abominable church” and “church of devil” referred to the Catholic Church. In 1854, Orson Pratt wrote that the founder of the Roman Catholic Church was “the Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God” and that they derived their “authority from the Devil....” (Orson Pratt, 2:4, 205.)

http://www.mormonfortress.com/ga.html

So while we may have moved beyond such ideas in our ecumenical leanings, it 's not quite accurate to state it as if all LDS have always believed it that way.

Edited October 20, 2011 by cinepro

[BCSpace]

You are missing the distinctive qualifier in Jesus' teaching: "if it so be that they are built upon my gospel."

No, I distintcly mentioned it and took into account in my post.

Jesus is talking about the "institution" of a "church".

Yep.

This is different from the verse in the OP wherein NEITHER of the two churches mentioned even hold the name of Jesus Christ or Lucifer.

The Lamb of God is another name for Christ.

The distinction is whether or not man himself is a member of the Church of the Lamb of God OR the Church of the Devil. The OP is distinguishing between man's relationship with God versus man's relationship with Satan.

The OP clearly asked, and I quote:

"What are everybody’s interpretations of these scriptures? Which church is the Church of the devil? Which church is the Church of the Lamb of God? If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the church of the Lamb of God, does that mean all other churches are part of the church of the devil?"

Another source which can help clarify this for you is the Book of Revelation. Even though there are seven different churches mentoined which encompass the various ATTRIBUTES of the members of those churches, it is ultimately the individual whose thoughts and actions determine WHICH of the TWO churches in the OP they actually belong to. All of this is explained in the Apocalyptic Revelation of John the Beloved. It rests on whether man is serving God or whether man is serving Satan; NOT whether or not they are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Each of those churches were ostensibly part of the same church and represented the various factors of apostasy yes.

Think of it this way: There are members of the CoJCoLDS who are not fully serving God---they sometimes have one or two feet in the Church of the Lamb of God and are serving God. At other times those same members have one or two feet in the Church of the Devil (planted firmly in the world). Yet at ALL times they are still "officially" (even though not spiritually) a "member" of the CoJCoLDS.

Sure.

Since this is even possible, it is a false conclusion to say that you must be a member of the CoJCoLDS in order to fulfill the qualifications of the OP, as this is NOT a guaranty in God's eyes or in His Judgment that you are serving Him.

Incorrect. For example, if LDS baptism is the only God-authorized baptism, one must indeed become LDS (here or in the after-life) as an absolute requirement. What one does or believes after such baptism is taken care of by assignment to a degree of glory (D&C 76) valiant or less valiant etc.

The same can be said for every other religion/religious institution. Sometimes a member of another religion/religious institution has one or two feet in the Church of the Lamb of God and are serving God. At other times those same members have one or two feet in the Church of the Devil (planted firmly in the world).

Sure. But the actualy institution they belong to is part of the church of the Devil. It prevents them from knowing the fulness of the gospel and participating in it's ordinances and as long as they remain members of such, they cannot have eternal life.

Your doctrine is false; and, as such, is very dangerous.

I have merely presented you with LDS scripture and doctrine.

Please take some time to study and ponder on this.

Done. You've not presented me with anything new or LDS where you think I am in conflict.

If you are making this claim to non-LDS, you could very well be discouraging them from sincerely investigating the LDS Church, as your doctrine contradicts the attributes of God's nature of Love, goodness, fairness, etc.

I am merely quoting LDS scripture and doctrine. At some point, everyone must come to grips with it.

If an investigator believes that your doctrine is LDS Church doctrine, they could understandably become discouraged and walk away before giving themselves the opportunity to do a complete investigation based upon their own personal findings of what the Holy Ghost is waiting to teach them.

On the contrary, my presentation of these LDS doctrines and scriptures have served to differentiate us from other Churches and has been a great help in conversion. The LDS Church abandoned, two decades ago, the notion that "we are Christians just like you" because it resulted in fewer conversions.

Indeed, we must all be wary that we do not join the Church of the Devil through our own actions and choices regardless of the religious institution we hang our hat on.

If one is not LDS, one is already a member of the church of the Devil, on paper at least (not being baptised authoritatively). This is evidenced by our statement "come bring what truths you have with you and we will add to it". The implication being they don't have all the truth, a condition which is of the Devil because it precludes eternal life.

Edited October 20, 2011 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

So while we may have moved beyond such ideas in our ecumenical leanings, it 's not quite accurate to state it as if all LDS have always believed it that way

It's not accurate to state we don't believe it now. The church of the Devil is not a specific church because it encompasses all nonLDS churches (and philosphies). The doctrinal definition is:

"any person, group, organization, or philosophy that works against the Church of Jesus Christ and the salvation of the children of God"

There may indeed be much good, such as righteous living, in another christian church, but such a church will contain false doctrines such as the trinity or sola fide or sola scriptura etc. and such a church will not have the authority to baptize or the priesthood or the other ordinances required and therefore it "works against the Church of Jesus Christ and the salvation of the children of God" by keeping it's members in ignorance and darkness. it does not matter that this is the intent of it's leaders and preachers or not; it's the effect that matters and defines.

Edited October 20, 2011 by BCSpace

[DJBrown]

Incorrect. They belong to the church of the Devil on paper and that is a stumbling-block for them because it prevents them from hearing the word of God, the fulness of the gospel as implied by rthe aforementioned D&C 35. So likewise, and LDS person may belong to the Church of Christ on paper but spiritually be of the church of the Devil.

Also incorrect. The context of 1 Nephi 14 is the history of the world in which the two churches exist. The question to ask is what spirit posesses you now.

What about verses 1 and 6 of chapter 14:

1 "And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks—

6 "Therefore, wo be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God.

These verses are clearly describing a conditional promise to the gentiles- if they hearken unto the They will be blessed. If they reject the Lamb, then :

verse 7"

"For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a ^amarvelous work among the children of men; a ^bwork which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto ^cpeace and ^dlife eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the ^ecaptivity of the devil, of which I have spoken."

So Nephi is describing the consequences of the response from the gentiles to the restoration, not the restoration itself.

Christ discusses this topic in 3 Nephi, starting in Chapter 20 verse 10. I think I had read the BOM 20 times before I really noticed this important discourse for what I think it is.

And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not ^arepent after the ^bblessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people—

16 Then shall ye, who are a ^aremnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young ^blion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both ^ctreadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

[Sky]

I appreciate everybody’s responses. It’s always been a not-so-easy-to-answer question for me. On the one hand, the scripture that I referenced in 1^st Nephi comes across as being very black-and-white, but the way it gets interpreted often seems more abstract and lenient. It’s a little more complicated than it just being a matter of their being only two churches out there.

I did a little research, and here is what I found. Bruce R. McConkie defined the great and abominable church this way:

“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).

Under this broad of a definition, virtually anything could be considered part of the church of the devil. While Latter-day Saints may technically be a part of the Church of the Lamb, we are certainly not immune from the influences of the world.

And I would hate to tell my Catholic and Protestant friends that they are a part of the Church of the Devil simply because they are not members of TCOJCOLDS. Like most of us, they are doing the best they can with what they have.

So I think the scripture in 1^st Nephi is most likely referring to our spiritual state of being regardless of which particular church institution we belong to. At least this is what I’m leaning towards now.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Sky

[Maidservant]

I think this scripture goes beyond our personal choices, and highlights the forces and choices, those things which are working in the world . . . whether to bring mankind into captivity, or to bring mankind into light, freedom, peace, eternal life. It's a world salvation, not only a personal salvation (referred to in these passages).

[ldsfaqs]

BCspace.... As Jo explained, you're conflating two different issues. The verse in question is using "Church" in a "spiritual" sense, not in a literal sense.

Further, you still haven't addressed the fact that another Latter-day verse clearly debunks your interpretation.

"Contend against no Church save the Church of the Devil".

This verse makes entirely clear that the "Church" in this context is referring to the SPIRITUAL battle between good and evil, and thus NOT an actual Church. After all, it specifically says to contend against NO CHURCH. Can't get more clear than that that your interpretation is false.

Edited October 20, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[ldsfaqs]

Overstate much?

So while we may have moved beyond such ideas in our ecumenical leanings, it 's not quite accurate to state it as if all LDS have always believed it that way.

If you had actually read my post, I made clear that Orson Pratt and McConkie had such views..... But their views on this also were false doctrine, and they BOTH were corrected on it.

Mormons believe all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them believed by mormons nor the Church. Thus, I didn't overstate at all. Exceptions to the rule, which I even indicate thus knowing and pre-empting your anti-mormon argument, does not make the rule. Understand?

[ldsfaqs]

I appreciate everybody’s responses. It’s always been a not-so-easy-to-answer question for me. On the one hand, the scripture that I referenced in 1^st Nephi comes across as being very black-and-white, but the way it gets interpreted often seems more abstract and lenient. It’s a little more complicated than it just being a matter of their being only two churches out there.

I did a little research, and here is what I found. Bruce R. McConkie defined the great and abominable church this way:

“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).

Under this broad of a definition, virtually anything could be considered part of the church of the devil. While Latter-day Saints may technically be a part of the Church of the Lamb, we are certainly not immune from the influences of the world.

And I would hate to tell my Catholic and Protestant friends that they are a part of the Church of the Devil simply because they are not members of TCOJCOLDS. Like most of us, they are doing the best they can with what they have.

So I think the scripture in 1^st Nephi is most likely referring to our spiritual state of being regardless of which particular church institution we belong to. At least this is what I’m leaning towards now.

That is correct.... That is the actual doctrine of the Church and always has been. And when-ever the other idea popped up, be it Orson Pratt or McConkies first edition of Mormon Doctrine, the brethren corrected them. The context of the verse in question is speaking of the spiritual battle between good and evil, not the "physical" authorized Church.

Frankly, if it was referring to the physical Church, then why are the dead able to be exalted in LDS Temples? Thus, those who interpret it as BCspace has, are entirely wrong.

[T-Shirt]

Also incorrect. The context of 1 Nephi 14 is the history of the world in which the two churches exist. The question to ask is what spirit posesses you now.

You are free to believe so, but I think you are wrong. Your dogmatic, black & white approach, as I see it, doesn't fit well with the practice of the Church, nor does it make any sense.

Best,

T-Shirt

[jo1952]

The Lamb of God is another name for Christ.

Yes, the Lamb of God IS another name for Christ. However, you are trying to change the actual words used in order to make them fit your interpretation. It is causing you to miss the point that the two churches being pointed to are not the CoJCoLDS vs the Church of the Devil.

Each of those churches were ostensibly part of the same church and represented the various factors of apostasy yes.

Those churches are also representative of all churches TODAY. In fact, there are layers of understanding within the attributes of each of the seven churches. One can also see a historicity of a time-line given to each church if you study and ponder it. As far as the various factors of apostasy go, members of the LDS Church are not immune to the very same factors of apostasy. Now, we have been promised to not be led into apostasy; however, individual members are given no promise that they will not stray of their own accord and choices or incorrect interpretations of doctrine. Also, members of ALL churches who are believers in Christ make up the whole body of Christ; NOT just only the LDS believers.

Incorrect. For example, if LDS baptism is the only God-authorized baptism, one must indeed become LDS (here or in the after-life) as an absolute requirement. What one does or believes after such baptism is taken care of by assignment to a degree of glory (D&C 76) valiant or less valiant etc.

I believe you are confusing the Restoration of the Priesthood as well as the ordinances being performed only in the LDS Church with an interpretation that we are, therefore, the only Church of the Lamb of God. Let's see what this belief looks like. For instance, we perform baptisms for the dead. These dead include millions of people who died before the Restoration. They were not members of the LDS Church. The LDS Church is using the authority given to her by God to perform the necessary ordinances. These ordinances are not being performed so that the dead can become members of the LDS Church. They are being performed so that the dead can have their necessary ordinances done. They are not posthumously being made members of the LDS Church; they are posthumously having their ordinances performed so that they can enter whatever Glory of Heaven which Christ will Judge them worthy of. Through the vehicle of the LDS Church, their ordinance work is then being recorded. I do not think that the "name" of Jesus' Church after the resurrection of all mankind has been completed will be "The CofJCoLDS". I think it will be more along the lines of "the Church of the Lamb of God". The LDS Church is a "vehicle" being used in the latter-days; but it is not the ONLY "vehicle" which God uses or recognizes as the only legitimate path back to His presence. Indeed, the BoM itself teaches us that people were baptized and saved back in BoM days. The Bible teaches us that people in Biblical days were baptized and saved. They were also doing baptisms for the dead in Biblical days. Do you see where your belief does not fit?

Sure. But the actualy institution they belong to is part of the church of the Devil. It prevents them from knowing the fulness of the gospel and participating in it's ordinances and as long as they remain members of such, they cannot have eternal life.

The institutions may be teaching some or even many incorrect doctrines. This does not automatically remove the believer from the Body of Christ. Ordinances can be performed for both the living and the dead. If a person would have had a proper opportunity to hear and understand the Restored Gospel message (and WE are not able to determine if a person has had such a proper opportunity because we do not know what influences may cause them to turn a missionary away, or how many times a seed needs to be planted....that is for Jesus to know and determine), and God knows that person would have then accepted it, we are taught that that person will be able to attain the highest Glory of Heaven as though they HAD accepted it in their mortal life.

I have merely presented you with LDS scripture and doctrine.

No, you have presented your interpretation of LDS scripture and doctrine.

Done. You've not presented me with anything new or LDS where you think I am in conflict.

I disagree, as do others who have posted to this thread.

I am merely quoting LDS scripture and doctrine. At some point, everyone must come to grips with it.

Again, you are presenting your interpretation of LDS scripture and doctrine. Do I believe that individuals need to have their ordinances performed? Absolutely. God has given the LDS Church the authority to perform those ordinances. A person does not have to be a member of the LDS Church in order to have those ordinances performed. That is WHY we perform ordinances for the dead.

On the contrary, my presentation of these LDS doctrines and scriptures have served to differentiate us from other Churches and has been a great help in conversion. The LDS Church abandoned, two decades ago, the notion that "we are Christians just like you" because it resulted in fewer conversions.

Actually, I believe the notion "we are Christians just like you" was abandoned because Orthodoxy had scewed the definition of what being a Christian was to the point that we could no longer agree with their evolved definition. IOW, the Church's definition did not change; the world's definition changed.

If one is not LDS, one is already a member of the church of the Devil, on paper at least (not being baptised authoritatively). This is evidenced by our statement "come bring what truths you have with you and we will add to it". The implication being they don't have all the truth, a condition which is of the Devil because it precludes eternal life.

Yes, we do tell others to "come bring what truths you have with you and we will add to it". However, we also teach and are taught that WE search for Truth everywhere that we can find it. If we are searching for it, then obviously we don't have all of the Truth. In fact, it is the Holy Ghost who leads us to all Truth. The Holy Ghost does not only lead members of the LDS Church. He leads EVERY believer to whatever Truth Father deems a believer is ready and capable of understanding and having revealed to them. Do not confuse receiving the Holy Ghost by the laying of hands (which is a necessary ordinance), with having exclusivity to the power and direction of the Holy Ghost.

Have you had a chance to read the link which Calmoriah provided? I believe it could be very useful for you in understanding the concept of the Church of the Lamb of God and the Church of the Devil, versus your interpretation of The CoJCoLDS vs the Church of the Devil.

Regards,

jo

Edited October 21, 2011 by jo1952

[Cobalt-70]

The 1988 Ensign article "Warring Against the Saints of God" is the most complete and accurate explanation of the phrase "Church of the Devil" I've seen and thus the least likely to be misinterpreted even by those who enjoy feeling superior to their brethren....which is, interestingly enough one of the stated characteristics of the inhabitants of the great and spacious building.

It's an interesting article, but would have been better if Robinson had written it for an academic journal, and thus used more academic rigor. You can't tell which parts of his article are wild speculation by a believing Mormon, and which parts are reasoned conclusions by a professor. Does anybody know if he has written academically on this subject? Maybe BYU Studies?

[CV75]

1^st Nephi 14: 10-11:

What are everybody’s interpretations of these scriptures? Which church is the Church of the devil? Which church is the Church of the Lamb of God? If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the church of the Lamb of God, does that mean all other churches are part of the church of the devil? I personally don’t interpret it that rigidly, and I don’t think most LDS do either. Does the LDS Church have a position? It seems to me that the LDS Church tries to be diplomatic in its relations with other churches, and acknowledges that other faiths have some of the truth. How do we reconcile that with this scripture?

I think the Church wants each of us to read, interpret and act with inspiration from the Holy Ghost. Our leaders are doing the same thing and acting accordingly, hence the Church carries out its mission to reach out to all of mankind with loving invitation to come unto Christ.

To me, Nephi 14 focuses on the condition of the Gentiles and the covenant people in the latter days, especially with regards to the impact of the Restoration and the activities that flow from it as the Lord prepares His people for His return.

The one church is comprised of the covenant saints (verse 14), and the other is comprised of whoever works in concert with the devil (verse 3, those who “digged” the great pit to lead the souls of men to hell, for their destruction).

I suppose that, just as the membership of the church of the Lamb of God, or the number of saints is small (verse 12), so I would say the number of “anti-saints” or the membership of the church of the devil is also small. Everyone else (in this chapter, those unbeleiving “Gentiles”) is prevented from becoming saints because of the stumbling blocks, the great pit and the captivity of the devil and his church, and may or may not belong to other “churches” (as we call them, but are not recognized as churches in this chapter). So while not members of the great and abominable church or the church of the devil, they are still confounded and kept back from the truth and the church of the Lamb because of its effectiveness.

In this way a small number has dominion over the whole earth (Isaiah 14, “the man that made the earth to tremble”). Even those who harden their hearts against the Lord (or, as in Nephi 14, against the Restoration) are not by default members of the church of the devil. Unless and until they go beyond hardening their heart and actually become anti-Christ in the intent of their hearts, they are simply damned.

I think the reason this chapter only recognizes the two churches, and not the many churches, denominations and belief systems that we recognize, and also does not lump these into either the church of the Lamb or the church of the devil, is that these are the only two churches that have existed and operated from the beginning, and they are the only two that have a hand in drawing God’s children to or away from the truth in these last days. Any other organization is simply a symptom of the war between the two, being only secondary or on middle ground, their members being fair game for those who would gather them or those who would destroy them.

Edited October 21, 2011 by CV75

[cinepro]

Why the use of the term "church" ? Could it not have been better clarified with a different term like kingdom or somesuch. Most people have a vision of what a church means. The devil may have lots of buildings and institutions but few would call them "churches"

This is one of the biggest problems with the philosophical interpretation (i.e. "it's not a church, it's people who think a certain way"). In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi is seeing a vision of something that will happen in the future. So whatever we believe the Church of the Devil to be, it has to be something that wasn't there in 600 BC.

As far as I know, there were people who were fighting against the people of God (hence Lehi and his family leaving in the first place), so it doesn't make much sense to hypothesize that such people were "The Church of the Devil", since according to the angel they weren't around yet.

[1] And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld many nations and kingdoms.

[2] And the angel said unto me: What beholdest thou? And I said: I behold many nations and kingdoms.

[3] And he said unto me: These are the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles.

[4] And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.

[5] And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

[6] And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

[7] And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.

[8] And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.

[9] And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

[10] And it came to pass that I looked and beheld many waters; and they divided the Gentiles from the seed of my brethren.

1 Nephi 13

I think Robinson does a great job addressing this issue in his Ensign article, but his argument seems to rely on semantics (Catholics weren't called "Catholics" until much later, so it can't be referring to them").

More often, some have suggested that the Roman Catholic church might be the great and abominable church of Nephi 13. This is also untenable, primarily because Roman Catholicism as we know it did not yet exist when the crimes described by Nephi were being committed. In fact, the term Roman Catholic only makes sense after A.D. 1054 when it is used to distinguish the Western, Latin-speaking Orthodox church that followed the bishop of Rome from the Eastern, Greek-speaking Orthodox church that followed the bishop of Constantinople.

In the period between Peter and the Roman emperor Constantine, there were many Christian churches besides the Orthodox church: Ebionites, Syrian and Egyptian churches, Donatists, Gnostics, Marcionites, and so on. Even if we use the term Catholic for the church Constantine made the state religion in A.D. 313, the New Testament as we know it was already widely circulating. That is, the plain and precious parts had already been removed. The notion of shifty-eyed medieval monks rewriting the scriptures is unfair and bigoted. We owe those monks a debt of gratitude that anything was saved at all.

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

Actually, no single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church: it must have formed among the Gentiles; it must have edited and controlled the distribution of the scriptures; it must have slain the Saints of God, including the Apostles and prophets; it must be in league with civil governments and use their police power to enforce its religious views; it must have dominion over all the earth; it must pursue great wealth and sexual immorality; and it must last until close to the end of the world. No single denomination or system of beliefs fits the entire description. Rather, the role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and churches in many different times. It should be clear that the great and abominable church that Nephi described in chapter 13 is not the same historical entity that crucified the Savior or that martyred Joseph and Hyrum.

It would be an error to blame some modern denomination for the activities of an ancient great and abominable church. The other error is to go too far the other way, dehistoricizing the abominable church altogether. The term then becomes merely a vague symbol for all the disassociated evil in the world. We cannot, in the face of the scriptural evidence, accept this view. For if we do, we shall not be able to recognize the categories and know who is playing the role of Babylon in our own times or in times to come. Thus, we must, on the one hand, avoid the temptation to identify the role of the great and abominable church so completely with one particular entity that we do not recognize the part when it is played by some other entity. At the same time, we must remember that the role will be played by some entity or coalition, and we must be able to tell by their characteristic fruits which is Zion and which is Babylon.

But he does a great job of actually trying to explain what the Book of Mormon says about the "church of the devil".

Edited October 21, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

If you had actually read my post, I made clear that Orson Pratt and McConkie had such views..... But their views on this also were false doctrine, and they BOTH were corrected on it.

Mormons believe all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them believed by mormons nor the Church. Thus, I didn't overstate at all. Exceptions to the rule, which I even indicate thus knowing and pre-empting your anti-mormon argument, does not make the rule. Understand?

I strongly suspect you overestimate the degree to which current Church members (if they've thought about it at all) don't think it's referring to the Catholic Church.

Edited October 21, 2011 by cinepro

[jadams_4242]

1^st Nephi 14: 10-11:

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

What are everybody’s interpretations of these scriptures? Which church is the Church of the devil? Which church is the Church of the Lamb of God? If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the church of the Lamb of God, does that mean all other churches are part of the church of the devil? I personally don’t interpret it that rigidly, and I don’t think most LDS do either. Does the LDS Church have a position? It seems to me that the LDS Church tries to be diplomatic in its relations with other churches, and acknowledges that other faiths have some of the truth. How do we reconcile that with this scripture?

God will not be mocked; as other faiths do bring many good things, they also error in things that matter most..

[Calm]

The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all . . . organizations of whatever name or nature.....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....

Under this broad of a definition, virtually anything could be considered part of the church of the devil. While Latter-day Saints may technically be a part of the Church of the Lamb, we are certainly not immune from the influences of the world.

Considering how the vast majority of churches are designed to lead people to God, even though their design may be lacking it would seem to me that such a church that spends its time and resources on encouraging people to seek God, to increase their faith in him are of the Church of the Lamb. Where they run into danger in my view is when they spend more time trying to tear down another's faith instead of building it up....teach the right, don't preach the wrong.

[Maidservant]

The Church of the Lamb has as one of its properties . . . reconciliation between God and man (atonement, redemption). Anything that creates unity between mankind is the Church of the Lamb (see Moses 7 and the definition of Zion; i.e. Zion is NOT the church, Zion is being of one heart and mind). Anything that creates bloodshed and division is the Church of the Devil. If you read the scriptures as a whole (ie contention is of the devil; and AGAIN, I cannot overestimate the importance of Moses 7), then you can see this as the great and marvelous work, plain as day.

There are many, many people who are working by various vehicles (churches, organizations, personal service, raising families) who are part of the work of brining mankind into one . . . which is what is necessary for a celestial condition.

[CV75]

There are many, many people who are working by various vehicles (churches, organizations, personal service, raising families) who are part of the work of brining mankind into one . . . which is what is necessary for a celestial condition.

I believe much of what you say here is accurate and true in that no one will be punished for any good they do or hold onto. But I do not think this chapter conveys that the Gentiles are required or consigned to be a member of either church. They are shown as either coming into the church of the Lamb of God with the saints and covenant people, or being made captives of the devil and destroyed, which is not the same as being a member of the church of the devil.

Stumbling, being confounded, hard hearts, etc. are not the same as the outright war against the church of the Lamb that is carried out by the church of the devil. I see the Gentiles spoken of in verse 6 more as potential casualties than potential converts to the church of the devil.

The chapter doesn’t really define who the members of the church of the devil are, or how many they are, only that its dominion is great. It does say that it is founded by the devil and his children, so there must be some willing participants. But I think there are very few, based on Isaiah 14:16.

I think until any well-intentioned Gentile is only kept from the truth only because he doesn’t know where to find it (D&C 123:12). He is not part of the church of the Lamb of God, but is certainly not part of the church of the devil either. Likewise, any Gentile organization that is well-intentioned is neither part of the church of the Lamb nor of the church of the devil. There is potential to unite with the church of the Lamb once the stumbling blocks are removed of their own volition. There is also potential to remain captive as long as the stumbling blocks remain a treasure.

The invitation in 1 Nephi 14 is to become part of the church of the Lamb and not a victim of the church of the devil. Of course people still have the choice of becoming part of the church of the devil if they wish, but that isn’t highlighted in this chapter (for good reason)!

[LeSellers]

There are many, many people who are working by various vehicles (churches, organizations, personal service, raising families) who are part of the work of brining mankind into one ... .

How much salt does it take to brine mankind into one?

What a pickle we'd be in were it to happen, anyway!

Lehi

[jo1952]

How much salt does it take to brine mankind into one?

What a pickle we'd be in were it to happen, anyway!

Lehi

Lehi,

You are so punny and bad!! Now, so we don't get carried away by the typo (which we ALL make!), I would like to point out that I very much liked Maidservant's comments.

Love,

jo

[LeSellers]

You are so punny and bad!!

A day without laughter is a day wasted (and potentially deadly).

Lehi

[Loran Blood]

Intentionality. People of all faiths, if they are doing good insofar as they understand it, are part of the Church of God.

This isn't LDS doctrine. Anyone outside modern, latter day organized society and representative of Jesus Christ and his gospel, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, is outside the restored Kingdom of God, outside of Zion, and enmeshed to some degree with the Great and Abominable Church. There is only one way into the latter day Kingdom, and just living a good and generally righteous life, in a broad sense, is not sufficient. That way is by repentance and baptism for remission of sins and reception of the Holy Ghost by one having authority to officiate in these initiatory ordinances of the gospel, followed by faithful acceptance of all other ordinances and blessings of the Kingdom, including reception of the priesthood, Temple worship and endurance to "the end."

Those outside the restored Kingdom who live righteously (at least at a Terrestrial level of law) could certainly be understood to be among the righteous and among those who will eventually live alongside (especially Millennially speaking) and be absorbed into the church of Jesus Christ, but so long as they remain outside his divinely organized church, they are outside the 'household of faith" and are not, as yet, "fellow citizens" with the Saints. As has already been pointed out, this has no bearing on their moral or ethical qualities. Nonetheless, the scriptures and teachings of the modern prophets are quite clear that the Kingdom and church of Christ has been restored in its fulness in the Last Days in preparation for the second advent of the Savior, that this Kingdom has a name, an identity, authorized ministers of the gospel, and specific doctrines that mark it as unique, distinct, and separate from the world and its values - even some of the better of them.