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

[Sky]

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.

So it looks like you take a more literal interpretation of the Church of the Lamb of God specifically referring to God’s latter-day kingdom – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s doesn’t include those people who live good, righteous lives but aren’t technically members of the said Church.

If you are not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you are by default part of the great and abominable church to some degree regardless of your personal righteousness.

Am I interpreting your position correctly?

Your position does sound credible to me, but I’m still not sure what the right answer is.

It seems to me like different people interpret these verses differently, but the official Church doctrine is somewhat unclear.

[Loran Blood]

So it looks like you take a more literal interpretation of the Church of the Lamb of God specifically referring to God’s latter-day kingdom – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s doesn’t include those people who live good, righteous lives but aren’t technically members of the said Church.

Frankly, I think it probably includes both those who are within the Kingdom as a matter of membership (members of the Latter day church) as well as those who are or would be associated with it (non-members of the organized Kingdom who are good, just, and noble of the earth) and support it and its values/principles, in a general sense, against "the Great and Spacious Building." My sense is that those living a Terrestrial law, especially those living at the higher regions of that level on light and knowledge, even though not having accepted the fulness of the gospel, and hence, by scriptural definition, having some association with the "church of the Devil" as described in scripture, have also cultivated a substantial distaste for and distance from it. So there is going to be a bit of complexity and nuance to the place each individual finds himself in. The scriptures indicate that the two churches are absolutely separate and distinct from one another, but I don't think this means that all individuals within the precincts of the Satanic system are there either intentionally or hold any but a tenuous connection to it. Acceptance of the restored gospel, baptism, and valient living of the gospel are the final break, or separation, from spiritual Babylon.

If you are not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you are by default part of the great and abominable church to some degree regardless of your personal righteousness.

That does seem to be what the scriptures indicate is the case, even though nowhere do the same scriptures indicate that all those within the Great and Abominable Church are there because they enjoy or subscribe to most of its own values and beliefs. Being a part of the restored gospel and a member of the latter day Kingdom goes beyond being good and toward the concept of exhalation, which is not possible outside that Kingdom (save for those who never, as the D&C mentions, had the chance in this life to know or accept it, but would have had they had such an opportunity). Personal righteousness is key to exhalation, but there is also the problem of having a correct and undistorted knowledge of truth, and the higher ordinances. Righteousness is available to all, whether within or without the church. Gospel truths, correct knowledge, Priesthood authority, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and the ordinances of exaltation to be had only in the Temples of the Lord, are not, and hence, I think, one reason for the absolute division between the Kingdom of God and the abominable Church, which is intended to be vastly inclusive, not just of real wickedness, in the moral and spiritual sense, but of the harboring of any principles or ways of life inconsistent with the gospel

Am I interpreting your position correctly?

Moving toward, I think. Its a bit more complex than perhaps I let on in the first post. Things such as this many times are.

It seems to me like different people interpret these verses differently, but the official Church doctrine is somewhat unclear.

Official doctrine is very clear on some points, however, one being that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is the only true, living (divinely appointed, organized, and led) church on earth, and that it is the present manifestation of the same church that has been on the earth in numerous dispensations throughout time, from Adam to the present. I would also say that it is clear that the final point, or act of exit from the Kingdom of the Devil, is entrance into the Kingdom of Christ by acceptance of his living oracles and compliance with the initiatory requirements of the gospel. One is never fully in defiance of the Great and Abominable Chuch until one is a faithful member of the Church that is the organized, institutional, social, and cultural manifestation of that Kingdom.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

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.

Your argument here commits the fallacy of missing the point. If we are to contend against no church except the church of the Devil, and, by definition, all churches outside the divinely instituted, authorized organization representing Christ on earth are a part of the church of the Devil, it then follows that we may contend against all organizations, of whatever kind, including religious organizations/entities, that are a part of the church of the Devil.

The problem here is that the concept of the church of the Devil covers an awful, awful lot of territory.

[Loran Blood]

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.

bc is nothing compared to the Book of Mormon. Might I suggest you begin there?

[Loran Blood]

Anything that creates unity between mankind is the Church of the Lamb

Are you sure you want to make this claim, Maidservant, without some further reflection?

Anything that creates bloodshed and division is the Church of the Devil.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

(Matthew 10:34-38)

After taking note of the potential problems inherent in Maidservant's assertion above, I'd also like to introduce anyone here, who is not yet familiar with this kind of discourse, to "black and white" thinking, as recorded in the New Testament.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Loran Blood

[ldsfaqs]

Problem with your ideology Loren Blood is that God said ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS and TRUTH comes from Him and Him alone.

Your mistake is the same mistake anti-mormons make. They believe that simply because you don't believe in "THEIR" ideological construction of the Gospel, Jesus, etc. that that makes you a cult, not Christian, not a believer in Christ, etc.

This strict duality is false doctrine Loren. In as much as others follow God, Truth, Righteousness etc. they ARE OF GOD. You have no right to say they aren't.

Further, you pervert the scripture you quote. That scripture says nothing about people being not of God in every aspect of their lives. You rigid literal interpretation is not the true interpretation, because it ignores other scripture.

Christ directly condemns your rigid interpretation in Mark 9 & Luke 9.

Further, Matthew 14 makes clear the value of others.

Edited October 22, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[BCSpace]

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.

Actually, 1 Nephi 13-14 are much like Revelation. Present and futire tenses are there such as "there are save two churches only". So yes, the church of the Devil existed in Nephi's time and I daresay has existed since the rebellion of Lucifer.

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.

Sure. That is why the church of the Devil can be represented by multiple literal churches.

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".

I have said nothing about contending. This verse does not address anything at all I've said about LDS doctrine. Plus, you have not addressed the verses I gave which have direct bearing on the issue. The bottom line remains that members of any nonLDS faith, including LDS who are in an apostate condition, belong to the church of the Devil. And that's by your own definition of spiritual condition only. I simply show you the rational explaination as to why, in large part, they are part of the church of the Devil. It's because the denominations/philosophies they identify with keep them from the fulness of the gospel which in turn will prevent them from inheriting eternal life unless they become LDS at some point in this life or the next.

And here is yet another verse for you which helps us to clearly make this distinction. The apostasy itself is driven by the Devil as per Revelation 13:7 so ANY church, sect, or creed that comes out of the universal apostasy IS a part of the church of the Devil.

[jo1952]

Actually, 1 Nephi 13-14 are much like Revelation. Present and futire tenses are there such as "there are save two churches only". So yes, the church of the Devil existed in Nephi's time and I daresay has existed since the rebellion of Lucifer.

Sure. That is why the church of the Devil can be represented by multiple literal churches.

I have said nothing about contending. This verse does not address anything at all I've said about LDS doctrine. Plus, you have not addressed the verses I gave which have direct bearing on the issue. The bottom line remains that members of any nonLDS faith, including LDS who are in an apostate condition, belong to the church of the Devil. And that's by your own definition of spiritual condition only. I simply show you the rational explaination as to why, in large part, they are part of the church of the Devil. It's because the denominations/philosophies they identify with keep them from the fulness of the gospel which in turn will prevent them from inheriting eternal life unless they become LDS at some point in this life or the next.

And here is yet another verse for you which helps us to clearly make this distinction. The apostasy itself is driven by the Devil as per Revelation 13:7 so ANY church, sect, or creed that comes out of the universal apostasy IS a part of the church of the Devil.

CFR please from either you or Loran where the Church officially recognizes herself to be THE VERY Church of the Lamb of God thereby excluding all other righteous believers.

Thanks,

jo

[BCSpace]

CFR please from either you or Loran where the Church officially recognizes herself to be THE VERY Church of the Lamb of God thereby excluding all other righteous believers.

Matthew 7:22-23

1 Nephi 13-14

D&C 1:30

D&C 35:12

D&C 76 (especially 99-101) also ask yourself what is the testimony of Jesus and note that only LDS can inherit the Celestial or Terrestial. Only LDS can have the testimony of Jesus because they've accepted it by authorized baptism. How can a member of another christian Church have the testimony of Jesus when it is possible to have it taught (afterwards received it) in the afterlife? Did Jesus send forth messengers in the Spirit World to teach Islam? Of course not! That is why we find good christians and Jews etc. inheriting the Telestial (vs 99-101). They didn't "afterwards receive it".

D&C 132:15-20 compare with D&C 131

JS-H 1:19

Any other verse I might have quoted so far in this thread.

Any time the Church claims to be the only true Church, or the only Church with the fulness of the gospel, or the only Church with the priesthood authority to administer the ordinances.

Etc. etc.

Ask yourself; can a Catholic (or Baptist, or Anglican, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Jew, or Atheist) remain a Catholic and still inherit eternal life or even higher than the Telestial? The answer of course is no.

Edited October 22, 2011 by BCSpace

[ldsfaqs]

Let me try to make this more clear for you BCspace.....

You originally stated that only LDS members are a part of the Church of the Lamb, while ALL OTHERS were a part of the devil.

Now you move the goal posts, and acknowledge that even LDS members can be a part of the Church of the Devil.

Now, let me show you where you go wrong. Clearly by your own acknowledgement, it's NOT an "actual" CHURCH, it's a spiritual degree.

Thus, your claim that only LDS are of the Lamb, while non-LDS are not, is simply false.

Yes, we know the scriptures that make the LDS Church of the Lamb, but again, you're mixing two different subjects.

The context of the particular scripture is speaking of the spiritual nature of man, not a particular religion, including ours.

The reason I mention the "contend against no Church verse" is because that verse clearly delineates (pay attention now), delineates a difference between actual "Churches" outside of mormonism, with the Church of the Devil. In other words, that verse directly states that other religions ARE NOT of the Church of the Devil per-se. If other religions were a part of the Church of the Devil, then that verse would say it's okay to contend against those Churches because as YOU SAY, they ARE of the Church of the Devil.

Thus, either you are teaching false doctrine, or that verse is. Which is it?

Edited October 22, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[jo1952]

Matthew 7:22-23

1 Nephi 13-14

D&C 1:30

D&C 35:12

D&C 76 (especially 99-101) also ask yourself what is the testimony of Jesus and note that only LDS can inherit the Celestial or Terrestial. Only LDS can have the testimony of Jesus because they've accepted it by authorized baptism. How can a member of another christian Church have the testimony of Jesus when it is possible to have it taught (afterwards received it) in the afterlife? Did Jesus send forth messengers in the Spirit World to teach Islam? Of course not! That is why we find good christians and Jews etc. inheriting the Telestial (vs 99-101). They didn't "afterwards receive it".

D&C 132:15-20 compare with D&C 131

JS-H 1:19

Any other verse I might have quoted so far in this thread.

Any time the Church claims to be the only true Church, or the only Church with the fulness of the gospel, or the only Church with the priesthood authority to administer the ordinances.

Etc. etc.

Ask yourself; can a Catholic (or Baptist, or Anglican, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Jew, or Atheist) remain a Catholic and still inherit eternal life or even higher than the Telestial? The answer of course is no.

With all due respect, you have not provided a CFR where the Church officially recognizes herself to be the Church of the Lamb of God being referenced to in scripture. You are still only giving me your personal interpretation of scripture. Therefore, can you find something which IS a CFR?

As I have previously offered in this thread, the LDS Church is the current church given the authority to perform the ordinances required to enter Eternal life if an individual is judged by Christ to be worthy. However, as far as I can tell, performing the ordinances and then recording their completion is a matter of using the Church as the vehicle to accomplish this task. This does not translate into a dead person's "joining" the LDS Church. Rather, the Church is merely making sure that the work is done. Being a member of the Church does not make us more righteous or better than a non-member. The uniqueness of the Church is that we currently have the Priesthood and the authority to perform required ordinances. I really don't think that the Celestial Kingdom or Eternal Life will be known as the Celestial Kingdom of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - especially inasmuch as many individuals in both the BoM and the Bible had their work done back then--thousands of years before the Church was Restored and "named" the CoJCoLDS.

You are also ignoring the fact that ALL believers help make up the body of Christ. Surely someone who is part of the body of Christ would also, by default, be a member of the Church of the Lamb of God. If they are fighting against the LDS Church, then they are fighting against Christ because we are all part of the same body of Christ. A house divided against itself cannot stand; this is where those individuals who fight against the LDS Church would also be fighting against the very house they claim they are part of. Yet if they are not fighting against the LDS Church, then they are still part of the same house. When Jesus taught "for he that is not against us is for us", He did not add the stiputlation, "However, they belong to Satan". Yet it is quite apparent that they were not baptized members of the church which Jesus had established.

When we describe ourselves as the only True Church, it is my belief that we are actually referring to the fact that we have the Priesthood and are able to perform ordinances with authority and the correct fulness of the Gospel. I do not believe that this ALSO means we are THE Church of the Lamb of God. It seems to me that even your own argument of admitting that an LDS person can be apostate and, therefore, not be a member of the Church of the Lamb of God is also an obvious admission according to your own standard that we cannot be the The Church of the Lamb of God - otherwise, there would be NO apostates. Actually, I would offer that a person who is ignorantly apostate in some doctrines is NOT a factor of whether or not they belong to The Church of the Lamb of God or not. After all, our righteousness is counted in accordance to how well we follow and live what we believe; NOT whether our beliefs are correct or not. This is why I believe that it is the individual who determines whether or not he is a member of the Church of the Lamb of God....it is not the "institution" an individual is a part of which determines this status; it is the individual's personal relationship with God which determines this status.

Regards,

jo

Edited October 22, 2011 by jo1952

[Calm]

The scriptures speak of there being two Churches, yet for at least almost 1500 years there was no authorized priesthood holding church present on earth. If the Church of the Lamb is identical to this authorized organization, then there was only one Church, not two at least during this time frame thus contradicting what the scriptures teach.

[jo1952]

The scriptures speak of there being two Churches, yet for at least almost 1500 years there was no authorized priesthood holding church present on earth. If the Church of the Lamb is identical to this authorized organization, then there was only one Church, not two at least during this time frame thus contradicting what the scriptures teach.

Good point!

Regards,

jo

[Franktalk]

Ask yourself; can a Catholic (or Baptist, or Anglican, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Jew, or Atheist) remain a Catholic and still inherit eternal life or even higher than the Telestial? The answer of course is no.

This invites some very hard questions. Does this mean that all who died before the Church had to wait for the Church to perform their ordinances before they could go to heaven? I don't think this is true. I do know that some went to the third heaven before the Church was established.

2Co 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such a one caught up to the third heaven.

And what of Enoch?

Gen 5:23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

The Lord revealed to Enoch that “then shalt thou and all thy city meet [the elect in the last days] there, and we will receive them into our bosom” (Moses 7:63).

Sounds like Enoch was already there.

There is of course a much bigger question. Just what makes someone a member of the LDS Church?

Does one have to believe the doctrines of the Church? If so how do you feel about these Church issues?

"Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth’s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earth’s existence."

http://lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng&query=flood+noah

Do you happen to believe in a world wide flood?

And what about evolution. Did God make man or did man come from chimps?

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its “distinct order or sphere,” and will enjoy “eternal felicity.” That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3)."

http://lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng&query=evolution+man

So the real question is can someone believe in a Godless natural world and still be considered a member of the LDS Church?

[Maidservant]

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)!

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

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

Lehi

You make some good points, CV75, which added to my understanding.

Just to add to my own thoughts (nothing in contradiction to yours).

I don't think in terms of Gentiles, never have, since we are all in God's family of children, so I discarded that categorization a long time ago, not sure why I did that, but I'm just stating that I have never used it in understanding things.

I do want to also say that my statement comes from my observation of many things happening in the earth. For example, there is an acquaintance of mine, Eyal Raviv, who is giving his life to the reconciliation of the inhabitants of Palestine and Israel, not on a political level, but a human level. He is unwilling that these should be enemies, but that these should be brothers. And many are following his example, or at least being lightened by it. So I watch his work and I know God created him to be his servant, and I know that this man would be unable to do this exact work if he were a member of the church, if only for the reason that he would not be the same person with the same circumstances to be placed in for what he can do. Yet in my understanding, Mr. Raviv is part of the Church of the Lamb of God, because of his work of redemption.

Also my hero is Cory Booker. Cory is a Buddhist, I do believe, but his main service in life is the redemption of Newark, New Jersey.

etc multiplied by many people with missions on this earth to bring about that great and marvelous work.

So maybe I don't understand everything on this matter, I could not claim that, but these passages don't seem to be mainly about personal salvation, but about what is happening on a larger scale in the earth (for the benefit of all).

Are you sure you want to make this claim, Maidservant, without some further reflection?

Well, let's see. But you cannot imagine the amount of reflection I have put into this matter .

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

(Matthew 10:34-38)

First of all, you are using these passages as a proof text, which Maidservant doesn't proof text anything (ha ha ha . . . for better or worse). Any scriptural or spiritual knowledge I possess is by some other manner; not proof texting.

But I have not yet had occasion to have an understanding of this passage yet, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to begin. My first response, I can only send you to Moses chapter 7, where the Father describes the final state of his people, and that final state is that of an embrace and kissing, so if there are moments of standing up for yourself and for what is right even at the cost of what we most hold dear (Matthew passage), the final condition of mankind as a whole (as being lived out during the millenial peace and in the celestial condition) IS peace . . . how can it be anything else?

And, yes, while I can think of many times where blood penalties are justified, I can also see how people with greater spiritual sight and strengths can get beyond that which is justified, and act according to sanctification, which allows for enemies to be reconciled.

But you are right, I can think of situations where, for example, a person would defend themselves and where blood would literally be spilt. But I cannot imagine a person serving Christ and the church of the Lamb who would walk outside the door saying, What division shall I make, what blood shall I shed, in the name of Christ and because I read Matthew Chapter 10 (but ignored all the rest of scriptures)?

But you have brought this to my mind, so I shall think on it further, thank you.

By the way, Matthew chapter 10 has a lot of good stuff in it that is of great worth to the modern mind.

Further thoughts on the Matthew passage: It does say "but a sword", but even when it moves on to talk about family members being at odds with one another, I don't think the meaning is to kill each other. Rather, the focus of the meaning is in verse 38, where we are all to be responsible for what we believe and what we choose and not say only by the tradition of our fathers. So the "sword" or the "lack of peace" that is being spoken of in these verses, is a "sword" against our false traditions that we carry from our fathers, so that the reality of the gospel can come in to the earth and into our lives. Which is interesting, because many of our traditions have to do with maintaining enemies and shedding blood, so we should not maintain these, but rather follow Christ (v 38-9). So it's possible Jesus was using some imagery here (as he almost always used imagery in any case) in order to reflect back the thinking of his listeners, but fill it with the meaning of his gospel, instead of what they were trying to hold on to. This also goes well with the rest of the chapter where he is instructing his disciples on the confrontations they are going to have with the world because of the encrusted traditions of the people that led them to persecute and kill the Saints.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Maidservant

[jo1952]

Hi Maidservant!

As usual, I love your comments. I absolutely believe that God uses people from within and without organized religion; and even non-believers. If you think about it, the Bible and the BoM are basically about the Jewish people - to be more specific, about the lineage of Christ. We have been taught that there are records of others of His children, however, which are still to come forth to our attention. Jacob was the first Israelite; in fact, he is also called Israel by God. Yet we know that God interacted with His children since the time of Adam. After the flood, we know that He interacted with His children from Noah and forward. It was not until Abraham, when God covenanted with him, that we begin to see His scriptural interaction narrowing. However, I have every reason to believe that He continued to interact with all of His other children; we just do not contain any of their records in recognized canon. His purpose and desire is to bring ALL of mankind back to Him. In order for this to happen, it only makes sense that He would have continued to use prophets and men of God to help direct His children regardless of where they are, just as He always had since Adam. Indeed, if He had stopped interacting with all of His children, this would have changed how He operates. This does not fit with His attributes.

In my last post to BCSpace I had pointed to the scripture where Jesus taught "for he that is not against us is for us", He did not add the stiputlation, "However, they belong to Satan". Yet it is quite apparent that they were not baptized members of the church which Jesus had established. Now, it was only as I was putting this response together that the impact of the understanding that those individuals were NOT members of the church, that this teaching of specifically pointing out that you did not have to be a member of His church in order to be "for us" had a more far reaching meaning. I already believed that ALL good that is done is of God and that people will reap rewards in Heaven for the good that they have done. But I had never connected the dots that this also placed them into the Church of the Lamb of God even without belief and/or any ordinances having been done yet. Since they are not against Christ because they for Him, then obviously they cannot be in the Church of the Devil.

Now I see that I need to modify my earlier comments. Originally I had stated that it is my belief that it is not the religious institution a person belongs to which determines whether or not they are a member of the Church of the Lamb of God; but rather, it was their personal relationship with God which made that determination. Now, I realize I need to restate my words as such: It is not the religious institution a person belongs to which determines whether or not they are a member of the Church of the Lamb of God; but rather, it is whether or not they are against Christ. As far as I can see, this means you don't need to believe in Christ; you just need to be serving His purposes, even if you are doing so in ignorance. If you are doing good (which serves God's purposes) and are not against Christ, then you are for Him even if you are unaware that you are for Him. This, of course, ties in very nicely with your concept that to be a member of the Church of the Lamb of God encompasses a more universal benefit to mankind.

Love,

jo

[Maidservant]

Hi Maidservant!

If you are doing good (which serves God's purposes) and are not against Christ, then you are for Him even if you are unaware that you are for Him.

Love,

jo

Thanks, jo, that is very kind! And I could say the same about you.

For your interest, and also for anyone, you may wish to study and ponder very carefully each element in the following passage:

Moroni 7:3-19

There are some essential keys in this passage; and they are keys that perhaps many even LDS do not have yet, or if they have them by some other revelatory process, they don't know how plainly they are laid out in this passage. As a corollary, this passage is a necessary accompaniment to the reading in Nephi we are all discussing.

[CV75]

I do want to also say that my statement comes from my observation of many things happening in the earth.

I agree with your observations and conclusions about them, but think they are more examples of the messages in Mark 9: 40 and Matthew 12:30-32.

“For he that is not against us is on our part,” and “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost…”

Also the 11^th and 13^th Article of Faith, D&C 58:26-28, Alma 37:7, D&C 88:7 and many others convey the idea that God inspires and works through many people in many ways to bring about His purposes.

[jo1952]

Thanks, jo, that is very kind! And I could say the same about you.

For your interest, and also for anyone, you may wish to study and ponder very carefully each element in the following passage:

Moroni 7:3-19

There are some essential keys in this passage; and they are keys that perhaps many even LDS do not have yet, or if they have them by some other revelatory process, they don't know how plainly they are laid out in this passage. As a corollary, this passage is a necessary accompaniment to the reading in Nephi we are all discussing.

Hi Maidservant,

Thank you for the passage. I have had this subject on my mind a lot recently and I have pondered the concept as well as scriptures which teach about these very elements. It is so easy to see that those who have done good but may not have formally believed and followed Christ in this life, will gladly and happily do so when they finally "hear" the Gospel message after they leave their earthly estate. How beautifully God accomplishes His purposes - how perfectly He uses every method possible to reach and teach all of His children. I stand in awe of His totally encompassing tender mercies; humbled by His perfect love for us.

It seems, at least for how I have been experiencing God, that the line-upon-line and precept-upon-precept concept seems to grow at an exponential rate to the point where you reach a critical mass (so to speak). Suddenly the milk understanding of scripture becomes meat understanding. At that time the layers and layers of understanding begin to leap out at you - and even though they were always there, they become so very plain and apparent, and inspiring, and joyful, and humbling, and awesome, and beautiful, etc. I have no words to describe it; but they bring moments of such clear spiritual vision that I experience what I can only describe as moments of oneness. And I am amazed Father deems me worthy and ready to receive these revelations from the Holy Ghost, as the Holy Ghost will only reveal what Father has told Him to. We are so blessed to be the children of the Most High God who IS love and matchless in His power and Glory.

Love,

jo

[zerinus]

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.

While I agree that it is better to believe in God of sorts, and attend a church service of some description, and pray to God, than to not believe anything at all, or practise no religion at all; how do you square your above statement with the following verses in the Book of Mormon and the D&C:

1 Nephi 22:

23 For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet.

2 Nephi 26:

20 And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.

21 And there are many churches built up which cause envyings, and strifes, and malice.

2 Nephi 28:

3 For it shall come to pass in that day that the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lord's; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lord's; and thus shall every one say that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lord

12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.

Mormon 8:

28 Yea, it shall come in a day when the power of God shall be denied, and churches become defiled and be lifted up in the pride of their hearts; yea, even in a day when leaders of churches and teachers shall rise in the pride of their hearts, even to the envying of them who belong to their churches.

32 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.

33 O ye wicked and perverse and stiffnecked people, why have ye built up churches unto yourselves to get gain? Why have ye transfigured the holy word of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls? Behold, look ye unto the revelations of God; for behold, the time cometh at that day when all these things must be fulfilled.

36 And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.

37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.

D&C 10:

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

How can "the vast majority of churches [be] designed to lead people to God," if by the testimony of the above verses, they seem to be doing something different?

Edited October 23, 2011 by zerinus

[CV75]

How can "the vast majority of churches [be] designed to lead people to God," if by the testimony of the above verses, they seem to be doing something different?

When “church” is defined as the members within an organization who are following the Light of Christ within them, it can be in effect designed by them to bring them closer to God. When “church” is defined as an organization set up by conspiring apostates for abominable purposes, they do something different. A church can be designed for the nefarious purposes of its founders but its members may use it for something better until they find the Restored Church--no matter how far astray they may be led in matters of authority, doctrine and ordinance only because they do not know where to find the truth.

[jo1952]

When “church” is defined as the members within an organization who are following the Light of Christ within them, it can be in effect designed by them to bring them closer to God. When “church” is defined as an organization set up by conspiring apostates for abominable purposes, they do something different. A church can be designed for the nefarious purposes of its founders but its members may use it for something better until they find the Restored Church--no matter how far astray they may be led in matters of authority, doctrine and ordinance only because they do not know where to find the truth.

Well said. Our righteousness will be counted in accordance with our faithfulness to what we believe; not whether if what we believe is correct. Also, we will be judged as individuals; not as an organization. If we are doing good and are not fighting against Christ, I believe we will be considered to be a member of the Church of the Lamb of God.

Regards,

jo

[Maidservant]

I think the point (for me) is NOT whether or not I or others are in the Church of the Lamb of God in terms of "Whew! At least I'M spiritually safe/receiving spiritual reward!" (Or "WE are!"). In other words, hm, how shall I say this . . . this [=the Church of the Lamb of God] is not primarily a device to signify salvation.

I think the value of understanding the concept of the Church of the Lamb of God (and the church of the devil) is a tool for discernment, particularly in the times in which we are, and to discern the unfolding of this final dispensation that we are in. Remember, that, even more than it can be said that the Book of Mormon is a history of God's dealings with an ancient people (this value is lesser), rather the Book of Mormon is written for our day, and this is its greater value. The Book of Mormon is replete with tools of discernment that allow us to recognize what is happening spiritually and temporally now. This gift, this purpose of the Book of Mormon cannot be overestimated.

Thus, when I am insisting that Mr. Raviv or Mr. Booker (to return to my own examples) are part of the Church of the Lamb, I am not necessarily speaking on their personal salvation and I am not saying that ordinances such as baptism [to give just one example in regards to the Restored gospel] have become suspended or unnecessary in the case of "good people".

What I am saying is that we need to be able to correctly identify the work of God that is happening in all the earth, and both the broad and specific (or at least have the opportunity to, if we want to), so that we can support what is part of God's redemption, and not condemn what is good or support what is oppressive.

I'm not sure I'm expressing myself well, on the point I want to make, but maybe it is clear as mud. lol

[jo1952]

I think the point (for me) is NOT whether or not I or others are in the Church of the Lamb of God in terms of "Whew! At least I'M spiritually safe/receiving spiritual reward!" (Or "WE are!"). In other words, hm, how shall I say this . . . this [=the Church of the Lamb of God] is not primarily a device to signify salvation.

I think the value of understanding the concept of the Church of the Lamb of God (and the church of the devil) is a tool for discernment, particularly in the times in which we are, and to discern the unfolding of this final dispensation that we are in. Remember, that, even more than it can be said that the Book of Mormon is a history of God's dealings with an ancient people (this value is lesser), rather the Book of Mormon is written for our day, and this is its greater value. The Book of Mormon is replete with tools of discernment that allow us to recognize what is happening spiritually and temporally now. This gift, this purpose of the Book of Mormon cannot be overestimated.

Thus, when I am insisting that Mr. Raviv or Mr. Booker (to return to my own examples) are part of the Church of the Lamb, I am not necessarily speaking on their personal salvation and I am not saying that ordinances such as baptism [to give just one example in regards to the Restored gospel] have become suspended or unnecessary in the case of "good people".

What I am saying is that we need to be able to correctly identify the work of God that is happening in all the earth, and both the broad and specific (or at least have the opportunity to, if we want to), so that we can support what is part of God's redemption, and not condemn what is good or support what is oppressive.

I'm not sure I'm expressing myself well, on the point I want to make, but maybe it is clear as mud. lol

You are doing a great job. Also, with respect to the ordinances, I also do not believe that they need to have already been accomplished and/or accepted in order to be a member of the Church of the Lamb of God. Thus, it cannot be an indication of their specific salvation; though I suspect they will have no trouble accepting Christ if they have not already done so.

Regards,

jo

[BCSpace]

With all due respect, you have not provided a CFR where the Church officially recognizes herself to be the Church of the Lamb of God being referenced to in scripture.

So the LDS Church does not claim to be the only true Church? Does the LDS Church recognize baptism outside it's own authority? What other church brings eternal life via membership in it? I have given specific reference in those verses. Some of course are unwilling to carry out the implications of what the scriptures say into reality, but that's not my responsibility.