Alan Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 I have heard various theories regarding the identity of this scriptural entity. Some identify it with a particular church, others with a collection of churches, some with the economic system, some with a political system (capitalism for example), and some with the world in general. I tend to lean towards it being a church - perhaps the Roman Catholic Church of medieval times (inquisition, burning of so called heretics etc). But I have an open mind on this and am interested in exploring these various ideas. I would very much welcome any information, thoughts, insights or testimonies regarding this important subject.
rpn Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 It is not the Roman Catholic Church --- Pres David O McKay asked Bruce R. McKonkie to remove that suggestion from his Mormon Doctrine. But it is anyone or entity or thing that seeks to lead people away from God.
peacefulleeman Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 It's anything "evil"... the opposite of light, of good, of truth, etc.It is not a "particular" Church. It is anything contrary to the Church of Christ. Parts of Churches may have aspects of the Great and Abominable Church, but most Churches are sincere, seek good, right and truth.The Lord was even more clear. He said, "contend against no Church save it be the Church of the Devil."This makes even more clear that the Great an Abominable Church is not a particular religion. Can and have some religions taken on the mantel of the Great and Abominable Church at some points, possibly. But, the Devil is the head of that Church, not a religion.It is an ideology and fruits opposite of God. It is spiritually and literally anything contrary to God. Most religions don't fit that paradigm. Parts possibly could, but certainly not most religions themselves.
mrcuff Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 It is not the Roman Catholic Church --- Pres David O McKay asked Bruce R. McKonkie to remove that suggestion from his Mormon Doctrine. But it is anyone or entity or thing that seeks to lead people away from God.I would not assume that asking the author to remove the reference would constitue a denial of its validity, but rather a stance of neutrality on the subject. I would assume that calling abominal those who you are trying to convert would not make good PR by any standards. Just my opinion.
orion88 Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 It's anything "evil"... the opposite of light, of good, of truth, etc.But, the Devil is the head of that Church, not a religion.Assuming the Church of the Devil includes all false religion, then it would appear that JosephSmith alluded to this devilish church (the mother and all her harlots) in his first vision account -"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personagewho addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that thoseprofessors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are farfrom me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, butthey deny the power thereof.”
Calm Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 http://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng
orion88 Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 http://www.lds.org/e...of-god?lang=engThat was a really good article by Stephen E. Robinson, who is (was?) an associate professorof ancient scripture at Brigham Young University and a high councilor in the BYU SecondStake.How can we tell if this is an authoritative teaching of the LDS Church?
peacefulleeman Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 How can we tell if this is an authoritative teaching of the LDS Church?I don't know, by knowing your religion?By knowing the scriptures in full their context such as the contrasting verse I gave above, and by knowing the history of the Church on it.For example, the idea that the Church of the Devil refers to a particular Church was condemned by the Presidency of the Church when Orson Pratt promoted the idea and when Bruce R. McKonkie promoted the idea.Also, when I read the scripture itself that refers to the idea, it seems clear to me that the concepts being spoken of is in relation to the "spiritual" ideas of good and evil, light and dark etc. One can understand how a person might interpret it the other way, that it is speaking of a specific Church, one of the Lamb and one of the Devil, but then that's why other scriptures are important to contrast with to show what the actual doctrine is.The D&C verse which says to "contend against no Church save it be the Church of the Devil" makes clear that there are Churches that aren't of the Church of the Devil, and not to contend against them. That means the Church of the Lamb is referring to a more "generic" concept of "spirituality", not of a particular religion such as the LDS Church, and likewise the Church of the Devil is referring to the more "generic" concept of evil, or the powers of darkness.
cinepro Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 That was a really good article by Stephen E. Robinson, who is (was?) an associate professorof ancient scripture at Brigham Young University and a high councilor in the BYU SecondStake.How can we tell if this is an authoritative teaching of the LDS Church?It's published in the Ensign, and it isn't really old or embarrassing.
Storm Rider Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 I have heard various theories regarding the identity of this scriptural entity. Some identify it with a particular church, others with a collection of churches, some with the economic system, some with a political system (capitalism for example), and some with the world in general. I tend to lean toward it being a church - perhaps the Roman Catholic Church of medieval times (inquisition, burning of so called heretics etc). But I have an open mind on this and am interested in exploring these various ideas. I would very much welcome any information, thoughts, insights or testimonies regarding this important subject.Alan, I cannot prove my position, but I would offer my opinion. There are only two churches: the Church of God and the Church of Satan. However, this language cannot mean actual organizations, because we see no formal church of Satan and there is certainly not a single Christian church. What we do have are works of righteousness and works of evil. Who is our Master: God or Mammon? It is my humble opinion that we should never confuse our knowledge of being the true church with having all truth or doing all righteousness. There are just too many people committed to God in the world or committed to doing righteousness; all of these people are members of the Church of God. All those who work for Satan are those who do evil in the world and who work to destroy faith in God and doing righteousness.
peacefulleeman Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Alan, I cannot prove my position, but I would offer my opinion. There are only two churches: the Church of God and the Church of Satan. However, this language cannot mean actual organizations, because we see no formal church of Satan and there is certainly not a single Christian church. What we do have are works of righteousness and works of evil. Who is our Master: God or Mammon? It is my humble opinion that we should never confuse our knowledge of being the true church with having all truth or doing all righteousness. There are just too many people committed to God in the world or committed to doing righteousness; all of these people are members of the Church of God. All those who work for Satan are those who do evil in the world and who work to destroy faith in God and doing righteousness.Correct. That is the doctrine. Thank you for reminding me. The most obvious evidence that it's not referring to an actual "Church" is because there is no single "Church of Satan". Thus, the Church of the Lamb can't be only referring to the LDS Church as some in history have incorrectly assumed.
why me Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 I have heard various theories regarding the identity of this scriptural entity. Some identify it with a particular church, others with a collection of churches, some with the economic system, some with a political system (capitalism for example), and some with the world in general. I tend to lean towards it being a church - perhaps the Roman Catholic Church of medieval times (inquisition, burning of so called heretics etc). But I have an open mind on this and am interested in exploring these various ideas. I would very much welcome any information, thoughts, insights or testimonies regarding this important subject. Among the old members, the abominable church was implied to be the catholic church because of the Mormon Doctrine book. This lasted into the 1970's. However, the lds church never defined what that church was. So, rumors spead from the catholic church to communism. Now the position is more clear and it has been mentioned on this thread.
zerinus Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Among the old members, the abominable church was implied to be the catholic church because of the Mormon Doctrine book. This lasted into the 1970's. However, the lds church never defined what that church was. So, rumors spead from the catholic church to communism. Now the position is more clear and it has been mentioned on this thread.The idea that the church of the devil is the Catholic Church is older than the Mormon Doctrine book, or Bruce R. McConkie. He got the idea earlier folks. It is not fair to keep bashing him or his book over every incorrect doctrine. The idea, however, is incorrect. The church of the devil is not the Catholic Church.
rameumptom Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) You have to look at the criteria described regarding it in the BoM and Revelation. It seeks to get gain in any way necessary, including murder and theft. It kills the saints. It sets itself up against the Church of Christ.This cannot be the Roman Catholics, as the RCC has not sought to get gain, murder, kill saints, or oppose Christ. In fact, it works on many charitable projects with the LDS Church, and GAs have spoken well of Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II and others.In John's time, it represented the Roman Empire, especially under Nero and a few other Caesars, who were killing saints for sport, seeking wealth through intrigue and murder, and were doing all kinds of evil. In our time, there are organizations that also are set up like this: drug lords, gangs, Mafia, etc. It could also include radical Islam, and other very radical religions that seek global power through murder and intimidation.Oh, and Elder McConkie was plain wrong on calling the RCC the Great and Abominable. He was not that great when it came to exegesis and eisegesis as his books seemed to make him out to be. Great scriptorian, not so great at interpreting scripture. Edited February 21, 2012 by rameumptom
guitarist Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 I too believe that the catholic church as it stands today isn't necessarily the "great and abominable church" (certainly not the members anyway, can't speak for the clergy, since I don't know them), but I once had a discussion with someone who was sure it was the catholic church. To play devil's advocate for a moment, what would one say about these scriptures that he gave me in support of his argument, as well as some of the points mentioned below?This was argued for the commandment to abstain from meats on Good Friday:1 Timothy Chapter 41 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.This quote in reference to the location of where the "Great and Abominable Church" sits, as well as a bit of a description of what they wear:Revelation 183 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.The seven mountains, in my friend's mind, being the seven hills of Rome.He then pointed to the dark ages, during which the Catholic church regularly held burnings for heresy, witchcraft, possessing a copy of the Bible, etc.I realize that the quoted scriptures don't "nail" down the catholic church to the position, but admittedly, the scriptures seem to describe some specifics that it would seem would be for a specific group, catholic church or not.
why me Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 The idea that the church of the devil is the Catholic Church is older than the Mormon Doctrine book, or Bruce R. McConkie. He got the idea earlier folks. It is not fair to keep bashing him or his book over every incorrect doctrine. The idea, however, is incorrect. The church of the devil is not the Catholic Church.The book was in practically all members libraries. And the book made the notion famous among the general mormon population. The mistake was simple: it was placed inside a book with the title Mormon Doctrine. And that made all the difference.
stemelbow Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Here are some ideas I recall from seminary or an institute class (can't remember which).There are two churches only--as Nephi teaches. There is one called the Church of the Lamb of God. It is different, not an actual organization, from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Then there is everyone else who belong to the Church of the devil, essentially. Now there are those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ who not really part of the Church of the Lamb of God. There are those that are not any part of the Church of Jesus Christ, but are part of the Church of the Lamb of God. With that, any one of us could be fooling ourselves in thinking we are actually part of the Church of the Lamb of God by participating in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Indeed, if this is at all true, there are many of us (I include myself because I don't know I can claim to be authentically part of the Church of the Lamb). This is kind of a scary thought to me. But I recall a teacher or two advocating this. Any comments?
cinepro Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 On an unrelated note, Deseret Book will start carrying my new workout video "The Great and Abdominal Crunches" this fall. Look for it!
Calm Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.Is this guy LDS? If so, how does he reconcile the WoW counsel with this?I betcha I could make an argument for SLC being surrounded by seven mountains:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Salt_Lake_City_montage_19_July_2011.jpg Edited February 21, 2012 by calmoriah
guitarist Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Is this guy LDS? If so, how does he reconcile the WoW counsel with this?He is LDS. He reconciles it with the WoW in the sense that the WoW doesn't tell us to abstain (using that word as a totality in the same sense that one generally uses "abstinence" from sexual activity) from meats, but rather in moderation.
cinepro Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 The book was in practically all members libraries. And the book made the notion famous among the general mormon population. The mistake was simple: it was placed inside a book with the title Mormon Doctrine. And that made all the difference.I recently had a relative visiting me, and as they read an article in the newspaper about the current woes of the Catholic Church, they just shook their head and commented (with all sincerity) that they really were "the Church of the Devil." So the idea still lives on among some members of the Church.
Jeff K. Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 The Great Abomindable Church built an image to worship made of snow. They called it the great abomindable snowman.
Mike Reed Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) This is a great article:Matthew Grow, “The Whore of Babylon and the Abomination of Abominations: Nineteenth-Century Catholic and Mormon Mutual Perceptions and Religious Identity,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 73, no. 1 (March 2004): 139-67. Edited February 22, 2012 by Mike Reed
blooit Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 I was reading one of these references recently, and distinctly remember something to the effect of "most abominable above all other churches" - this suggests that it is not everything other than the true church. I think it is likely a philosophy or "church of thought" and have even thought that some things in militant islam seem to qualify.
blooit Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 I recently had a relative visiting me, and as they read an article in the newspaper about the current woes of the Catholic Church, they just shook their head and commented (with all sincerity) that they really were "the Church of the Devil." So the idea still lives on among some members of the Church.Asking that this non-PC reference be removed from Mormon Doctrine does not make it untrue (or true) - there are many truths that we cannot openly discuss without backlash, or at least need to be tactful in our approach.
Recommended Posts