georged Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) I suggest that since we both already know the referrence, that we both read it again and comment later. However, I will tell you frankly that I had a very special spiritual experience when I was writing a commentary on the book of Revelation which confirmed to me the truthfullness of the things I have shared. However, I would prefer not to share that experience on this blog at this time since I would offend people more than I have already done. So, I will simply say this now that it is obvious if the language of the translation to English in the BOM is correct, and I believe that it is, that one church in particular is described as being more abominable than all other churches and it goes on to descibe the gold, fine twined linen, etc., and it tells of how this church chunged the simple truths of the gospel and even changed the record which came from the Jews, referring to the Bible, and there is basically only one church who had the opportunity and the power to do this over the centuries. However, there was a time before the great split between the RCC and the Orthidox church, as you previously mentioned, that these scriptures could also be referring to.Do not post again until you read the Guidelines. http://www.mormondia...tion=boardrules"LDS members: You are expected to show the same level of courtesy to other faiths as we want participation from non-LDS people."Do not use this board to denigrate other religions. Edited March 20, 2012 by Minos Thread ban
ERayR Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Everybody knows its made up strictly of politicians.
Storm Rider Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I am also 64 years old, and I can tell you that, perhaps you should read it again. The church of the Devil ruled over the kings of the earth, but that is not refering to the other. This church, which was most abominable over ALL OTHER CHURCHES is only a part of the church oif the devil, which consists of all churches and organizations which are in opposition to Christ's church. There is a very long desription of this particular church in the writings of Nephi, in which it states that this particular church changed and perverted the simple truths of the gospel, and if you read that account carefully, you will see! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which particulart church did those things and fits that descrition given perfectly!!!Anyone with an 1/2 an ounce of intelligence and knows anything about the Catholic Church knows they worship Jesus Christ and are deeply dedicated to being his followers. I think the real issue here is a distinct lack of understanding of Catholicism and, worse, a very, very subjective and narrow understanding of scripture and doctrine. The discussion is really distasteful and not worth more time. 1
DBMormon Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 BOM states there are only two churches... God's and the DevilsThere are only two groups of people those who head in the direction of Christ and those who head in rebellion towards Lucifer. We can not have two masters
SearchDog Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 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. The Great And Abominable Church is doubt, the opposite of faith.
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 It is anyone and anything that is opposed to the chuch of the lamb.
The Nehor Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 And why would this one church which is more abominable than all other churches be the Catholic Church when something like, say, the Church of Satan would have been a much more reasonable candidate?The Church of Satan is a mostly innocuous faith using a name for shock value.It would be like renaming the local chamber of commerce the "Guild of Hedonist Rapists" because the local members want to shock people with their associations so they have something to talk about neighborhood barbeques.
Alan Posted April 1, 2012 Author Posted April 1, 2012 This has been a very interesting thread and I thank everyone for their views in reply to my question.One take I have on the question is that the BoM describes one of the characteristics of the great and abominable church as slaying the Saints. This is interesting to me. If we identify these "Saints" as members of either the original Christian church, or as members of the restored church, it seems unlikely it is referring to the RCC. This is because there were no Saints when the RCC was formed as the apostacy had already occured. And the RCC does not go around killing Mormons today, nor was it involved in the persecution of the Saints in the early days of the restoration.However, if we define a Saint as someone who is inspired of God to forward his work (and perhaps play a part in laying the foundations of the restoration) such as Wycliffe et al, then the RCC's treatment of these people would fit with the BoM's description.
Jeff K. Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 Slaying of the saints may also refer to a spiritual death the saints receive when they are led away.
SearchDog Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 This has been a very interesting thread and I thank everyone for their views in reply to my question.One take I have on the question is that the BoM describes one of the characteristics of the great and abominable church as slaying the Saints. This is interesting to me. If we identify these "Saints" as members of either the original Christian church, or as members of the restored church, it seems unlikely it is referring to the RCC. This is because there were no Saints when the RCC was formed as the apostacy had already occured. And the RCC does not go around killing Mormons today, nor was it involved in the persecution of the Saints in the early days of the restoration.However, if we define a Saint as someone who is inspired of God to forward his work (and perhaps play a part in laying the foundations of the restoration) such as Wycliffe et al, then the RCC's treatment of these people would fit with the BoM's description.Saints in the first church were those baptized by the authority of the Aaronic priesthood and who were given the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by the authority of the Holy and Apostolic Melchizedek priesthood. I don't believe there is any other way of defining a saint in Christ's church or His restored Church.
Alan Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 Saints in the first church were those baptized by the authority of the Aaronic priesthood and who were given the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by the authority of the Holy and Apostolic Melchizedek priesthood. I don't believe there is any other way of defining a saint in Christ's church or His restored Church.I do.
Recommended Posts