The Church Of The Devil, And Other Misrepresentations.

[Saints Alive]

I would like to use this as a spin-off of Robs thread. Lets discuss who the church of the devil is in LDS theology, and any other subjects where LDS theology has been misrepresented or is in need of clarification.

[bluebell]

I think this is a really important topic, and one that can be pretty indepth so not many study it out very well.

A really great place to start, in my opinion, is with Stephen Robinson's Jan. 1988 Ensign article:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng&query="warring+against+the+saints"

It really helps to explain what Nephi was talking about when he used terms like 'church of the devil' and such.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/church-of-the-devil?lang=eng

[Saints Alive]

Great sources!

[jwhitlock]

I thought we pretty much had it nailed down in Rob's ill-fated thread - though he refused to accept any of those explanations.

[go_utes01]

From my rela

I thought we pretty much had it nailed down in Rob's ill-fated thread - though he refused to accept any of those explanations.

From my relatively short time here, this seems to be a common reaction by some. Open, honest dialogue with each side being edified would be preferred. But, that doesn't appear possible with some people. Sad.

[Rob Bowman]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

I thought we pretty much had it nailed down in Rob's ill-fated thread - though he refused to accept any of those explanations.

Let's be clear about something. I don't "accept" anyone's explanation for anything, if by that you mean I simply trust that a person's explanation is the correct one and give the matter no further thought. Rather, I accept that their explanation is their personal understanding (unless I have really good reason to think otherwise), but I then look at their explanation and see if it makes sense of the available information better than any other explanation at hand. So it isn't stubbornness on my part, or some nefarious insistence on a different interpretation despite the facts, that is the reason for me disagreeing with your explanation. It is that I see facts that as best I can tell don't fit your explanation.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint helpfully provided the following reference:

http://www.lds.org/s...-devil?lang=eng

The first several citations on that page come from 1 Nephi 13-14. Let me quote some of it:

And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil. 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. (1 Nephi 14:9-10)

Now, from this passage, it seems to me that we may make the following propositions:

• "That great and abominable church" is one and the same with "the church of the devil."
  
• Each human being belongs either to the church of the Lamb of God or to the church of the devil.
  
• Therefore, whoever is not part of the church of the Lamb of God is part of the church of the devil.
  
• Furthermore, whatever group of people that is collectively not part of the church of the Lamb of God is therefore part of the church of the devil.
  

Let me stop at this point and ask if we can all agree that the above propositions accurately represent the teaching of 1 Nephi 14:9-10. Then we may move forward (hopefully!) into some of the hotly disputed questions.

If you continue to refuse to acknowledge what Mormons are telling you they believe you will be removed from threads. That is not a dialogue.

[Saints Alive]

[*]Furthermore, whatever group of people that is collectively not part of the church of the Lamb of God is therefore part of the church of the devil.

Let me stop at this point and ask if we can all agree that the above propositions accurately represent the teaching of 1 Nephi 14:9-10. Then we may move forward (hopefully!) into some of the hotly disputed questions.

No, and I know where you are going with this last one as well. This verse puts all people in two categories, that does not mean that our modern day denominations are subcategories of these two groups. These two groups are different from what we consider "churches" in the modern sense. The distinction takes no account for what denomination you belong to. If that were the case everyone who lived befor the restoration should have belonged to the church of the devil.

[DavidB]

I think this is a really important topic, and one that can be pretty indepth so not many study it out very well.

A really great place to start, in my opinion, is with Stephen Robinson's Jan. 1988 Ensign article:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng&query="warring+against+the+saints"

It really helps to explain what Nephi was talking about when he used terms like 'church of the devil' and such.

From the article:

"Babylon in the first and second centuries may even have been a collection of different movements. Some Jewish Christians couldn’t let go of the law of Moses and eventually gave up Christ instead. The Orthodox Christians adopted Greek philosophy. The Gnostics wallowed in the mysteries and in unspeakable practices on the one hand or in neurotic asceticism on the other. Second-century compilers like Tatian and Marcion rewrote the scriptures, the latter boldly chopping out anything he didn’t like. And all of them together forced the virtuous woman, the true church of Jesus Christ, into the wilderness."

Edited January 1, 2013 by DavidB

[ERayR]

thesometimesaint helpfully provided the following reference:

The first several citations on that page come from 1 Nephi 13-14. Let me quote some of it:

And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil. 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. (1 Nephi 14:9-10)

Now, from this passage, it seems to me that we may make the following propositions:

• "That great and abominable church" is one and the same with "the church of the devil."
  
• Each human being belongs either to the church of the Lamb of God or to the church of the devil.
  
• Therefore, whoever is not part of the church of the Lamb of God is part of the church of the devil.
  
• Furthermore, whatever group of people that is collectively not part of the church of the Lamb of God is therefore part of the church of the devil.
  

Let me stop at this point and ask if we can all agree that the above propositions accurately represent the teaching of 1 Nephi 14:9-10. Then we may move forward (hopefully!) into some of the hotly disputed questions.

And right about here is where your personal interpretations go off the rails. I don't think I will play your game either.

[DavidB]

thesometimesaint helpfully provided the following reference:

The first several citations on that page come from 1 Nephi 13-14. Let me quote some of it:

And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil. 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. (1 Nephi 14:9-10)

Now, from this passage, it seems to me that we may make the following propositions:

• "That great and abominable church" is one and the same with "the church of the devil."
  
• Each human being belongs either to the church of the Lamb of God or to the church of the devil.
  
• Therefore, whoever is not part of the church of the Lamb of God is part of the church of the devil.
  
• Furthermore, whatever group of people that is collectively not part of the church of the Lamb of God is therefore part of the church of the devil.
  

Let me stop at this point and ask if we can all agree that the above propositions accurately represent the teaching of 1 Nephi 14:9-10. Then we may move forward (hopefully!) into some of the hotly disputed questions.

You bullet point represent 1 Nephi 14:10

[Rob Bowman]

Someone, apparently a moderator, wrote within my post:

If you continue to refuse to acknowledge what Mormons are telling you they believe you will be removed from threads. That is not a dialogue.

What is it exactly that I am supposedly refusing to acknowledge? No one in this thread has actually presented an argument, explanation, or substantive comment on the topic announced in the opening post except me! One of the Mormons in this thread cited a page that listed several references pertaining to the subject. I responded to him by commenting on the first reference that page provided. I do not see how that response is in any way inappropriate.

The Board Guidelines state that the following behaviors are not permitted in this forum:

• Mocking each others' beliefs
  
• Judging others
  
• Personal attacks. You may dispute a member's opinion, but you may not label them for having that opinion.
  
• Psychoanalyzing others
  
• Attempting to provoke people....
  
• Badgering a participant for an answer when it has already been given
  

In the thread concerning Facebook's censorship I was mocked, judged, personally attacked, told how to behave, and badgered for a response when I was right in the midst of making a flurry of responses to numerous posts. The moderators of this forum did NOTHING to stop any of it; in fact, they joined in the badgering. They allowed a Mormon to demand that I reveal my salary and to make harsh judgments about my supposedly being motivated by financial considerations. Again, the moderators did NOTHING to stop or correct such behaviors, even though I reported at least two of the more egregious rule violations to them according to the proper procedure. Eventually a moderator shut down the thread--but supposedly because I had not proved what I was claiming. As if that is EVER a basis for closing a thread if the person making the claim is a faithful Mormon!

I violated no forum rule in this thread. I responded to a reference supplied by one of the Mormons. For that I am being threatened by a moderator with being expelled from threads. Supposedly the reason is that I am not acknowledging what the Mormons say, though what that might be the moderator does not bother to specify and again, my post did respond directly to one of the posts in this thread. The moderator claims that by not acknowledging what the Mormons have supposedly said I am not engaging in real "dialogue." Again, there is no rule in the forum guidelines that specifies such a rule, but if this were the standard it was flagrantly ignored in the post regarding Facebook censorship. Mormons in that thread made all sorts of ridiculous, demonstrably false accusations against me that plainly ignored what I had explicitly said.

The Facebook censorship thread is not an isolated incident. For nearly three years Mormons in this forum have been allowed to impugn my motives, to accuse me of deliberate deception, lying, etc., to express harsh personal judgments against me, to mock me and my beliefs, to speculate as to my evil or sick motives (Board Guidelines forbid "psychoanalyzing others"), and on and on. The moderators have almost never penalized group members for treating me this way and have almost never even said anything in these numerous instances of clear rule violations.

Well, it's a new year, and evidently time for a change. I was willing to put up with the bullying from the rank and file members of the forum, but I am not going to try to navigate the forum any longer if moderators are going to support and join in the bullying. If you are not interested in the participation of an academically trained evangelical scholar who can provide thoughtful and informed counterpoint to the stock Mormon apologetic arguments here, that's your business and your loss--and the loss of everyone else who participates or lurks. It is in part because I know that many people do more reading of the threads than posting themselves and that such people often find such point and counterpoint informative and illuminating that I have put up with the lack of evenhanded treatment here for as long as I have. (I have received messages from such individuals.) I am grateful to those Mormons here who have treated me with civility and even kindness, sometimes at some risk of opprobrium from their fellow Saints. I appreciate those Mormons who have patiently explained their reasons for disagreeing with me without resorting to character assassination. It is also because of their encouragement to stay that I have continued in this contentious setting for so long. But enough is enough. Things have come to a point where the potential value of trying to stay active in the forum is not great enough to justify continuing to subject myself to the abuse. I am therefore, very reluctantly, ending my activity in this forum. I would be agreeable to becoming active here again only upon receiving some assurance from a moderator that my complaint made here has been deemed legitimate and that changes will be made to address my concerns.

Sixteen days from now it will be three years since I joined this forum. In those nearly three years I have posted an average of four times a day here, often investing significant time researching my response before posting it. In order to do this I have allowed an online discussion forum that I started over twelve years ago to become mostly inactive. It never had the heavy traffic this one has but that's okay with me because I am far more interested in having a small group of people interested in sincere, civil, intelligent, and constructive discussion than having a large forum where numerous members can post nonsense or flame others. I am now going to invest time in that forum again. It is the Evangelical and LDS Theologies Yahoo Group. That Group was started by me in 2001 and is not affiliated with IRR or any other organization. It contains no links to LDS temple content. Any Mormon who is willing to abide by the minimal guidelines of that discussion group is welcome to join. You will find that you are treated much better there than I have been treated here. You will also find that I am somewhat more "intolerant" of evangelicals who violate the group's standards than I am of Mormons who do so, because I want the group to be a welcoming environment for Mormons to come with their arguments and perspectives. Here is the official description of the group from its home page (it has not been changed in several years):

The purpose of this Group is to foster respectful, intelligent discussions between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints concerning their theological differences. This Group is not for everyone. If you do not see value in reasoned argument concerning matters of faith, this Group is not for you. Evangelicals who cannot abide by LDS sensitivities regarding their temple ceremonies may not participate (note, though, that the LDS Church's own public teachings about the temple and its ceremonies may be discussed freely). LDS who are offended by reasoned, respectfully articulated criticisms of their church's prophets, teachings, and scriptures should also not participate. Individuals with an ability to discuss matters of faith in a rational, intellectually oriented fashion, especially but not exclusively those with some academic or research background in relevant fields, are welcome to join.

This post in its entirety will also be re-posted in that Yahoo Group. I hope to see some of you there.

You have no respect for this forum, its rules or its moderators let alone posters. If you will not engage our posters respectfully leaving is the best solution for all.

[Rob Osborn]

thesometimesaint helpfully provided the following reference:

The first several citations on that page come from 1 Nephi 13-14. Let me quote some of it:

And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil. 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. (1 Nephi 14:9-10)

Now, from this passage, it seems to me that we may make the following propositions:

• "That great and abominable church" is one and the same with "the church of the devil."
  
• Each human being belongs either to the church of the Lamb of God or to the church of the devil.
  
• Therefore, whoever is not part of the church of the Lamb of God is part of the church of the devil.
  
• Furthermore, whatever group of people that is collectively not part of the church of the Lamb of God is therefore part of the church of the devil.
  

Let me stop at this point and ask if we can all agree that the above propositions accurately represent the teaching of 1 Nephi 14:9-10. Then we may move forward (hopefully!) into some of the hotly disputed questions.

I will agree. Proceed.

[Darren10]

Rob;

This is my take. I've read many of your posts and it was a couple of days ago when it really hit me over the very high frequency which you deny the content of feedback you get from Mormons. For example, you very frequently reply to a remark made to you along the lines of, "I did not say...", or, "that is not what I wrote..." You do so with such high regularity that it seems very obvious that you do not accept criticism very well. At least not from the Mormon community.

The caution you received from the moderator came after the post which you replied to jwhitlock and the very first thing you to.d him is that how wrong he is about you you do this on a regular basis to the point where I find it highly annoying. I is impossible that so many people here so so many times so significantly misrepresent you. The bottom Line is that you reject their feedback. You're right and they are wrong. The moderator is correct, that is not a dialogue.

IRR in and of itself makes great strides to denounce Mormonism and to present it as we'll as the Jehovah's Witnesses, as untruthful, unbiblical, and as a religion which people should be cautioned against joining. I think you've Ben here on this forum long enough to see the utter lack of efforts the typical LDS member exerts to caution people against joining other faiths. I fact, I know I've seen quite the opposite from posts here. One poster here spoke about how he lost all theological faith in the LDS community but that he felt spiritually at home in Catholicism. I remember a few posters telling him point blank that if that's where he feels he should spiritually be, than he should attend the Catholic Church. That's a far cry from the IRR approach regarding Mormonism and sending the interested parties l

Inks to "facts" which are spiritually damaging towards the LDS faith and specific beliefs of theirs.

As for the Facebook post, you came out with some poignant accusations which do notated that Mormons were bombarding Facebook with reports of complaints against you yet several pages later in that thread we still read people trying to get examples from you regarding which posts were deleted from Facebook and how so certain you are that you can point the finger, how edit not directly, at Mormons. I think that just as feedback is not your most delightful desire to have from others, so it seems that neither is your desire to accommodate sincere inquiries from others, Mormons in this case, which would place you in a position to defend your case against the Mormons.

When I too, a look at IRR on Facebook it did not take long to see posters there completely denouncing the Mormon faith in its entirety. Never though I did not see a front page thread denouncing all of Mormonism, that sure is what posters seem to do there regularly. No surprise for me as I've seen such remarks many times online.

I may or may not stop by your Facebook and your Yahoo forum but whether I do or not I wish you the best of luck. Also, hopefully I said something meaningful above that you can carry with you

[3DOP]

The Catholic Church of today, in a way that cannot be reconciled with its history, has softened its view of our obligations toward non-Catholic religions to the point where many Catholics truly believe that our Church will always stand for religious liberty according to what may be called, the classic American model. By "American model" I mean an approximate view that every religious group ordinarily has a moral right to be able to establish and propagate itself without hindrance from the State. Starting from the Old Testament and examining Church history, the New Testament and Catholic Tradition, I am convinced that we cannot claim that this is the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church. Our view of religious liberty permits the State to freely intervene in its own affairs in order that it may establish the Catholic religion alone.

I do not expect to convince anyone. That is not my point. I am being forthcoming in order to illustrate that even though a majority of Catholics today believe in Americanist principles of religious liberty, it can be argued that this is not the authentic teaching of the Church. I think it is only fair to grant that while most Catholics believe one way, and one could even say conveniently so, the principles allow and demand liberty only to individual conscience. Anyone ever "baptized" against their will was first of all never baptized, the minster of baptism committed a sacrilege, and the continuous and oft-reiterated teaching of the Church was grievously violated. But the principle which affords the State permission, not necessarily obligatory, to restrict propagation of non-Catholic is latent in Catholic Tradition.

If I were non-Catholic I would not grant that what the majority of Catholics and even many of the hierarchy believe today is necessarily representative of what the Catholic Church has taught in the past or what the Catholic Church must forever teach in the future. I offer this admission because it seems to me that even if we grant that all of this internet board denies the dichotomy between the Church of the Devil and the Church of the Saints, it is possible that there is a latent teaching which has shaped LDS doctrine and practices in the past with the potential to do in the future. It might be analogous to this latent and currently obscured teaching of the Catholic Church.

I am not arguing that Rob has succeeded in demonstrating that what he is presenting is the past teaching or the potential future beliefs of consistent LDS faithful. My argument is that his ideas should not be summarily dismissed as a refusal to believe what most Mormons individually believe today. I doubt if that is what Rob is interested in analyzing, but rather he is trying to see if what he is presenting has been a past belief with the latent potential to have the endorsement of many Latter-day Saints in future. Has this teaching, if it ever existed, been once and for all suppressed? That is the question that might be of interest. If Rob clarifies that he thinks that all of you individually believe secretly what he is proposing and you deny, I wouldn't give his ideas much consideration. But otherwise, if it is merely a question of a progressive, systematic evaluation of LDS Scripture and past interpretations, it seems like his ideas could be profitably entertained and discussed. It seems to me like a generous and reasonable interpretation of his analysis can eliminate the offensive notion that he won't allow you to establish your own beliefs.

I believe it would show the most important strengths of LDS beliefs against Protestantism/Evangelicalism, if you were to appreciate the need to not distance yourselves from what may presently be uncomfortable, in the acts and faith of your fathers. Our phenomenon in the wrong direction was in my opinion, accelerated by President Kennedy's compromises with Catholic Tradition. No one could ever be elected President who believes what I explained in the first two paragraphs. And Catholics were tired and weary of being on the outside of American political life. Maybe some of you can understand. Anyway, this is getting too long. I offer all of my reasonings here in the light of my avowed convictions against a "presentist" kind of approach to religion. "Well, 500 years ago I couldn't have been Catholic..." To the "hot place" with that! If you can't have been Catholic five hundred years ago, you can't be today in a way that will redeem a scoffing and skeptical world. I am suggesting the same principles which embraces our histories must apply to any institution that claims to be the one true church.

3DOP

Edited January 1, 2013 by 3DOP

[mathonihah]

I would like to use this as a spin-off of Robs thread. Lets discuss who the church of the devil is in LDS theology, and any other subjects where LDS theology has been misrepresented or is in need of clarification.

According to Nephi, anybody who "fights against Zion" is the Church of the devil. So that is the way to identify the church of the devil. The question therefore reduces to, (a) What is Zion? and (b) What does it mean to "fighting against Zion"? So the answer to the OP question centers on how accurately we can answer the above two subsidiary questions.

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP:

People and institutions change, and I find the modern attitude of the Catholics towards freedom of religion to be admirable.

Of course any idea in any religion can be "latent". We all read into Scripture what we think or want to think it teaches. So sure some LDS thought that the Catholic church was the Church of the Devil, and I have no doubt some still do. But the Prophets have specifically refuted that idea. There are enemies of truth enough without pitting Christians, of all sects/denominations, against each other.

[mathonihah]

I thought we pretty much had it nailed down in Rob's ill-fated thread - though he refused to accept any of those explanations.

Why should he just "accept" our explanations? I don't just "accept" his explanations, so why should he accept ours? Nobody is obliged to just accept anybody's explanations, otherwise there would be no point in a discussion. I usually give reasons why I don't accept somebody's explanation, and as far as I am aware he does too.

[mathonihah]

jwhitlock,

Let's be clear about something. I don't "accept" anyone's explanation for anything, if by that you mean I simply trust that a person's explanation is the correct one and give the matter no further thought. Rather, I accept that their explanation is their personal understanding (unless I have really good reason to think otherwise), but I then look at their explanation and see if it makes sense of the available information better than any other explanation at hand. So it isn't stubbornness on my part, or some nefarious insistence on a different interpretation despite the facts, that is the reason for me disagreeing with your explanation. It is that I see facts that as best I can tell don't fit your explanation.

I consider that an appropriate response to jwhitlock, thank you.

[mathonihah]

thesometimesaint helpfully provided the following reference:

********

The first several citations on that page come from 1 Nephi 13-14. Let me quote some of it:

And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil. 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. (1 Nephi 14:9-10)

Now, from this passage, it seems to me that we may make the following propositions:

• "That great and abominable church" is one and the same with "the church of the devil."
  
• Each human being belongs either to the church of the Lamb of God or to the church of the devil.
  
• Therefore, whoever is not part of the church of the Lamb of God is part of the church of the devil.
  
• Furthermore, whatever group of people that is collectively not part of the church of the Lamb of God is therefore part of the church of the devil.
  

Let me stop at this point and ask if we can all agree that the above propositions accurately represent the teaching of 1 Nephi 14:9-10. Then we may move forward (hopefully!) into some of the hotly disputed questions.

I agree with your analysis of the verse. The sticking point is, What is meant by the "church of the Lamb of God"? You are probably thinking that it means Mormonism! I don't think that it necessarily does.

If you continue to refuse to acknowledge what Mormons are telling you they believe you will be removed from threads. That is not a dialogue.

That is totally uncalled for. I sympathise with Rob's disillusionment with the board.

Edited January 1, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

No, and I know where you are going with this last one as well. ...

I don't. I don't believe in mind-reading. I prefer to let him tell me "where he is going" with that, before giving him a response.

[mathonihah]

And right about here is where your personal interpretations go off the rails. I don't think I will play your game either. You are either to arrogant or really obtuse when it comes to taking correction of your misconceptions.

I see no justification to that response to what Rob had posted. He is an intelligent guy, and I prefer to engage him in discussion. If you don't want to engage, you don't have to participate in the thread. I do. I have made a few points which I would like him to respond to. I hope he will reply.

[mathonihah]

I will agree. Proceed.

Thank you Rob Osborn, I agree too.

[3DOP]

3DOP:

People and institutions change, and I find the modern attitude of the Catholics towards freedom of religion to be admirable.

Of course any idea in any religion can be "latent". We all read into Scripture what we think or want to think it teaches. So sure some LDS thought that the Catholic church was the Church of the Devil, and I have no doubt some still do. But the Prophets have specifically refuted that idea. There are enemies of truth enough without pitting Christians, of all sects/denominations, against each other.

Thanks sometimesaint for the reply,

As you say, people change. Do you think LDS who accepted "the idea" that has been refuted believed that it was a teaching that could change? Why should we now think that a belief is permanent? For people who only care about today the discussion is less meaningful. Those searching for the one true church need to be able to identify change that is legitimate from change that is corruption. They want to know about change that is permanent versus change that may be temporary. People of "today" are sometimes naive in believing that their beliefs cannot be overturned, or "restored" to an older view. There is always huge strength in the discovering of value in past practices and beliefs that are too hastily swept away. I am not arguing that Rob is right. I don't disagree if you think the current view is unalterably refuted and disestablished forever. But I don't think it is proven. And that is why I think the discussion has merit. I am only speaking against the idea that Rob needs to be quiet because he won't "accept" what LDS say they believe. What the past believed needs to never be forgotten and considered, for good or ill.

Late Merry Christmas to you and a Happy New Year, tss. Thanks again.

3DOP

Edited January 1, 2013 by 3DOP