The Church Of The Devil, And Other Misrepresentations.

[mathonihah]

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.

He may have that tendency, but that is his problem. It doesn’t mean that we can’t engage him in discussion. As long as he is here and willing to discuss anything, I am willing to discuss it with him, whether he willingly accepts criticism or not.

The caution you received from the moderator came after the post which you replied to Whitlock 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.

With that assessment I must disagree. I think that Whitlock’s response was inappropriate, and his response to it an appropriate one. Why should he just “accept” what Mormons tell him? I don’t, and neither should he.

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.

That is entirely beside the point. The fact remains that he is here and willing to discuss, and I will engage anyone in a discussion who is willing to do so with civility. If others don’t want to engage with him they don’t have to. You always have the option of ignoring his posts and not responding. If I want to engage him, that is my business. If you don't want to, you don't have to.

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.

That does not appear to me to be an accurate description of the events.

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.

So what? I think I am big enough for that. But if someone wants to come here and discuss Mormonism with me, I am willing to discuss it with him.

[thesometimesaint]

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

You are welcome. Nearly all ideas are subject to change. At one time male circumcision, and the not eating of pork was the requirement. Christ through Peter/Paul changed that idea. So do I expect more changes? Though I have no clue as to what they will be. Yes I do expect more changes, and it is one of our Articles of Faith. But on the basics not so much.

Hope you had a very merry Christmas and have a prosperous new year.

PS. While I disagree with Rob. He has every right to post his beliefs here, as long as he respects our rights. As long as everyone's rights are respected I'd be the last person on earth to tell anybody to be quite.

Edited January 1, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[3DOP]

3DOP:

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

Hey tss...

Remember what I said about the end being the need to redeem a scoffing and skeptical world? What atheist is going to admire the Catholic Church for waiting until the 1960's to accept what they would consider inevitable? If the doctrine which you admire cannot be found in the seminal teachings of the Catholic Church, then I am obliged to oppose it. We are very easily led to ignore the practical difficulties of hastily agreeing with those who oppose us, while imagining that now they will like us. Yes, we think they will now be able to see all the beautiful things that we still retain. No. Instead we are more despised than ever, and rightly so if we compromise. The call to evangelize is not primarily about converting souls to admiration, although I don't deny that one must also be able to "admire" the truth. I am saying that for truth to be admirable it must needs be venerable, never embarrassing, with pedigree, with sacrifice, without an appearance of compromise. If I thought that the Gospel teaches that all religions have a right to propagate their beliefs without the State ever interceding, I would have to be embarrassed as a Catholic and I would tend to try to avoid discussion of our history in this regard.

You say, better embarrassed than wrong. I agree completely. If one must choose, be embarrassed. Change. But about the Catholic Tradition on this question I have raised, I am neither wrong nor embarrassed.

3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP:

I believe history is replete with individuals and institutions that sought, and some still seek unrighteous dominion over the souls of men. We have an Article of Faith for that very reason.

Article of Faith #11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

I personally believe that I will be held to account for how I treated my fellow creatures when I meet my God. If the Atheists are correct, and I don't believe they are, that after this life it is just the Abyss, it won't make any difference anyway.

I think that both of our respective religions have been the subject of unfounded criticism and mocking. There really is no excuse for it. We can be well aware of history and still not deride the beliefs of others. I'm more than capable of holding my own against Theists and Atheists alike, but I don't go looking for fights either.

I believe God looks at our heart as well as our actions. As a mere mortal all I can see is the actions. Show me what you do, and I'll know what you believe.

From my perspective Christ issued a call to repentance not a call to arms.

Edited January 1, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[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.

As you are well aware, Rob, your entrenched attitude towards you own biases goes far deeper than that. You demanded CFRs on your thread and kept demanding them after explanations were provided. You simply ignored the responses. You were asked to provide references that supported your specific claim that we think all non-LDS churches belong to the church of the devil. You simply referred back to 1 Nephi (which we had pointed out did not contain that wording) as your justification, and you're still doing that in this thread.

Let's be real clear about this. You simply don't accept any explanation or any evidence that contradicts your pre-determined, negative conclusions about the church and its members. Despite being provided with multiple current quotes that contradict your characterization of our beliefs, you won't even refer to them in you "evidence" on your sites about what we "really" believe. That was painfully clear in the other thread, and it is painfully clear in responses here.

You don't balance facts; you pick and choose facts.

[jwhitlock]

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.

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.

Rob's "analysis" falls off the tracks with the second bullet point. The last three bullet points are invalid, since the entire scriptural passage refers to a time when the polarization in the world is far more advanced than it is now. There are still many neutral people.

Perhaps Rob would be better served were he to consider the scriptures as a whole rather than cherry picking single passages in isolation.

[jwhitlock]

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

You were quite willing to defend Rob and question his critics on the other thread. You are now gleefully agreeing with what Rob posts, while more forcefully criticizing those who disagree with him.

From the tone of your posts, it's becoming quite clear which side of the fence you reside on. Please don't continue to insult us as Latter-day Saints, telling us that you're on "our side".

You're not.

[mathonihah]

You were quite willing to defend Rob and question his critics on the other thread. You are now gleefully agreeing with what Rob posts, while more forcefully criticizing those who disagree with him.

From the tone of your posts, it's becoming quite clear which side of the fence you reside on. Please don't continue to insult us as Latter-day Saints, telling us that you're on "our side".

You're not.

LOL! I am on the side of the truth. I am also on the side of fair debate. I am on the side of fair argument. I am not on the side of unfairly treating anybody, friend or foe. I have disagreed with Rob on pretty much everything he has said; but disagreeing with him with cogent arguments is one thing, trying to censor him because you cannot answer him is another; and the fact that he runs a site critical of LDS is irrelevant to the issue. I want my critics to have the freedom to criticise me; and I want to have the freedom to answer their criticisms. If you try to deny them the right to criticise me (or my church, or my religion), you are also denying me the right to answer their criticisms. I don't believe that either freedom should be denied.

Edited January 1, 2013 by mathonihah

[Saints Alive]

Lets try to get back on topic please.

[mathonihah]

Lets try to get back on topic please.

I agree; but that is going to be a bit difficult with one of the principle actors having been effectively excluded from the thread.

You have been excluded for nonstop derailment.

[followerofemmanuel]

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.

You have a great attitude. I imagine that it's not easy to maintain if you feel that your always on the defense as many LDS folks must feel like here. Thanks for your openness to dialogue!

Edited January 1, 2013 by followerofemmanuel

[jwhitlock]

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.

3DOP

Good thoughts, and certainly given in a far different spirit of discussion than what Rob engages in.

I like your analogy; however, there is one significant difference in comparing the two. While the Catholic teaching of 500 years ago may have been far more entrenched as official Catholic policy, what Latter-day Saints have is a variety of writings from early and current church leaders on the subject, but no indication of an official policy or attitude. The understanding of what the church of the devil consisted of in the 19th century differed between individual church leaders. Due to conflict between LDS and other religions, there was a lot of negative ink written on both sides, but I don't know of any official LDS policy of actively trying to deny other churches the right to exist even among heavily LDS oriented communities. Instead, the opposite seems to be true. Religious freedom was entrenched as church policy, and peaceful coexistence, not demands for acceptance of LDS doctrine, seem to have been the consistent norm throughout LDS history.

Current General Conference talks and actions by the church indicate a firm commitment to working with other churches on a variety of issues. Mormon scholarship, while still engaged in Apologetics with those who attack us, also actively seek to narrow the divide and foster understanding between faiths.

Individual LDS attitudes are probably more of an outgrowth of the persecution of the past and the relative self-imposed isolation of the saints until recent times. Yet that has been rapidly changing. While I personally harbor a great deal of antipathy towards anti-Mormon activity (surprise!), I also enjoy productive and valuable relationships with those of other faiths, including pastors (our neighbor is one).

Rob has tried to paint a very different picture of what we believe, since his whole goal is to attack and tear down the church and its members. He makes absolutist interpretations based on cherry-picked evidence in order to foster those negative impressions about the church. He accused some Mormons of a campaign of censorship against him on Facebook without any real evidence other than his guess. He ignores evidence that contradicts his predetermined bias against the church.

Anti-Mormons such as Rob are not a reliable indicator of what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members are really like. We are much more complex and diverse than anti-Mormons want people to believe. There are non-LDS scholars out there with much more balanced analysis of who and what we are; Rob and his ilk can and should be dismissed as without credibility if one wants to find out anything about Mormonism.

From a Catholic standpoint, I'm sure you also understand this. Catholicism is also a complex and diverse subject, and attempts to pigeonhole all Catholics into one mold by those who attack you also lack credibility.

From my viewpoint and because of this, I approach Rob differently than someone, even a critic, who is trying to engage in true scholarship, understanding, or analysis of Mormonism. Rob is driven primarily by his bias against Mormonism and shows a clear methodology of letting the end justify his means in meeting that end. It's not valid to approach him in the same way one would approach others who evaluate the church without Rob's biases.

[mathonihah]

You have a great attitude. I imagine that it's not easy to maintain if you feel that your always on the defense as many LDS folks must like here. Thanks for your openness to dialogue!

Thank you! You are very welcome.

[jwhitlock]

LOL! I am on the side of the truth. I am also on the side of fair debate. I am on the side of fair argument. I am not on the side of unfairly treating anybody, friend or foe. I have disagreed with Rob on pretty much everything he has said; but disagreeing with him with cogent arguments is one thing, trying to censor him because you cannot answer him is another; and the fact that he runs a site critical of LDS is irrelevant to the issue. I want my critics to have the freedom to criticise me; and I want to have the freedom to answer their criticisms. If you try to deny them the right to criticise me (or my church, or my religion), you are also denying me the right to answer their criticisms. I don't believe that either freedom should be denied.

Thanks for misrepresenting what I posted, since I never have talked about denying anyone the right to criticize.

Otherwise, your posting pretty much contradicts what you're claiming above. You've pretty much been a cheerleader for Rob, accepting what he posts rather uncritically, while taking issue with anyone responding back to him. And, the fact that he is an active anti-Mormon is indeed relevant to any discussion with him.

[jwhitlock]

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

By the way, why are you so willing to criticize us and the moderators for dealing bluntly with Rob, while remaining silent or even characterizing his responses as appropriate when he is equally as blunt in return? You're bending over backwards to give Rob every benefit you can, while actively arguing with anyone who opposes him.

Get back on topic before you are removed as well.

[Chaos]

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.

That is where this thread needs to go.

One further warning, anyone who interprets the scripture of another religion and/or tells them what they believe over their protestations will be removed. You as a Catholic will always be given the right to represent your own beliefs in this forum without being harrassed to prove otherwise. Otherwise, we have a hostile environment based on the premise that those who do not share the same beliefs are dishonest or stupid. Posters who proceed on that assumption will not be here long no matter how expertly they package that message..

[BlueDreams]

Mathonihah,

This is completely from the perspective of someone who hasn't participated much at all in this or that thread...I get your perspective about respectful dialogue/discourse. Honestly, some of the conversation was uncomfortable nearer the end and a little over the top. But I also understand why it was that way as well. Rob isn't exactly an innocent bystander and his means of dialogue (or lack thereof) can be extremely irritating. Especially when he insists on pushing his own ideas about what mormons believe even when those who are LDS vastly disagree with him. It's consistently coming as an expert of mormonism (or at least one who feels informed enough to explain mormonism for others) to a mormon audience that are generally well-informed about their beliefs and as a non-mormon telling them how just uninformed they are. And when it is pointed out that, no, his interpretation is very much off, there is no real room for correction....there is not enough evidence, no matter how ample or expansive or just simply logical that will satisfy it. Which is why I generally just don't respond. It's one thing to show a differing perspective (plenty do, and I appreciate it generally). it's another to say that there could be a shift in views about what constitutes the church of the devil/lamb or a popular belief is not there anymore/is latent (plenty have, and I'd agree). This is not what Rob has done. He's consistently validated/defended persistent inaccurate depictions of another's belief. I haven't personally seen any change from that. Think of it outside of an LDS context to any world standard: race, ethnic group, other religious groups, etc. If an "expert" or informed contributor came into a board full of X and explained that X believe or act in this way (a way that's generally offensive to the actual people) and even backed it up with some stat or some out-of-context quotation....how well do you think it would go? Generally not well.....especially when the idea is pushed again and again.

Of course, He'll probably disagree with me on that portrayal. But that's what I see. So though, I don't necessary agree with the quick and irritated reactions to his posts, I can understand the sentimentality. It's a very human response.

For the sake of the initial discussion:

To understand the Devil/Lamb dichotomy would include a needed understanding of LDS beliefs about the light of Christ and Goodness. This is not ascribed to solely an earthly institution but a gift universally given to all humanity that each can build and develop as they desire. (Moro 7; BD "light of Christ). The spit must be understood within the context of LDS understanding of heaven to understand that these are not stringent groups defined by a specific denomination, but groups of people found in all areas of the world that are defined by what goodness or bad the attain to. The church of the Devil is therefore described not in an actual physical group, but in the traits and characteristics that pull man away from better knowing God: Materialism, whoredom, pride, seeking power/prestige....it's a group that is described of having a expansive influence over all groups of people. (1 Ne 14:11) and that dominates. The Church of the lamb, also entails all sorts of people, but is smaller in dominion (or influence/power) because the greater influence that the Church of the Devil have over the people.

Further more the idea of its expansive nature is found in the language used to name it: the mother of all abominations. No religion or distinct group has primacy on abominations and sins. Each have had their moments where people or the institution itself has chosen things that unnecessarily divide and harm others. It was founded by the devil. I think this is an important description because, again, it is not a specific individual that is described but the source of all evil, which then infers further that this "church" is more to do with the pervasive ideas found in all times that lead people into wickedness and evils.

Those are a few of the things that I see. Take care.

With luv,

BD

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

These verses (about there being only two churches) are similar to Viktor Frankl’s assertion that that there are only two races -- the decent and the indecent. His point was that members of the “decent race” and of the “indecent race” can be found in every group of people. (Although a holocaust survivor, he even managed to find a member of the “decent race” in the last place one would expect).

[thesometimesaint]

There are only two types of people in this world. People you like to see come, and people you like to see go.

[jwhitlock]

For the sake of the initial discussion:

To understand the Devil/Lamb dichotomy would include a needed understanding of LDS beliefs about the light of Christ and Goodness. This is not ascribed to solely an earthly institution but a gift universally given to all humanity that each can build and develop as they desire. (Moro 7; BD "light of Christ). The spit must be understood within the context of LDS understanding of heaven to understand that these are not stringent groups defined by a specific denomination, but groups of people found in all areas of the world that are defined by what goodness or bad the attain to. The church of the Devil is therefore described not in an actual physical group, but in the traits and characteristics that pull man away from better knowing God: Materialism, whoredom, pride, seeking power/prestige....it's a group that is described of having a expansive influence over all groups of people. (1 Ne 14:11) and that dominates. The Church of the lamb, also entails all sorts of people, but is smaller in dominion (or influence/power) because the greater influence that the Church of the Devil have over the people.

Further more the idea of its expansive nature is found in the language used to name it: the mother of all abominations. No religion or distinct group has primacy on abominations and sins. Each have had their moments where people or the institution itself has chosen things that unnecessarily divide and harm others. It was founded by the devil. I think this is an important description because, again, it is not a specific individual that is described but the source of all evil, which then infers further that this "church" is more to do with the pervasive ideas found in all times that lead people into wickedness and evils.

Those are a few of the things that I see. Take care.

Pretty good summary of how the church of the lamb and the church of the devil should be understood.

[Darren10]

He may have that tendency, but that is his problem. It doesn’t mean that we can’t engage him in discussion. As long as he is here and willing to discuss anything, I am willing to discuss it with him, whether he willingly accepts criticism or not.

Than go to his blog and discuss it. The main point is that he is not here to discuss if he throws out material, gets responses, and then regularly rejects those responses. That's not discussion, that's more along the lines of "trolling" on the internet. My pont in refering to IRR is that he is bringing their self-declared mission to denounce mormonism here in the form of never being satisfied with what Mormons tell him.

I've more to say but seeing that we need to keep on topic, I'll stop right here in my response.

[3DOP]

I like your analogy; however, there is one significant difference in comparing the two. While the Catholic teaching of 500 years ago may have been far more entrenched as official Catholic policy, what Latter-day Saints have is a variety of writings from early and current church leaders on the subject, but no indication of an official policy or attitude.

Hi jwhitlock.

I appreciate the reply.

I was thinking of that very thing after I finally laid down last night. That is a very siginficant point of difference in determining whether an early belief can be with reasonable assurance considered viable no longer, and never official. Yours may have been a belief that was strong for maybe only a few generations. It is much easier for LDS to get away historically from the two churches dichotomy than it might be for Catholics to get away from past positions both stated and practiced as regards religious liberty.

All that you need to do is to show an alternative plausible interpretation to that passage that Rob Bowman was raising. However, I would like to propose another possibility first. I am not confident that modern LDS have appreciated the potential value of the concepts expressed in the idea of the two churches as expressed in your Scriptures. To speak of the Church of the Devil is understandably offensive to many. But St. Augustine taught the same thing in his book the City of God. The reason nobody is opposed to this work, and it gets republished all the time along with other secular classics is that he called the Church of the Devil, the City of Man. Nobody minds being in the City of Man.

There is a sense in which these who build the City of Man are not doing God's work, but are doing good works, admirable and humanitarian works. They aren't Satan worshippers. It is just that their motives for action are not animated by the desire to glorify and honor God our Father in submission to His will. The significance of our motives as to the potential success of our endeavours can hardly be overestimated. We need only remember the folly of the Tower of Babel, which displeased God for reasons less overt than worship of Satan. If I understand the Church of the Devil this way, it seems like a true concept that is compatible with both of our faiths, but in the LDS case, needing a bit of repackaging.

That is another reason why I would like to see this thing discussed among you. If you reject this Church of the Devil idea, I hope it is because of the merit of the concepts, and not the sound of the words. I am hoping that many of you might understand a renewed value to the primitive ideas expressed by your fathers in this way. As I understand it, acceptance of this concept moves you a little closer to my own faith, and the more alike we are, the better we can care about each other, and it stirs us to continue to even resolve other differences. Together, we should recognize that Satan's greatest success is not when the brothels and bars are booming so much as when good men are lured to do good works without any reference to God their Father and Creator.

3DOP

Edited January 1, 2013 by 3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP:

As it is Scripture to us it would be problematic to reject the ideas expressed in it. But I do reject those that would posit a particular church as being the Church of the Devil without their agreement and consent. So there is a Church of the Devil, and people whom do worship the Devil in the literal sense. Plus those that work against God in a more religious sense. I believe that Scripture references the latter and not the former.

To be specific the Prophets have publicly declared the Catholic church is not the church of the devil.

[3DOP]

3DOP:

As it is Scripture to us it would be problematic to reject the ideas expressed in it. But I do reject those that would posit a particular church as being the Church of the Devil without their agreement and consent. So there is a Church of the Devil, and people whom do worship the Devil in the literal sense. Plus those that work against God in a more religious sense. I believe that Scripture references the latter and not the former.

To be specific the Prophets have publicly declared the Catholic church is not the church of the devil.

---my bold

tss: hey.

See how LDS I am? I agree with the Prophets too!

[jwhitlock]

I was thinking of that very thing after I finally laid down last night. That is a very siginficant point of difference in determining whether an early belief can be with reasonable assurance considered viable no longer, and never official. Yours may have been a belief that was strong for maybe only a few generations. It is much easier for LDS to get away historically from the two churches dichotomy than it might be for Catholics to get away from past positions both stated and practiced as regards religious liberty.

All that you need to do is to show an alternative plausible interpretation to that passage that Rob Bowman was raising. However, I would like to propose another possibility first. I am not confident that modern LDS have appreciated the potential value of the concepts expressed in the idea of the two churches as expressed in your Scriptures. To speak of the Church of the Devil is understandably offensive to many. But St. Augustine taught the same thing in his book the City of God. The reason nobody is opposed to this work, and it gets republished all the time along with other secular classics is that he called the Church of the Devil, the City of Man. Nobody minds being in the City of Man.

Good to interact with you again. Always appreciate your viewpoints.

The early LDS position concerning the church of the devil was, I believe, highly influenced by the environment of persecution they lived in. It became easy to develop an us-vs-them mentality, and the scriptures seemed, to many, to provide convenient explanations for the polarization in 1 Nephi. Certainly the early writings of certain leaders of the church - including a very frustrated Joseph Smith, at times - gave vent to this very human tendency to lump everything into two camps.

However entrenched that attitude may have been, it is tempered by other more measured and less emotional writings at the time that spoke directly of freedom of religion and the desire to allow all to worship as they pleased. It was recognized in these writings that this shouldn't apply just to Latter-day Saints, but also to everyone else. I would posit that these more measured writings give us a truer picture of what the intent of the church was, even as many individuals in the church struggled to "love their enemies" as those enemies were actively persecuting them.

In our day, the persecution still continues, though it now happens in different venues due to technology changes. Official persecution by the state is not currently an issue, but just as there were people in the 19th century who would cheerfully slit a Mormon's throat, there are people today who would be very happy to make Mormons as miserable as possible. This means that to some extent, the us-vs-them attitude still has a foothold among members of the church, and such attitudes can still color some Latter-day Saint relationships with people of other faiths.

The difference is that currently the church officially has made it quite clear what our relationships should be with people of other faiths and with other churches. It should be one of cooperation, as you note, and of working together to end conflict. There should be no question about that; I can find the roots of such thought from the beginning of the church in 1830, and there have been many examples of the surprising influence of that need for cooperation despite the element of persecution over time.

There is a sense in which these who build the City of Man are not doing God's work, but are doing good works, admirable and humanitarian works. They aren't Satan worshippers. It is just that their motives for action are not animated by the desire to glorify and honor God our Father in submission to His will. The significance of our motives as to the potential success of our endeavours can hardly be overestimated. We need only remember the folly of the Tower of Babel, which displeased God for reasons less overt than worship of Satan. If I understand the Church of the Devil this way, it seems like a true concept that is compatible with both of our faiths, but in the LDS case, needing a bit of repackaging.

I think you're spot on, here. As McConkie noted, the church of the devil is anything that takes the place of God in people's lives. That can include worldly interests as you describe above. It also needs to be noted that the scripture does not limit the ability of people to "convert" from one church to another.

That is another reason why I would like to see this thing discussed among you. If you reject this Church of the Devil idea, I hope it is because of the merit of the concepts, and not the sound of the words. I am hoping that many of you might understand a renewed value to the primitive ideas expressed by your fathers in this way. As I understand it, acceptance of this concept moves you a little closer to my own faith, and the more alike we are, the better we can care about each other, and it stirs us to continue to even resolve other differences. Together, we should recognize that Satan's greatest success is not when the brothels and bars are booming so much as when good men are lured to do good works without any reference to God their Father and Creator.

3DOP

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I believe that the terms "church of the devil" and "church of the lamb" are absolutely appropriate, not only for how they might describe the world today, but in a real sense for how they might describe a very polarized world as the Second Coming of Christ gets closer. Indeed, my personal belief is that while the general principles of 1 Nephi describing both churches can be instructive today, they are more directly targeted at the time right before He comes when all things are in commotion. The difference between the two may be more starkly defined at that point, while we must allow for some neutrality currently.

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that now is the time to build bridges and to work together productively. I think that there are many Catholics, Latter-day Saints, Evangelicals, Protestants, and others of many faiths who are people of goodwill and who love Christ according to the best of their understanding. Perhaps the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially desires respectful and productive interaction and dialogue with those of other faiths is evident not only in what we currently do in humanitarian and other relief efforts, and scholarly, respectful dialogue with others, but in the fact that we as a church do not tolerate blatant misbehavior by our members - especially missionaries - in this area. Two missionaries that desecrated a Catholic shrine (last year?) were disciplined by the church, and public apologies and restitution offered. Everyone I talked to who was a member of the church was appalled by the inappropriateness of their actions. This would not have been the case if there was an entrenched LDS attitude that all non-LDS faiths were of the church of the devil. In reality, it is quite the opposite, and that was what made Rob's comments to the contrary a significant sore point.

Thanks again for your thoughts; good points, as always.

Edited January 1, 2013 by jwhitlock