The Church Of The Devil, And Other Misrepresentations.

[canard78]

Although I concur that it is most likely that the two churches refer to individuals hearts and minds as they pertain to Christ, it is conceivable that someone would not be part of the Lamb of God church until they had actually joined His legitimate Kingdom on earth. All might be part of Satan's church in the sense that Satan is the "ruler" of this world and they are under his power until they repent and are baptized etc.,etc.

I very much dislike the notion that one qualifies for the church of the lamb of God through baptism and is in the church of the devil without it.

It is applying a very modern understanding to the word 'church'.

Does that mean that everyone before 1830 were members of the church of the devil?

In Wales 200 years ago people started asking 'church or chapel' with clear political/cultural implications (the older people sometimes still do today, I can remember being asked as much as a kid). The word 'church' as used was actually somewhat derogatory for some as it implied political affiliation with the English masters of the 1800s.

The etymology of 'church' is not referencing an organisation with membership but 'house' or even 'power.'

If you replace the word 'church' in the Nephi passage with 'power' it makes much more eternal sense.

If the church of the lamb and the church of the devil are eternal concepts, they certainly both existed pre-1830. I'd suggest the 'houses' or 'powers' of each go all the way back to the council in heaven.

This is not about Mormonism vs 'the rest' nor 'the rest' vs Roman Catholics.

This is about the Lamb vs the Devil. I find myself in either house or influenced by either power on a daily, even hourly basis.

[jwhitlock]

So you are not going fulfill the cfr obligation?

There's none to fulfill. Why don't you try reading what I post for understanding, instead of making mindless calls for CFRs that don't apply.

I do notice that you didn't demand a CFR from Rob, though his "analysis" of what the passage meant was nothing more than his opinion. In fact, you were quite quick to agree with him while he was trying to set the stage for what he was going to tell us we really believe about the church of the devil.

However, I will reiterate: the entire context of the passage applies to the last days, which is why I stated that it didn't apply to the Nephites. It's a prophecy of what would happen in the future. That's what Rob's interpretation conveniently wanted to ignore. That should be clear even to you at this point. So let's see if you finally decide to engage the conversation with some cogent discussion, instead of just badgering in hopes of impressing someone.

[Calm]

(and still is in some Sunday school lessons).

But to be clear for those who are not members, if it is taught in a SS lesson, it is the teacher's idea, not the manual's. Edited January 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Any church member who believed the Roman Catholic Church was/is the great and abominable church are just bad historians.

I've a Romanian LDS friend who finds it amusing that we 'western' Christians obsess about the RCC when the issues some LDS dump at the RCC's doorstep are present in Romanian Christianity, where the RCC has had little to no influence.

We are having a discussion on another thread about this very thing- and how eastern Catholics see the world quite differently than we do in the west. This will link you over to that discussion:

What is largely not known among non-Catholics is that the entire Byzantine Rite of the Roman Catholic Church not only allows married priests but actively encourages it among those who are not called to a monastic life. The entire history and practices of the various Rites within the Catholic church is in itself a fascinating study.

[Maidservant]

That great and abominable church" is one and the same with "the church of the devil." Yes.

Each human being belongs either to the church of the Lamb of God or to the church of the devil. No. It is NOT to mean that each person has been partitioned off to two big camps and that's what and who they are every minute of every day. The representation is not about labeling PEOPLE. It is about recognizing IDEAS and ways of living and ways of choosing and overall movement(s) in human life and society. I live a good life the best I can, but I shop at Walmart (being facetious here--capitalism as the church of the devil). So which am I? The point is that as an INDIVIDUAL, I cannot properly be stuffed into one camp. There is the power of the Lamb on the earth and the power of the devil on the earth, and we are in the PROCESS of choosing and creating which world we will live in, together and collectively. It's actually a collective choice we have to make. We most often imagine salvation as an individual effort--which is right, also. But what about our collective community of humanity--will we be able to reach a salvation (=a celestial life) together as a world? Only if we live the church (house) of the Lamb.

• Therefore, whoever is not part of the church of the Lamb of God is part of the church of the devil. No. See above--not about single individuals or even specific organizations generally speaking, unless you are a member of the Illuminati (again, facetious).
  
• 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. No. Not individuals, not people--choices, power, creation. We all have access individually and collectively to either the Lamb or the devil, and we must do our best to create a world free from the power of the devil.
  

Again--NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE.

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.

So with these answers--YES to only #1, and NO to the other three--how do we move forward then?

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

This is an interesting assertion. Hmmmm. I'm not sure I agree with it, although I appreciate your entire post where you lead up to this. I tend to think the opposite--the ACTION itself IS the reference to God/Father/Creator (etc). That all good that we do IS the light of God, that the act IS the word.

Although I can think of scriptural examples that give rise to what you have said, notably Moses striking water out of the rock comes to mind. But I can think of scriptures that tend to give rise to what I am thinking.

Hmmm. Will mull over this more.

Added: however, I agree that the brothels and bars (while a life of captivity) do not necessarily represent the greatest evils on this earth, but those things said in the name of God that are the opposite (a la Sherem from Jacob Ch 7 in the Book of Mormon) AND a la the story of the woman taken in adultery as to those who brought her to be condemned (instead of bringing her to be redeemed).

Edited January 2, 2013 by Maidservant

[3DOP]

Is it Catholic Answers Forum? If so, i'm forever banned from there as well. It was for proselityzing. While I did not agree with the ban, it was there call as it is their website. I'm totally at peace with it. But now I'm curious how you got banned forever from that forum or whatever forum you got banned from. I've definitely seen no reason here why you'd be benned. Especially from a forum representing your faith.

Hi Darren. Good day to you.

I have been espousing some of the ideas here in this thread that got me banned over at Catholic Answers. To be fair, I think we who have been banned must distinguish perhaps between different communities over there. The tolerance or lack thereof might be attributed directly to one moderator in a particular subgroup. I dealt with a moderator who really didn't even seem to understand what I was talking about. But he was faithfully intolerant of any criticism of the new liturgy or disagreement with recent popes. He seemed to want to promote the idea that all Catholics must give assent to newer teachings that I cannot reconcile with history. It was like he thought I was being disobedient. A lot of posters shared that view I am afraid.

My example given above of the nuances of Catholic teaching on religious liberty would be a case in point. I might make an argument about the questionability of saying that it is a part of Catholic Tradition that the State must always be tolerant and neutral towards non-Catholic religions. I might point out that we have canonized saints, princes and monarchs, who seemed not to have the slightest clue that this was the case. Just recall in recent times whose side the Church was on in the French Revolution. What about Pius IX's struggle to retain the Papal States? So he would have allowed a Mormon Temple in Rome? Really? But you ask questions like that and it gets you suspended. Do it several times and you're banned. In my opinion they want to try to sweep uncomfortable, but obvious facts like this under the rug and hope that inquirers won't call their bluff. I know Mormons are not sympathetic to what I say is the Traditional view. You would agree with the belief of the moderator. But that's not my point here. Hopefully you can see, Darren, why I can't pretend that recent policies cannot overturn past teachings that are thoroughly documented.

My tone there was the same as it is here. I'm not a bitter guy. I don't lash out at anybody. I just wanted to discuss things and before I knew it, I was gone. I think I had less than a hundred posts. The Traditionalist forum over there represents what I consider a very short-sighted, provincial kind of Catholicism that lives for today with no thought for the past, or really the future. I think they want to dream that they are in this millenial springtime that Pope John Paul II talked about, and woe to the poster, LDS or Catholic, who would burst that bubble.

Any church member who believed the Roman Catholic Church was/is the great and abominable church are just bad historians.

I've a Romanian LDS friend who finds it amusing that we 'western' Christians obsess about the RCC when the issues some LDS dump at the RCC's doorstep are present in Romanian Christianity, where the RCC has had little to no influence.

Yes, this idea of the RCC as 'the whore' has been taught (and still is in some Sunday school lessons).

No, I don't agree with them.

I'll try to find some notes I'd written on this chapter a while back.

Heh! Re: Your Romanian friend. I was already thinking about maybe the Eastern Orthodox should be jealous that they don't get rolled in to that interpretation too!

Just for the record Canard, I would not be offended at such an interpretation. I guess there is stuff about a city on seven hills (Rome). I think a lot of Catholic exegetes say that it is Rome too. Pagan Rome, when it persecuted the Church. So I don't fault anybody who is non-Catholic who thinks it makes sense to apply it to Catholic Rome.

I am thinking that some LDS are individually mistaken about their interpretation of the Whore, but I am becoming convinced that it cannot be said that this is the teaching of CoJCoLDS. As far as the passage from Nephi goes, I had suggested in an earlier post that seemed favorably received by some of you that it should be understood analogously to St. Augustine's City of God and City of Man. I think it was Ron Beron who brought up wheat and tares. Same thing. Not going to be separated. Hard to tell them apart sometimes. The consequences of "taredom" or working for the City of Man should not be minimized. The Latter-day Scripture that has been cited would seem to do does exactly that--with a jolt. It is the Church of the Devil. But it cannot be understood in a way that would make it seem like actual Satan worship. Unfortunately, the expression lends itself to an overly simplified interpretation.

Thanks Canard for your reply.

3DOP

Edited January 2, 2013 by 3DOP

[canard78]

But to be clear for those who are not members, if it is taught in a SS lesson, it is the teacher's idea, not the manual's.

Yes, I agree. Should have been clearer in my post. I'd be the first to leap up furiously googling the Nibley quote on my phone if they did make that statement.

[3DOP]

We are having a discussion on another thread about this very thing- and how eastern Catholics see the world quite differently than we do in the west. This will link you over to that discussion:

Hey bukowski! Link?

PS: Never mind....I found you. Thanks.

Edited January 2, 2013 by 3DOP

[Calm]

Click on the little arrow that is in the upper lefthand corner of the quote he provided.

[DavidB]

There's none to fulfill. Why don't you try reading what I post for understanding, instead of making mindless calls for CFRs that don't apply.

I read what you posted, you posted a statement that you intended to be taken as fact, yet you are unwilling to back that supposed statement of fact up.

I do notice that you didn't demand a CFR from Rob, though his "analysis" of what the passage meant was nothing more than his opinion. In fact, you were quite quick to agree with him while he was trying to set the stage for what he was going to tell us we really believe about the church of the devil.

The Devil himself could say "Joseph Smith said he saw God and Jesus Christ", and I would be a liar if I said the Devil was lying. However, you have betrayed yourself. You betrayal is your admission in trying to preempt the discussion by cutting off Rob, without even acknowledging that he has posted correct information, or that he posted even reasonably correct information which is open to personal opinion.

However, I will reiterate: the entire context of the passage applies to the last days, which is why I stated that it didn't apply to the Nephites. It's a prophecy of what would happen in the future. That's what Rob's interpretation conveniently wanted to ignore. That should be clear even to you at this point. So let's see if you finally decide to engage the conversation with some cogent discussion, instead of just badgering in hopes of impressing someone.

I can assure you, there is not a single person on this board I wish to impress.

I will give you one warning only. Stop badgering and start engaging in a meaningful and respectful exchange or you will be removed.

[mfbukowski]

I have been espousing some of the ideas here in this thread that got me banned over at Catholic Answers.

I think that it is positively hilarious that you have been banned over there, while they have not banned sweet, lovable and truly wonderful, not to mention humble, ME.

Of course I have not posted there in years because I could not take the vitriol. Not a nice place for people who do not toe the party line.

[jwhitlock]

I read what you posted, you posted a statement that you intended to be taken as fact, yet you are unwilling to back that supposed statement of fact up.

The Devil himself could say "Joseph Smith said he saw God and Jesus Christ", and I would be a liar if I said the Devil was lying. However, you have betrayed yourself. You betrayal is your admission in trying to preempt the discussion by cutting off Rob, without even acknowledging that he has posted correct information, or that he posted even reasonably correct information which is open to personal opinion.

The only unwillingness around here is connected to your inability to engage cogently in the discussion. Dismissing what I have said, and then claiming that I haven't backed it up with anything is ridiculous - but consistent with the kind of methodology promoted by you and Rob.

Do not turn this thread into personal exchanges. Move on.

[Bernard Gui]

I have enjoyed my discussions with Rob over the past 3 years. Some have be provocative, some humorous, some substantial, but

when he posted the temple ceremony on his website, he crossed a line that erased his claims to be a different kind of LDS opponent.

At that point, he became just another Ed Decker, just with some alphabets letters behind his name.

[3DOP]

I think that it is positively hilarious that you have been banned over there, while they have not banned sweet, lovable and truly wonderful, not to mention humble, ME.

Of course I have not posted there in years because I could not take the vitriol. Not a nice place for people who do not toe the party line.

Bukowski, I can't help but finding it a little amusing myself.

[Rob Osborn]

I have enjoyed my discussions with Rob over the past 3 years. Some have be provocative, some humorous, some substantial, but

when he posted the temple ceremony on his website, he crossed a line that erased his claims to be a different kind of LDS opponent.

At that point, he became just another Ed Decker, just with some alphabets letters behind his name.

And yet, we will probably all enjoy each others company in the celestial kingdom someday, including all the Rob's and Ed's out there. Best to find some common ground, start sooner rather than later our eternal friendships.

[mfbukowski]

I have enjoyed my discussions with Rob over the past 3 years. Some have be provocative, some humorous, some substantial, but

when he posted the temple ceremony on his website, he crossed a line that erased his claims to be a different kind of LDS opponent.

At that point, he became just another Ed Decker, just with some alphabets letters behind his name.

+1

Not even sure I ever saw any letters behind his name anyway, and if he did, I would question their source.

He had some defenders at first, but the only defenders left are newbies who don't know him and how he constantly distorts everything we tell him we believe. And yes, the temple publication is the clincher.

He will probably come up with some excuse to come back, but I honestly think the board is better without him. We can argue with Evangelicals anywhere, but it is great to have a place where we can at least talk together about our own issues without those distractions. To me that is what makes this board different and why I choose to post here pretty exclusively.

And I think that would work for the lurkers also. Here is one of the few places they can really see how we act and talk about our own doctrine without having to deal with rude and militant critics. Friendly respectful discussions are a different thing- I hope they are always available here too, but Rob was over the top in never accepting ANYTHING we said as being "what we really believe".

I want to communicate with LDS people, not argue about the fundamentals with critics over and over again. I already know they have nothing to offer- been there done that. What I want to do is advance our own understanding of our doctrine not only with the "biggies" in the field but with those rank and file "thinking Mormons" like those we all get to meet here.

Edited January 2, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And yet, we will probably all enjoy each others company in the celestial kingdom someday, including all the Rob's and Ed's out there. Best to find some common ground, start sooner rather than later our eternal friendships.

Agreed.

But that doesn't mean I have to spend my whole earth life arguing with them about the same stuff over and over just to make sure newbies and lurkers don't actually believe the lies they tell.

Edited January 2, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

And yet, we will probably all enjoy each others company in the celestial kingdom someday, including all the Rob's and Ed's out there. Best to find some common ground, start sooner rather than later our eternal friendships.

Perhaps.

[Bernard Gui]

+1

Not even sure I ever saw any letters behind his name anyway, and if he did, I would question their source.

He had some defenders at first, but the only defenders left are newbies who don't know him and how he constantly distorts everything we tell him we believe. And yes, the temple publication is the clincher.

He will probably come up with some excuse to come back, but I honestly think the board is better without him. We can argue with Evangelicals anywhere, but it is great to have a place where we can at least talk together about our own issues without those distractions. To me that is what makes this board different and why I choose to post here pretty exclusively.

And I think that would work for the lurkers also. Here is one of the few places they can really see how we act and talk about our own doctrine without having to deal with rude and militant critics. Friendly respectful discussions are a different thing- I hope they are always available here too, but Rob was over the top in never accepting ANYTHING we said as being "what we really believe".

I want to communicate with LDS people, not argue about the fundamentals with critics over and over again. I already know they have nothing to offer- been there done that. What I want to do is advance our own understanding of our doctrine not only with the "biggies" in the field but with those rank and file "thinking Mormons" like those we all get to meet here.

Over the years of its evolution, this board and its immediate predecessor have swung from one edge to the other. Some high-profile Mormons and ex-Mormons used to be regular

posters as well as some Evangelical folks who were far more aggressive than Rob. The tone of the board has changed noticeably. It is far less charged than

it has been in the past. And....I agree that it is nice to have a place to discuss the gospel without a lot of rancor.

Bernard

[jwhitlock]

I am thinking that some LDS are individually mistaken about their interpretation of the Whore, but I am becoming convinced that it cannot be said that this is the teaching of CoJCoLDS. As far as the passage from Nephi goes, I had suggested in an earlier post that seemed favorably received by some of you that it should be understood analogously to St. Augustine's City of God and City of Man. I think it was Ron Beron who brought up wheat and tares. Same thing. Not going to be separated. Hard to tell them apart sometimes. The consequences of "taredom" or working for the City of Man should not be minimized. The Latter-day Scripture that has been cited would seem to do does exactly that--with a jolt. It is the Church of the Devil. But it cannot be understood in a way that would make it seem like actual Satan worship. Unfortunately, the expression lends itself to an overly simplified interpretation.

I think that the wheat / tares / church of lamb / church of devil connection has a great deal of validity. I also think that the phrase "church of the devil" is specifically chosen for that reason. After all, once the tares are gathered, they are burned. I also suspect that while we today would connect "church of the devil" with Satan worship, the Nephites probably had a somewhat different perspective of what the role of the devil was. While our perspective of Satan has been colored by the media and music, their perspective was perhaps one of simple opposition, or the conflict between good and evil, between the lamb and the devil. Individuals would divide out over time into one camp or the other, as indicated in Lehi's vision.

You're correct that the expression lends itself to an overly simplified interpretation, but that may not have been how the Nephites saw it.

[altersteve]

That great and abominable church" is one and the same with "the church of the devil." Yes.

Each human being belongs either to the church of the Lamb of God or to the church of the devil. No. It is NOT to mean that each person has been partitioned off to two big camps and that's what and who they are every minute of every day. The representation is not about labeling PEOPLE. It is about recognizing IDEAS and ways of living and ways of choosing and overall movement(s) in human life and society. I live a good life the best I can, but I shop at Walmart (being facetious here--capitalism as the church of the devil). So which am I? The point is that as an INDIVIDUAL, I cannot properly be stuffed into one camp. There is the power of the Lamb on the earth and the power of the devil on the earth, and we are in the PROCESS of choosing and creating which world we will live in, together and collectively. It's actually a collective choice we have to make. We most often imagine salvation as an individual effort--which is right, also. But what about our collective community of humanity--will we be able to reach a salvation (=a celestial life) together as a world? Only if we live the church (house) of the Lamb.

• Therefore, whoever is not part of the church of the Lamb of God is part of the church of the devil. No. See above--not about single individuals or even specific organizations generally speaking, unless you are a member of the Illuminati (again, facetious).
  
• 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. No. Not individuals, not people--choices, power, creation. We all have access individually and collectively to either the Lamb or the devil, and we must do our best to create a world free from the power of the devil.
  

Again--NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE.

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.

So with these answers--YES to only #1, and NO to the other three--how do we move forward then?

Incredible post.

[Darren10]

The etymology of 'church' is not referencing an organisation with membership but 'house' or even 'power.'

If you replace the word 'church' in the Nephi passage with 'power' it makes much more eternal sense.

If the church of the lamb and the church of the devil are eternal concepts, they certainly both existed pre-1830. I'd suggest the 'houses' or 'powers' of each go all the way back to the council in heaven.

This is not about Mormonism vs 'the rest' nor 'the rest' vs Roman Catholics.

This is about the Lamb vs the Devil. I find myself in either house or influenced by either power on a daily, even hourly basis.

canard's etymological connection does seem accurate. I placed in bold the relevant portion from the origin of the word "church":

Old English cirice "church, public place of worship, Christians collectively," from West Germanic *kirika (cf. Old Saxon kirika, Old Norse kirkja, Old Frisian zerke, Middle Dutch kerke, Old High German kirihha, German Kirche), from Greek kyriake (oikia), kyriakon doma "Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord," from PIE root *keue- "to swell" ("swollen," hence "strong, powerful"). Phonetic spelling from c.1200, established by 16c. For vowel evolution, see bury.

Greek kyriakon (adj.) "of the Lord" was used of houses of Christian worship since c.300, especially in the East, though it was less common in this sense than ekklesia or basilike. An example of the direct Greek-to-Germanic progress of many Christian words, via the Goths; it was probably used by West Germanic people in their pre-Christian period. Also picked up by Slavic, via Germanic (e.g. Old Church Slavonic criky, Russian cerkov). Romance and Celtic languages use variants of Latin ecclesia (e.g. French église, 11c.). Church key is early 14c.; slang use for "can or bottle opener" is by 1954, probably originally U.S. college student slang. Church-mouse, proverbial in many languages for its poverty, is 1731 in English.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=church&allowed_in_frame=0

I very much like the application of "power" to the word "church" in Nephi's account of the church of the devil. I think I'll start sharing that insight with others.

[Darren10]

3DOP #81;

On a similar note, via na email exchange, I was told that the administrators there needed to "protect" Catholics from LDS (or any other non-Catholic) prosyletizing. My "preaching", if we should call it that, were entirely responses to other remarks made previous to my entry into that forum. For example, I expressed my fiath in that the Book of Mormon was the true word of God and it brings souls to Christ. That was in direct reply to one poster who blanteantly said that science proved that the Book of Mormon is nothing but a fairy tail. I did not go there to preach, in fact, I really do not go anywhere to preach. I share my views and defend tham. One reason I like challenges is that it forces me to dig deeper than I normally would into my underastanding of LDS doctrines and in the end that helps me to gain a better understanding of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I share my beliefs and allow others to decide how to best apply them.

From what I've seen you post here, I've no doubt you were quite civil in CAF. I know you don't attack people, nor, badger or lecture them. I like that in you. I also lioke the deep knowledge you bring into the discussion regarding Catholicism. I highly enjoy learning of other people's faiths and of other churches and religions. I have a strong desire to learn of these faiths accurately and so I find having you around is a blessing.

Thanks for sharing your insights and for your response. I hope and pray your arm continues to heal and to function well. Also, the highest of hopes for your son and his spiritual progress. May you and him and all yours be blessed by the Lord and may you all be intrumental in His hands to love and serve others.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Maidservant;

I live a good life the best I can, but I shop at Walmart (being facetious here--capitalism as the church of the devil). So which am I?

Facetious or not, if you're honestly not comfortable shopping at Walmart over the assertion that it's based on capitalism, I'll gladly shop there for you. I embrace capitalism and see it as an immense blessing for the masses. Walmart epitomizes the blessing of cpaitalism with their lower prices and how you can buy "anything" there.

Facetious or not, I do not find at all capitalism as part of the devil.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Darren10

[volgadon]

Maidservant;

Facetious or not, if you're honestly not comfortable shopping at Walmart over the assertion that it's based on capitalism, I'll gladly shop there for you. I embrace capitalism and see it as an immense blessing for the masses. Walmart epitomizes the blessing of cpaitalism with their lower prices and how you can buy "anything" there.

Facetious or not, I do not find at all capitalism as part of the devil.

Don't even get me started on the way walmart treats its employees. Blessings? My foot.