The Church Of Satan

[stemelbow]

Us versus Them is always a powerful cohesive. The problem is it turns the rest of the world and the rest of Christianity into an enemy which is, at best, counterproductive.

If I listen strictly to Church, as I think about the messages I've heard over the years, we have too many enemies, so many that we are left, often, at least it feels to me, with the impression that many enemies are sitting in the pews next to us. Anyone's a wolf in sheep's clothing, plus the Catholics and the Baptists, not to mention those really bad atheists.

luckily we each approach those messages with some measure of sanity, and we can actually accept their are good people who are atheists--well some of us.

[Sanpitch]

1. Should read this essay.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1397&index=6

 

2. Should check out the other good information on the FAIR website under "great and abominable church"

 

3. Should realize that the first edition of Mormon Doctrine was pretty much a disaster. Elder McConkie was always an impetuous type, but for all the good he did, in this case his presumptuousness was an embarassment to church leaders and his book was shot full of errors identified by Elders Stapley and Peterson (see David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Robert Wright and Gregory Prince).

"David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Robert Wright and Gregory Prince)."  I read that book years ago and loved it.  I think all LDS members should read it.  As I remember the authors were advised to just write the book as they saw the facts, blemish and all.

[MiserereNobis]

Nothing has changed in their creeds; they have remained the same.  Creeds remain an abomination to the Lord.  Why are creeds such an abomination to God?  Something to think about, but it centers on free agency.

 

As a believer in dogmatic creeds (and part of McConkie's great and abominable church, ha!), I'd like to respectfully point out that the Articles of Faith are, by any definition, a creed.  The word creed comes from the Latin "credo" which means "I believe."  It is the traditional beginning of the statements of faith that creeds employ.  The Articles of Faith are statements of belief that also begin with "believe" (we, obviously, instead of I).

 

So, though you don't call it a creed, I don't see how there is anyway of getting around it:  The LDS church has a creed and it is the Articles of Faith.

 

If I remember correctly, don't children have to memorize the Articles of Faith?

Are the Articles canonized scripture?

 

Pax

[MiserereNobis]

As a Catholic, I don't much mind others thinking that I am part of a the great whore of Babylon.  I think it is utterly completely absolutely ridiculous, from historical, theological, and straight up logical points-of-view.  And sheesh, even if you disagree with us, have some gratitude for that fact that without us Western Civilization would not have a Christian foundation!

 

Even if you think our theology is wrong, you've must have some appreciation for the sheer amount of good that has been done by Catholicism in every realm from academics, to art, to caring for the poor.  And think of how many people have found a loving, fruitful, and important relationship with God and Christ through Catholicism.

 

We might be wrong, but it hardly seems like we could be called the church of satan.  This is why such accusations don't bother me -- they seem beyond crazy.

 

Pax

Edited October 9, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[Zakuska]

Im glad to see most of the responses on this thread about how our other Christian brothers will join in with us at the second coming.  If you remember this "Kingdom", Daniels great rock that was to come and smite the Image was to "break into pieces and then consume the whole earth".  That's exactly what  happened and the Lady "the church" came back from the wilderness to lead them home. 

[oremites]

So, though you don't call it a creed, I don't see how there is anyway of getting around it:  The LDS church has a creed and it is the Articles of Faith.

 

The Lord didn't say "all creeds" were an abomination.  He said "all their creeds."  Our creeds are just fine.

[Storm Rider]

As a Catholic, I don't much mind others thinking that I am part of a the great whore of Babylon.  I think it is utterly completely absolutely ridiculous, from historical, theological, and straight up logical points-of-view.  And sheesh, even if you disagree with us, have some gratitude for that fact that without us Western Civilization would not have a Christian foundation!

 

Even if you think our theology is wrong, you've must have some appreciation for the sheer amount of good that has been done by Catholicism in every realm from academics, to art, to caring for the poor.  And think of how many people have found a loving, fruitful, and important relationship with God and Christ through Catholicism.

 

We might be wrong, but it hardly seems like we could be called the church of satan.  This is why such accusations don't bother me -- they seem beyond crazy.

 

Pax

 

Good to see you on the Board again.

 

I have always felt this line of thinking was a hold over from the Protestant Reformation where this accusation became rather common among Protestants.  Sadly, there was some carry over among LDS, but was never a doctrinal position.  

 

The Church of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church are two groups that both claim to be THE Church of Jesus Christ.  Within both groups it remains relatively common for members and theologians to propagate some rather unkind ideas about other churches and Christian organizations.  I generally get along quite well with Catholics, but I have heard some doozies.  As a LDS I have heard other members share some pretty ridiculous accusations about the Catholic Church.  Regardless, of the accusation I think that ignorance is root of such claims rather than an informed deduction.  

 

BTW, I agree that the Church of Jesus Christ's Articles of Faith is a Creed.  Do you see a difference in the way we use this creed versus the manner the Catholic Church uses its main creeds?

[MiserereNobis]

Good to see you on the Board again.

 

Thanks!  I've always been peeking, but I go through waves of posting or not posting.

 

I have always felt this line of thinking was a hold over from the Protestant Reformation where this accusation became rather common among Protestants.  Sadly, there was some carry over among LDS, but was never a doctrinal position.  

 

This is what I've thought, too.  America is definitely Protestant based so it makes perfect sense that Americans who join and are a part of the LDS church could have some Protestant based ideas in their thinking.  No big deal.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church are two groups that both claim to be THE Church of Jesus Christ.  Within both groups it remains relatively common for members and theologians to propagate some rather unkind ideas about other churches and Christian organizations.  I generally get along quite well with Catholics, but I have heard some doozies.  As a LDS I have heard other members share some pretty ridiculous accusations about the Catholic Church.  Regardless, of the accusation I think that ignorance is root of such claims rather than an informed deduction.  

 

I totally agree.  There are many reasons why I am interested in Mormonism.  One of them is the fact that not many other Christian sects claim to be THE Church of Jesus Christ.  Most Protestants deny that there is such an institution and instead argue that "Church" is simply a spiritual meaning, instead of a spiritual and temporal/physical one.  The LDS and Catholic claims to priesthood are also an interesting point of comparison.  And yes, many Catholics can have terrible things to say about LDS, for which I wish I could apologize, but like you I think that ignorance is the root of such claims.

 

BTW, I agree that the Church of Jesus Christ's Articles of Faith is a Creed.  Do you see a difference in the way we use this creed versus the manner the Catholic Church uses its main creeds?

 

I don't know enough about the LDS church use of the Articles of Faith to be able to answer this.  In Catholicism, the Creed is part of Mass, so it is recited and/or chanted every Mass.  It is also part of adult baptism.  Is there an equivalent in the LDS church to this?

[Tsuzuki]

I like how no one has mentioned any actual Satanic and/or Luciferian churches. Did I ever mention that I was a member of Ordo Templi Orientis? Anton LaVey's Church of Satan is basically a cheap knockoff of us. I'll just be over here doing my will while you Christians fight amongst yourselves.

[Tsuzuki]

I have long seen the church of Satan as any effort that is in opposition to bringing the children of men unto Christ.  Even those who try to identify themselves as Satanists are probably falling short of the kind of organized opposition the adversary is capable of mustering without having to organize a priesthood and build buildings.

Satanism isn't about being in opposition to Christ. It's about elevating and empowering the will of the individual. If someone wants to embrace Christ, great, but it's on their own terms. Coincidentally, that's the direction Christianity is headed in the developed world, and I fully support and encourage this trend.

[Storm Rider]

 

I don't know enough about the LDS church use of the Articles of Faith to be able to answer this.  In Catholicism, the Creed is part of Mass, so it is recited and/or chanted every Mass.  It is also part of adult baptism.  Is there an equivalent in the LDS church to this?

 

We don' t use the Articles of Faith in our Sacrament meetings.  Occasionally, we will hear someone repeat one of the Articles in a talk or sermon, but they do not play a central role in our services.  Youth have the opportunity to memorize them, but there is no requirement to do so.  They are viewed more as a good summary of our basic beliefs.  

 

In this sense, I see a major difference between the role the major Creeds play within Catholicism and the role of the Articles of Faith plays in the LDS Church.  

[Derl Sanderson]

I’m a sorry specimen in that I don’t know how to do quotes like the rest of you. But earlier, CA Steve asked me about my contention that the first edition of Mormon Doctrine was shot full of errors:

“Shot full of errors when viewed by our current lens, or shot full of errors as viewed by those at the time BRM wrote it, or shot full of errors as viewed by the church founders?

 

OK, CA Steve, let’s see if I can deliver on my promise. Those wanting the full context of what I refer to should see p. 49-53 of David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Gregory Prince and Robert Wright. Also, remember that these events occurred before Elder McConkie was a member of the 12. It’s fair to think that even he had some growing yet to be done.

 

The presumptuous title of Mormon Doctrine was a concern to President McKay from the beginning. He read the book carefully. One of his secretaries, Lola Gygi, said that “He went through the whole thing. He had paper clips on the pages where he had a question, and there were hundreds of them there.”

 

President McKay then summoned two senior apostles, Mark E. Peterson and Marion G. Romney and charged them with going through the book and making a list of corrections (including those of a doctrinal nature). Elders Peterson and Romney took 10 months of studying the book and then issued their report to the First Presidency. Elder Peterson recommended 1,067 corrections that he felt needed to be made to the book.

 

So, yes, "shot full of errors" as viewed by those ultimately responsible for explicating Church doctrine at the time the book first appeared. Based on subsequent events, I would say that Elder McConkie’s views on what constituted “The Great and Abominable Church” as well as what was set out in Mormon Doctrine regarding race and priesthood fell into the category of those 1,067 errors. What Church founders would have thought is speculative. 

[Bobbieaware]

I’m a sorry specimen in that I don’t know how to do quotes like the rest of you. But earlier, CA Steve asked me about my contention that the first edition of Mormon Doctrine was shot full of errors:

“Shot full of errors when viewed by our current lens, or shot full of errors as viewed by those at the time BRM wrote it, or shot full of errors as viewed by the church founders?

 

OK, CA Steve, let’s see if I can deliver on my promise. Those wanting the full context of what I refer to should see p. 49-53 of David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Gregory Prince and Robert Wright. Also, remember that these events occurred before Elder McConkie was a member of the 12. It’s fair to think that even he had some growing yet to be done.

 

The presumptuous title of Mormon Doctrine was a concern to President McKay from the beginning. He read the book carefully. One of his secretaries, Lola Gygi, said that “He went through the whole thing. He had paper clips on the pages where he had a question, and there were hundreds of them there.”

 

President McKay then summoned two senior apostles, Mark E. Peterson and Marion G. Romney and charged them with going through the book and making a list of corrections (including those of a doctrinal nature). Elders Peterson and Romney took 10 months of studying the book and then issued their report to the First Presidency. Elder Peterson recommended 1,067 corrections that he felt needed to be made to the book.

 

So, yes, "shot full of errors" as viewed by those ultimately responsible for explicating Church doctrine at the time the book first appeared. Based on subsequent events, I would say that Elder McConkie’s views on what constituted “The Great and Abominable Church” as well as what was set out in Mormon Doctrine regarding race and pr

iesthood fell into the category of those 1,067 errors. What Church founders would have thought is speculative.

Were the McKay, Petersen, Romney corrections made on the prepublished first edition manuscript, or were they made after the printing and publication of the first edition?

[jkwilliams]

Were the McKay, Petersen, Romney corrections made on the prepublished first edition manuscript, or were they made after the printing and publication of the first edition?

As I recall, the corrections were made in the second edition in 1966.

[JAHS]

Here's what uncle Bruce said:

 "the great and abominable church," or "the church of the devil is the world; it is all the carnality and evil to which fallen man is heir; it is every unholy and wicked practice; it is every false religion, every supposed system of salvation which does not actually save and exalt man in the highest heaven of the celestial world. It is every church except the true church, whether parading under a Christian or a pagan banner." (MD)

 

Address Church leaders respectfully.

 

Elder McConkie died 30 years ago this year. I remember his last talk like it was yesterday. Me calling him uncle is more a term of endearment. He was my best friend's uncle, so we both called him uncle Bruce. Sure he got a few things wrong but was willing to admit it. The other 99% was very helpful for a member's growing knowledge and testimony of the gospel.

[Derl Sanderson]

According to the Pres. McKay biography, Elders Peterson and Romney didn’t offer corrections as much as they identified those things they believed to be doctrinally in error. As a result of their report, President McKay was on the horns of a dilemma. As Church President, he was responsible for correct doctrine being taught, but at the same time, he had no desire to destroy Elder McConkie’s credibility and wreck his ministry.

 

After meeting with his counselors, Pres. McKay recorded the following in his diary about Mormon Doctrine: “We do not want him to publish another edition. We decided, also, to have no more books published by General Authorities without their first having the consent of the First Presidency.”

 

My brother and his family are devoted Catholics, and as good a Christian family as that of any Latter-day Saints I know. I for one am glad that we’ve moved past the “early McConkie” musings about Catholics being part of the church of the devil and blacks (“negroes” in Mormon Doctrine) labelled as having been less than valiant in the pre-mortal life and thus never able to hold the priesthood in mortality. God bless David O. McKay and Spencer Kimball!

 

and ... how do you make a "quote box" that holds somebody else's post so you know who the heck I'm trying to answer? I'm feeling like a troglodyte in this place!

[Calm]

In the lower right hand corner of anyone's post, you should see "quote".

If not, you can cut and paste what you want to quote and then put

at the beginning and [/quote ] at the end, removing the spaces adter the e that I had to include so you could see the coding.

[Derl Sanderson]

duh ... so much for my high-priced college education. Thanks, Calm!

[MiserereNobis]

 

After meeting with his counselors, Pres. McKay recorded the following in his diary about Mormon Doctrine: “We do not want him to publish another edition. We decided, also, to have no more books published by General Authorities without their first having the consent of the First Presidency.”

 

Sounds like the "nihil obstat" and the "imprimatur" in Catholicism.  It's really not a bad idea

[thesometimesaint]

Sounds like the "nihil obstat" and the "imprimatur" in Catholicism.  It's really not a bad idea

 

It is more like the Catholics claim the Pope is infallible and no one believes them, and Mormons claims the Prophet is fallible and no one believe them either.

Edited October 12, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[hagoth7]

In my National Edition of the Deseret News that came today the front page is of Pope Francis with long articles about him.  When I was young that church was the one mentioned in the BofM as the Church of Satan.

 

1 Nephi 14

 

9 "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.

 10 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."

 

There must be a simple explanation for the above scripture and who it is referring to other than the Catholic because of the close association between the LDS and the Catholic Church.  Anyone one have an answer?  Maybe that no longer applies and if so why not?

 

This must have been mauled over before but I don't remember of ever seeing an answer.

If you read 1 Nephi carefully, you might come to the conclusion that the church in question predates the Catholic church, and spans far beyond the Reformation. What that church actually encompasses is a separate matter.

 

In short, it is likely not about what physical pew you happen to occupy.

[MiserereNobis]

It is more like the Catholics claim the Pope is infallible and no one believes them, and Mormons claims the Prophet is fallible and no one believe them either.

 

Ha!

 

Just to be clear, the Pope is only infallible under VERY specific times which rarely rarely happen.  The last time was in 1950.

[thesometimesaint]

Ha!

 

Just to be clear, the Pope is only infallible under VERY specific times which rarely rarely happen.  The last time was in 1950.

 

I know. Doesn't Vatican 2 fall under that claim? We both have faith traditions that sound very strange when viewed from the outside, and sometimes from the inside.

[MiserereNobis]

I know. Doesn't Vatican 2 fall under that claim? We both have faith traditions that sound very strange when viewed from the outside, and sometimes from the inside.

 

All of the Church Councils fall under that claim, but it's not because the Pope so declares by himself (that is the Pope speaking ex cathedra, "from the chair of Peter"), but because the Pope together with the College of Bishops (all of the Bishops) so declare.

 

Vatican II is a wee bit fuzzy because it is a Council somewhat different than others.  It avoided the clear cut statements of previous Councils that declared what is anathema and is often referred to as a pastoral rather than a dogmatic Council.  This has given wiggle room for some strong traditional Catholics to argue that there could be error in the Council.

 

Personally, I think it is clear that the Council is infallible -- it was presided over by two Popes and every Pope since the Council has affirmed it.  My issue with Vatican II is that there is a lot of ambiguity in the statements and many people went beyond the actually Council documents and tried to implement change "in the spirit of Vatican II."  Alot of that nonsense has finally been reigned in, generally speaking (thanks to Pope Benedict, actually).

 

Anyways, a clear answer is yes, Church Councils are infallible.

 

And yes, Mormons and Catholics have some interesting things both inside and outside

Edited October 12, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

And yes, Mormons and Catholics have some interesting things both inside and outside

I find the spleen to be an outstanding example.

 

Catholics have them, don't they?

 

Good to see you!!