How wild can Sunday school get?

[Rain]

11 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Here's something I can't wrap my head around about The Word Of Wisdom. Morbidly obese members will be permitted temple  recommends, whereas fit and healthy individuals who drink the odd cup of coffee will not. That seems a very odd enforcement process for a health code.

I am morbidly obese and well aware it is because of my eating habits. You have something confused here. 

If you say someone who is obese shouldn't have temple reccomends then the corresponding thing is someone who has lung cancer, throat cancer or cirrhosis etc.  shouldn't have them.

Obesity is a condition. Coffee, tea, Tobacco etc are things you put into your body.

So maybe it should be ice cream that is against the WOW? Or chips? Or candy? Or steak? Or vegan cheesecake? 

I get and can understand the idea even though it would be difficult for me. Getting it to as a reccomend requirement is a whole other thing that isn't near as simple as "no coffee".

 

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by Rain

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Alan said:

Not the same thing as GMO. Selective breeding is exactly that.

GMO intervenes in a completely unnatural way. For example, introducing fish genes into a tomato to make it more tolerant of lower temperatures.

Fishato?  Do you pick them or catch them?

[RevTestament]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

by "this dispensation," I mean the sum total of all the divine gospel light and knowledge that has been given to us from the earliest dawning of the Restoration down to the present day.

So it won't do to say that Joseph Smith drank wine at Carthage Jai or that Brigham Young brewed beer. Additional instruction has been revealed through prophets since then for which we are today accountable. If Joseph and Brigham were with us today, they would each sustain that fact. I think they might also have a thing or two to say about trying to pit dead prophets against living ones.

 

And where do the living one's say it is a commandment not to drink beer? I'm sure it's somewhere.

To me a requirement to attend the temple is not the same thing. In that vein one can have gone to the temple, and drink a glass of wine without sinning imho although he may not return to the temple - I'm sure some clarification will soon be issued...it's just one of those sacred cows.

Mind you I am not advocating this. I don't drink any alcohol, and follow the words of wisdom in section 89 in all its particulars as far as I am concerned. As for pitting live prophets against dead ones... Prophets have a responsibility to sustain the law given to them. We are entitled to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the things they say and the interpretations they make - especially where they contradict prior prophets... That is unless you don't believe Luke was a prophet. Luke explained exactly how Mary conceived, and that she had known no man. The Book of Mormon uses the word virgin to describe Mary as does the NT. Does BY explain why Luke is wrong or why the BoM is wrong? Does BY tell us that the Lord told him that Yeshua was not conceived by the Holy Spirit? Does BY tell us why JS didn't correct Luke if it is wrong? Is he a greater prophet than they? Does his being a subsequent Church president give his words more weight? What is a poor believer like me to do? I do what any believer is entitled to do and pray for clarification. My answer is BY was wrong if indeed that is what he said. And Pratt is wrong that Heavenly Father married Mary, and that such teachings will lead one down the road of apostasy. Do you believe Luke and the BoM or Brother Brigham? And as you know the list can go on. It is not my fault the Church has placed itself in this position, but no, although I sustain the presidency, I do not simply accept what they say by virtue of their calling. I accept that the Presidency holds the keys pertaining to the temple, and I follow what is required of me in that regard. But they can't force me to believe the various nonsense that has spewed forth from various GAs, apostles and otherwise, over the years such as Jesus died on this world for the sins of all other worlds before and after, and that this is the only world wicked enough to do it; and that the garden of Eden is in the Americas, etc ad nauseum. Nor will I teach it.

Edited June 20, 2017 by RevTestament

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

And where do the living one's say it is a commandment not to drink wine? I'm sure it's somewhere.

To me a requirement to attend the temple is not the same thing. In that vein one can have gone to the temple, and drink a glass of wine without sinning imho although he may not return to the temple - I'm sure some clarification will soon be issued...it's just one of those sacred cows.

Mind you I am not advocating this. I don't drink any alcohol, and follow the words of wisdom in section 89 in all its particulars as far as I am concerned. As for pitting live prophets against dead ones... Prophets have a responsibility to sustain the law given to them. We are entitled to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the things they say and the interpretations they make - especially where they contradict prior prophets... That is unless you don't believe Luke was a prophet. Luke explained exactly how Mary conceived, and that she had known no man. The Book of Mormon uses the word virgin to describe Mary as does the NT. Does BY explain why Luke is wrong or why the BoM is wrong? Does BY tell us that the Lord told him that Yeshua was not conceived by the Holy Spirit? Does BY tell us why JS didn't correct Luke if it is wrong? Is he a greater prophet than they? Does his being a subsequent Church president give his words more weight? What is a poor believer like me to do? I do what any believer is entitled to do and pray for clarification. My answer is BY was wrong if indeed that is what he said. And Pratt is wrong that Heavenly Father married Mary, and that such teachings will lead one down the road of apostasy. Do you believe Luke and the BoM or Brother Brigham? And as you know the list can go on. It is not my fault the Church has placed itself in this position, but no, although I sustain the presidency, I do not simply accept what they say by virtue of their calling. I accept that the Presidency holds the keys pertaining to the temple, and I follow what is required of me in that regard. But they can't force me to believe the various nonsense that has spewed forth from various GAs, apostles and otherwise, over the years such as Jesus died on this world for the sins of all other worlds before and after, and that this is the only world wicked enough to do it; and that the garden of Eden is in the Americas, etc ad nauseum. Nor will I teach it.

I'm not one who accepts the notion that for a revelation to be binding as a commandment, it has to be written down in scriptural phrasing and canonized. I am one who believes that ordained prophets seers and revelators are in touch with Jesus Christ through revelation from day to day, moment to moment, and that together as a council composed of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, they communicate His mind and will to us in the policies and directives they set forth in governing His church. I further believe we will be held accountable for marginalizing or setting conditions upon what we will or will not accept from prophets by reason of the form in which divine directive is delivered to us.

If you can't accept the above, then I'm afraid we lack the common ground on which to engage in productive discourse on this matter.

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The system, classes, material, etc. work fine where I live and from my perspective.

 

I get ya.  We disagree. 

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not one who accepts the notion that for a revelation to be binding as a commandment, it has to be written down in scriptural phrasing and canonized. I am one who believes that ordained prophets seers and revelators are in touch with Jesus Christ through revelation from day to day, moment to moment, and that together as a council composed of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, they communicate His mind and will to us in the policies and directives they set forth in governing His church. I further believe we will be held accountable for marginalizing or setting conditions upon what we will or will not accept from prophets by reason of the form in which divine directive is delivered to us.

If you can't accept the above, then I'm afraid we lack the common ground on which to engage in productive discourse on this matter.

I believe they will be held accountable for claiming irresponsible statements as revelation, although I rarely if ever see this specific claim. I don't believe it is marginalizing leaders to expect clarification on why prior prophets are wrong. I believe not to do so is marginalizing God's word and His prior prophets which God warns us against. If you can't accept that then I'm afraid we do lack common ground.

[cinepro]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What's a GMO?

As for alcohol, yes, in this dispensation, the Lord has decreed that it is not for man, and no one should harbor the vain notion that is going to change. 

But I was a gospel doctrine teacher for many years and have been a class member for longer. I've never seen a discussion go off the rails like that. Ours are always stimulating and never boring. 

Maybe our ward is Zion. 

GMOs are the reason many liberals can't take the high ground about always revering what "science" has to say.

[thesometimesaint]

I can't speak for all scientists, but the ones I know don't "revere" science. We have a healthy respect for it because science is the best tool so far developed for trying to figure out how our natural world works. It works quite well, but is subject to change.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

"And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls." (Moroni 6:5)

I'm really not sure that Skype fulfills all the needs that are met by being with one another. 

Who would teach the young womens or primary lesson to the girl who has inactive parents?  There are many for whom the three hours they spend at church each week are the only opportunities they have to be in a peaceful, spiritual environment all week. 

I really think there is great value in sitting next to someone for an hour.  In saying hi to someone week after week.  In being in the same room as someone when they teach a lesson and hearing the comments that other people in the class make.  There is great value in hearing the testimonies of others. 

If the church was to only meet together for 15-20 minutes a week to "take the sacrament, sing some hymns, and go home" I believe it would dwindle and die fairly quickly. 

"a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation" (Joseph Smith Lectures on Faith 6:7)

When we were in Moscow, it was quite a production to get to Church each Sunday.  There was the one time we took the unheated bus home in the middle of winter and the driver stopped it randomly, got off without saying anything and disappeared for what seemed to be hours and was at least 45 minutes iirc.  Everyone just sat there and froze, so we did too since we had no clue how to get to the Metro (subway) from there or why he was gone and if he was coming back soon.  Eventually he did, again without saying anything.  We never did find out what was going on.  We kept to the Metro from then on.

Even though that was the time it was the hardest and longest to get to church I have experienced, it was the time I also most treasured being with my fellow Saints.  I would have been quite unsatisfied if that meeting was limited to the Sacrament and sharing of hymns.

There was also a time my anxiety was so high I couldn't handle groups for long, so Sunday was the Sacrament for me and the two hymns that came before it and then I would leave and walk home (about a half an hour's effort).

Edited June 20, 2017 by Calm

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

When we were in Moscow, it was quite a production to get to Church each Sunday.  There was the one time we took the unheated bus home in the middle of winter and the driver stopped it randomly, got off without saying anything and disappeared for what seemed to be hours and was at least 45 minutes iirc.  Everyone just sat there and froze, so we did too since we had no clue how to get to the Metro (subway) from there or why he was gone and if he was coming back soon.  Eventually he did, again without saying anything.  We never did find out what was going on.  We kept to the Metro from then on.

 

Lunch break?

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was also a time my anxiety was so high I couldn't handle groups for long, so Sunday was the Sacrament for me and the two hymns that came before it and then I would leave and walk home (about a half an hour's effort).

I'm not saying this applies to you at all, but my wife has found that various supplements greatly help her anxiety. I think one of the big ones is blue-green algae/spirulina. A doctor also told her she has a B12 deficiency supposedly caused by a genetic inability to metabolize enough B12. She began taking methylated B12 - they prescribed an expensive multiple but you can get methylated B12 at Costco pretty cheap. It is much easier to absorb(sublingual) than the cyanocobalamin form, which is also forcing you to metabolize a little cyanide.

I suspect she also gets some adrenal fatigue from time to time and that increased levels of cortisol may contribute to her anxiety, but I don't recall what if anything she takes to support her adrenals.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Lunch break?

Or some bad digestion issues.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I'm not saying this applies to you at all, but my wife has found that various supplements greatly help her anxiety. I think one of the big ones is blue-green algae/spirulina. A doctor also told her she has a B12 deficiency supposedly caused by a genetic inability to metabolize enough B12. She began taking methylated B12 - they prescribed an expensive multiple but you can get methylated B12 at Costco pretty cheap. It is much easier to absorb(sublingual) than the cyanocobalamin form, which is also forcing you to metabolize a little cyanide.

I suspect she also gets some adrenal fatigue from time to time and that increased levels of cortisol may contribute to her anxiety, but I don't recall what if anything she takes to support her adrenals.

I do the multivitamin routine due to some secret ingredient or combo that helps with rls so I can sleep at night and not during the day, haven't been able to figure out the specific ingredient that helps, it was a lucky find,  me just being nice to friends insisting this vitamin would be the one that helped.  Happened before a dozen times and I would just quietly not order the following month.  This time minor miracle.  I was totally shocked and have experimented several times to see if I could function without as well.  Nope, I have to double my night time meds and that is a no no so I shell out the money.  I am getting some B12 with that.

 I find B vitamins separately or in a B complex actually trigger anxiety at this point.  Taking a thyroid supplement has helped even stuff out, but taking anything that affects thyroid levels nowadays can push it into too much.

I would be interested in hearing about adrenal stuff, PM me if you find out please.  And I appreciate the info sharing.  You never know when something might help.

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I do the multivitamin routine due to some secret ingredient or combo that helps with rls so I can sleep at night and not during the day, haven't been able to figure out the specific ingredient that helps, it was a lucky find,  me just being nice to friends insisting this vitamin would be the one that helped.  Happened before a dozen times and I would just quietly not order the following month.  This time minor miracle.  I was totally shocked and have experimented several times to see if I could function without as well.  Nope, I have to double my night time meds and that is a no no so I shell out the money.  I am getting some B12 with that.

 I find B vitamins separately or in a B complex actually trigger anxiety at this point.  Taking a thyroid supplement has helped even stuff out, but taking anything that affects thyroid levels nowadays can push it into too much.

I would be interested in hearing about adrenal stuff, PM me if you find out please.  And I appreciate the info sharing.  You never know when something might help.

My wife's seemed to start after our third child. Both her parents had to take thyroid, and she had to start at this time, so it is probably related to thyroid too. She found she did much much better on a natural thyroid, and started taking Armour thyroid. I think the blue-green algae helps because its a natural source of iodine which seems to help her own thyroid production which keeps her thyroid hormones more level. I think for the adrenal I found her a cheap adrenal supplement at vitacost - seems like it may have been the NOW brand, but I will double check. She tried more expensive ones, but they didn't work or even made it worse. She was also taking other stuff, but like you $$ became an issue, and she decided to get prescriptions to treat her symptoms since she has insurance, but that hasn't gone so smoothly. Now her hair is falling out again, she is often tired, she had anxiety on a recent trip, etc. I keep encouraging her to go back on her supplements since she seems to have no symptoms when she does that. She makes enough that even $100/mo is not going to break the bank.

[Calm]

You need to calculate hours and energy gained when debating if worth the cost.  We probably spend 4 times as much on easy to prepare food a month than my supplements.  If I can do my own laundry, run errands, clean house, shop and my husband has to do those things for me, his loss of time he can devote to writing his textbook, grading papers, not taking care of himself through exercise and good eating, etc. can get quite expensive.  I think we would very comfortably shell out $1000 a month if that allowed me to do 'normal'.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Calm

[Anijen]

7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

"And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls." (Moroni 6:5)

I'm really not sure that Skype fulfills all the needs that are met by being with one another. 

Who would teach the young womens or primary lesson to the girl who has inactive parents?  There are many for whom the three hours they spend at church each week are the only opportunities they have to be in a peaceful, spiritual environment all week. 

I really think there is great value in sitting next to someone for an hour.  In saying hi to someone week after week.  In being in the same room as someone when they teach a lesson and hearing the comments that other people in the class make.  There is great value in hearing the testimonies of others. 

If the church was to only meet together for 15-20 minutes a week to "take the sacrament, sing some hymns, and go home" I believe it would dwindle and die fairly quickly. 

"a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation" (Joseph Smith Lectures on Faith 6:7)

Your logic has caused me to change my mind, plus I think I just wanted to be a little lazy for a change....

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Anijen

[hagoth7]

On 6/19/2017 at 6:18 PM, bluebell said:

...How bad can it get?

Dunno. But I might soon attend appropriately armed...just in case:

or 

On 6/19/2017 at 6:18 PM, bluebell said:

...Is it better for Sunday school to go off the rails sometimes to keep everyone engaged or is it better if everyone just 'goes along to get along' and keeps the peace?

My initial thought:

But for a decision specific to the needs of *your* ward, I defer to your local classmembers/teachers/leaders.

On 6/19/2017 at 6:18 PM, bluebell said:

...no one said a word to "GMOs are evil" guy and everyone just let that slid.  Should we have pushed back on that?

Dunno. You and your ward members/leaders are better equipped to gauge what's best for both the commentator and the class. Not having your/their vantage point or right to their local inspiration, I wouldn't pretend to answer that for you/them.

Edited June 21, 2017 by hagoth7

[juliann]

I'm sure I've told this story before but many years ago we had a hard liner GD teacher, the kind that believes every bit of folklore or rational for teachings we don't know much about. We are the Church of the Devil part in the BOM and we all know what happens next. One person objected to no avail. I objected. He continues to more insistently argue that Catholics are that church. I decided this was going to be my hill to die on. After a couple of feeble tries, the objections stopped. So I kept going. I turned to the bishop behind me, hissing "bishop!" He gave gave one weak comment. So I just started shouting out objections every time the teacher started up again. A couple new to the ward walked out. They were converts with Catholic parents. They never came back. I probably countered him 4 or 5 times. Then he turned to face the blackboard and started pounding on it with his fist, shouting "this is my testimony!" The bishop had to get up the next week in Sacrament meeting and correct him but the damage was done. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm sure I've told this story before but many years ago we had a hard liner GD teacher, the kind that believes every bit of folklore or rational for teachings we don't know much about. We are the Church of the Devil part in the BOM and we all know what happens next. One person objected to no avail. I objected. He continues to more insistently argue that Catholics are that church. I decided this was going to be my hill to die on. After a couple of feeble tries, the objections stopped. So I kept going. I turned to the bishop behind me, hissing "bishop!" He gave gave one weak comment. So I just started shouting out objections every time the teacher started up again. A couple new to the ward walked out. They were converts with Catholic parents. They never came back. I probably countered him 4 or 5 times. Then he turned to face the blackboard and started pounding on it with his fist, shouting "this is my testimony!" The bishop had to get up the next week in Sacrament meeting and correct him but the damage was done. 

Wow, way to go!!!

[BlueDreams]

43 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm sure I've told this story before but many years ago we had a hard liner GD teacher, the kind that believes every bit of folklore or rational for teachings we don't know much about. We are the Church of the Devil part in the BOM and we all know what happens next. One person objected to no avail. I objected. He continues to more insistently argue that Catholics are that church. I decided this was going to be my hill to die on. After a couple of feeble tries, the objections stopped. So I kept going. I turned to the bishop behind me, hissing "bishop!" He gave gave one weak comment. So I just started shouting out objections every time the teacher started up again. A couple new to the ward walked out. They were converts with Catholic parents. They never came back. I probably countered him 4 or 5 times. Then he turned to face the blackboard and started pounding on it with his fist, shouting "this is my testimony!" The bishop had to get up the next week in Sacrament meeting and correct him but the damage was done. 

Dang! That one takes the win IMO. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I'm sure I've told this story before but many years ago we had a hard liner GD teacher, the kind that believes every bit of folklore or rational for teachings we don't know much about. We are the Church of the Devil part in the BOM and we all know what happens next. One person objected to no avail. I objected. He continues to more insistently argue that Catholics are that church. I decided this was going to be my hill to die on. After a couple of feeble tries, the objections stopped. So I kept going. I turned to the bishop behind me, hissing "bishop!" He gave gave one weak comment. So I just started shouting out objections every time the teacher started up again. A couple new to the ward walked out. They were converts with Catholic parents. They never came back. I probably countered him 4 or 5 times. Then he turned to face the blackboard and started pounding on it with his fist, shouting "this is my testimony!" The bishop had to get up the next week in Sacrament meeting and correct him but the damage was done. 

Wow, that's a real horror story. 

I'm glad you said it was many years ago. And I hope your bishop eventually grew a backbone.

[Alan]

On ‎21‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 4:46 AM, juliann said:

I'm sure I've told this story before but many years ago we had a hard liner GD teacher, the kind that believes every bit of folklore or rational for teachings we don't know much about. We are the Church of the Devil part in the BOM and we all know what happens next. One person objected to no avail. I objected. He continues to more insistently argue that Catholics are that church. I decided this was going to be my hill to die on. After a couple of feeble tries, the objections stopped. So I kept going. I turned to the bishop behind me, hissing "bishop!" He gave gave one weak comment. So I just started shouting out objections every time the teacher started up again. A couple new to the ward walked out. They were converts with Catholic parents. They never came back. I probably countered him 4 or 5 times. Then he turned to face the blackboard and started pounding on it with his fist, shouting "this is my testimony!" The bishop had to get up the next week in Sacrament meeting and correct him but the damage was done. 

But the GD teacher was correct.

The Great & Abominable Church is the Roman Catholic Church and it's siblings.

[Calm]

"More often, some have suggested that the Roman Catholic church might be the great and abominable church of Nephi 13. This is also untenable, primarily because Roman Catholicism as we know it did not yet exist when the crimes described by Nephi were being committed. In fact, the term Roman Catholic only makes sense after A.D. 1054 when it is used to distinguish the Western, Latin-speaking Orthodox church that followed the bishop of Rome from the Eastern, Greek-speaking Orthodox church that followed the bishop of Constantinople.

In the period between Peter and the Roman emperor Constantine, there were many Christian churches besides the Orthodox church: Ebionites, Syrian and Egyptian churches, Donatists, Gnostics, Marcionites, and so on. Even if we use the term Catholic for the church Constantine made the state religion in A.D. 313, the New Testament as we know it was already widely circulating. That is, the plain and precious parts had already been removed. The notion of shifty-eyed medieval monks rewriting the scriptures is unfair and bigoted. We owe those monks a debt of gratitude that anything was saved at all.

By the time of Constantine, the Apostles had been dead for centuries. Furthermore, the early Orthodox church can hardly be accused of immorality. It had, in fact, gone to the extremes of asceticism. In some areas of the world Orthodoxy replaced an earlier, already corrupt form of Christianity. And during much of the period, members of the Orthodox Church were not in a position to persecute anyone, as they were being thrown to the lions themselves. The Catholic church of the fourth century was the resultof the Apostasy—its end product—not the cause. To find the real culprits, we need to look at a much earlier period in church history than the fourth century after Christ. Satan had his ministers in the world long before then, and we must remember that Babylon was already there to oppose Zion in the days of Cain, Nimrod, Pharaoh, and Herod."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng

Edited June 22, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

"

Book of Mormon prophecies describe the “great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil” (1 Nephi 14:17). This “church” is prophesied to have “dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people” (1 Nephi 14:11). Called “most abominable above all other churches,” this church is also said to act “for the praise of the world” in bringing “the saints of God … down into captivity” (1 Nephi 13:5, 9).

Because no religious denomination—Christian or non-Christian—has ever had “dominion” over all nations of the earth or the potential to bring all the saints of God down into “captivity,” this great and abominable church must be something far more pervasive and widespread than a single “church,” as we understand that term today. It must be any philosophy or organization that opposes belief in God. And the “captivity” into which this “church” seeks to bring the saints will not be so much physical confinement as the captivity of false ideas.

Nephi was told by revelation that there were only “two churches”: “the church of the Lamb of God” and “the church of the devil” (1 Nephi 14:10; see also 13:4–6). This description suggests the contrast between those who believe in God and seek to serve Him according to their best understanding and those who reject the existence of God (see 1 Nephi 14:10)."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/03/stand-as-witnesses-of-god?lang=eng

[Calm]

"

• “In relation to the kingdom of God, the devil always sets up his kingdom at the very same time in opposition to God” (Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 6:364).

• Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles defined the great and abominable church: “The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all … organizations of whatever name or nature—whether political, philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 137–38).

• One commentator explained that the great and abominable church consists of more than one entity:

  “Actually, no single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church: it must have formed among the Gentiles; it must have edited and controlled the distribution of the scriptures; it must have slain the Saints of God, including the Apostles and prophets; it must be in league with civil governments and use their police power to enforce its religious views; it must have dominion over all the earth; it must pursue great wealth and sexual immorality; and it must last until close to the end of the world. No single denomination or system of beliefs fits the entire description. Rather, the role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and churches in many different times. …

  “Can we, then, identify the historical agency that acted as the great and abominable church in earliest Christianity? Such an agent would have had its origins in the second half of the first century and would have done much of its work by the middle of the second century.

  “This period might be called the blind spot in Christian history, for it is here that the fewest primary historical sources have been preserved. We have good sources for New Testament Christianity; then the lights go out, so to speak, and we hear the muffled sounds of a great struggle. When the lights come on again a hundred or so years later, we find that someone has rearranged all the furniture and Christianity has become something very different from what it was in the beginning” (Stephen E. Robinson, “Warring against the Saints of God,” Ensign,Jan. 1988, 38–39)."

• https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-4-1-nephi-12-15?lang=eng