Book of Mormon Criticism of Calvin

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Okay, but he didn't put the theory that the Book or Mormon was written/translated in the 1600s. So who are these "highly regarded scholars" who put this theory forth?

I don’t think mfb meant that it was originally written in Europe during the 1600’s.

He might have been referring to the fun speculation of a heavenly translation committee preparing the translation text for Joseph since he couldn’t translate it himself (see my above post), but mfb may just be referring to the text itself being composed in part by language from that time and place.  He will need to clarify.

I am unaware of any scholars (professional ones) who hold that theory.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

The language is earlier than the KJV Bible.  If that was the purpose, why not choose to translate it into identical language rather than language that was out of date by the time the KJV was created?

It is rather odd.

I don't think it's odd at all. 

And the 1640 translation would have the same issue. Why use outdated language? 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Why does that matter? The KJV utilized older English translations. 

Are we going to argue that the KJV wasn't really translated in 1611, because some of the language is similar to earlier translations?

It doesn’t matter if one believes Joseph, that it was translated by the power of God.

However, it is a fun observation/quirk about the book.  Something to make you go hmmm….

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am unaware of any scholars (professional ones) who hold that theory.

Neither am I, and I would seriously question their credibility as scholars if they did. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

It doesn’t matter if one believes Joseph, that it was translated by the power of God.

However, it is a fun observation/quirk about the book.  Something to make you go hmmm….

To put it in context, conversations around choice of language in the BoM happen a lot, such as the use of Chiasmus, certain names being significant, or the non translations of curelom, etc.  There is interest in trying to understand the translation process even when not the least interested in trying to prove the book a fraud.

My memory is Ben M (it might be Ben S) debates the significance of the earlier language.  Iirc, he thinks it may be more a result of survival of the language in little pockets.  I may have confused him or Ben S with someone else though.  There is a thread or two discussing it with Brother Carmack on this board if you are interested.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Calm

[JarMan]

10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

1. Have you compared the grammar and writing style in the original 1830 Book of Mormon to the grammar and writing style of your proposed 1640 European author or standard writing practices of the time?

Under my hypothesis the original was written in Latin, French, or Dutch since those were the primary languages of my proposed author. Somebody would have translated that into English but I don't have a theory for who that might be.

10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

2. What about the Book of Mormon's record of Nephi's vision of the American Revolution (and possibly the Latin American revolutions) where the American colonists defeated their mother nation? That wouldn't happen for over 140 years after your proposed writing. Hard to imagine some random European predicting that one. 

I don't think Nephi was seeing the American Revolution. The colonists per se weren't going forth out of captivity (1Ne13:13). They were loyal Englishman looking to make a profit--not people who had been captive in England. And who are all of these other nations that had them in their hands (1Ne13:19)? If anything the colonists received help from other nations, particularly France, in defeating the English.

These verses more accurately describe the English and the Dutch nations. Not the colonists of the nations, but the nations as a whole. The Dutch were captive to the Spanish and needed to fight an 80 year war to get independence. You could make a case that the English were also captive to the Spanish based on Queen Mary's co-reign with King Phillip II of Spain and the wars that followed. But I don't think the BOM is describing political captivity necessarily; I think it's more about religious captivity. The reason I see it this way is the context of the vision. Verses 5 and 9 describe an abominable church bringing people into captivity. So escaping captivity in this contexts implies breaking away from the great and abominable church. And that is just what the Dutch and English did in the 1500's, if you take the church mentioned here to primarily be the Catholic Church.

The other clue that these verses are talking about religious captivity is in verse 17, which tells us "their mother Gentiles" gathered to battle against them. It doesn't say "their mother nation," which would have made more sense if this was referring to the colonists. The term "mother Gentiles" implies "mother religion" since Gentiles is being used in this chapter to generally refer to Christians.

No matter what you believe about the origin of the Book of Mormon, I think it's pretty clear we've been misinterpreting this story.

 

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Sorry I am late. Traffic was horrible.

Unacceptable.

That excuse only actually works in LA

15 minutes or an hour and a half?

Flip a coin. 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by mfbukowski

[JarMan]

On 1/19/2023 at 6:23 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Do you remember when I said it wasn't intuitive? It's been recognized in the literature for close to a century now - presenting more parallels doesn't make your argument any stronger.

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I think, based on what you have said here, that you are way off in left field. Good luck. I'll bow out at this point ...

The masturbation joke hit too close to home? Been there. Rotator cuff surgery. If anybody else would like a clever come back, it only takes me one day to think of one. Then another to work up the courage to post it. Thanks, I'll be here all week.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

21 hours ago, JarMan said:

Under my hypothesis the original was written in Latin, French, or Dutch since those were the primary languages of my proposed author. Somebody would have translated that into English but I don't have a theory for who that might be.

I don't think Nephi was seeing the American Revolution. The colonists per se weren't going forth out of captivity (1Ne13:13). They were loyal Englishman looking to make a profit--not people who had been captive in England. And who are all of these other nations that had them in their hands (1Ne13:19)? If anything the colonists received help from other nations, particularly France, in defeating the English.

These verses more accurately describe the English and the Dutch nations. Not the colonists of the nations, but the nations as a whole. The Dutch were captive to the Spanish and needed to fight an 80 year war to get independence. You could make a case that the English were also captive to the Spanish based on Queen Mary's co-reign with King Phillip II of Spain and the wars that followed. But I don't think the BOM is describing political captivity necessarily; I think it's more about religious captivity. The reason I see it this way is the context of the vision. Verses 5 and 9 describe an abominable church bringing people into captivity. So escaping captivity in this contexts implies breaking away from the great and abominable church. And that is just what the Dutch and English did in the 1500's, if you take the church mentioned here to primarily be the Catholic Church.

The other clue that these verses are talking about religious captivity is in verse 17, which tells us "their mother Gentiles" gathered to battle against them. It doesn't say "their mother nation," which would have made more sense if this was referring to the colonists. The term "mother Gentiles" implies "mother religion" since Gentiles is being used in this chapter to generally refer to Christians.

No matter what you believe about the origin of the Book of Mormon, I think it's pretty clear we've been misinterpreting this story.

 

I agree with Ben that you are way out in left field with this theory.

The Book of Mormon was originally written by some guy in Europe in 1640, but not in English? Then it was translated into English by some unknown mystery person? Then Joseph Smith somehow got a hold of this unknown book and published it under his own name?

This is nothing more than a wild tale with absolutely zero evidence of any kind to support it.

And those verses in 1 Nephi 13 are most definitely talking about the American colonists. Just take a look at this song from the Revolutionary War to get an idea of the American colonists' perspective and how well it squares with 1 Nephi 13:

https://youtu.be/t7S_07E-9CA

[JarMan]

7 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I agree with Ben that you are way out in left field with this theory.

The Book of Mormon was originally written by some guy in Europe in 1640, but not in English? Then it was translated into English by some unknown mystery person? Then Joseph Smith somehow got a hold of this unknown book and published it under his own name?

This is nothing more than a wild tale with absolutely zero evidence of any kind to support it.

Are you sure there's "absolutely zero evidence of any kind" or are you just unaware of any evidence? How many of Stanford Carmack's papers have you read? Have you watched any of my videos? Your personal dubiety means nothing to the evidence.

11 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And those verses in 1 Nephi 13 are most definitely talking about the American colonists. Just take a look at this song from the Revolutionary War to get an idea of the American colonists' perspective and how well it squares with 1 Nephi 13:

https://youtu.be/t7S_07E-9CA

There's no doubt the colonists felt oppressed by England when they rebelled. That's why they rebelled. But that's not what Nephi saw in his vision. He saw a people come "forth out of captivity, upon the many waters." That's what England and the Netherlands did. They went to America, Africa, and the East Indies. This process of world exploration was a major part of their conflict with the Catholic Spanish and Portuguese who had previously been monopolizing world exploration.

If this was supposed to describe the American colonists, it would have said, "they went forth out of captivity in freedom, upon the many waters across a single ocean. And then they stayed there as loyal citizens for 150 years or so, but finally England started treating them badly so they decided to rebel." 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

Are you sure there's "absolutely zero evidence of any kind"

Yeah, pretty darn sure.

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

If this was supposed to describe the American colonists, it would have said, "they went forth out of captivity in freedom, upon the many waters across a single ocean. And then they stayed there as loyal citizens for 150 years or so, but finally England started treating them badly so they decided to rebel." 

No, not at all. The many waters is clearly the great ocean that divides the Old World from the New World.

And you might want to ask the Pilgrims and a whole bunch of other people from various Protestant denominations who left Europe to come to America seeking religious freedom, whether or not they were in captivity back in Europe.

[JarMan]

18 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yeah, pretty darn sure.

But you haven't read Carmack's papers. Or seen anything I've put together. Before you confidently pronounce upon the evidence, you ought to at least look at what people have put together.

19 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, not at all. The many waters is clearly the great ocean that divides the Old World from the New World.

Clearly? As far as I can tell you base that on what you assume the story is saying? You're going to have to address the parts I pointed out that show the story may not be saying what you think it's saying in order to support your assertion.

24 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And you might want to ask the Pilgrims and a whole bunch of other people from various Protestant denominations who left Europe to come to America seeking religious freedom, whether or not they were in captivity back in Europe.

I'm glad you paid attention in grade school. But let's look at the Mayflower Compact.

Quote

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.:

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith, and the honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another; covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.

The Pilgrims considered themselves loyal to England, not captive to it. And they had already gained their religious freedom a decade earlier in Leiden. Most of the religious refugees actually stayed in the Netherlands. But a handful of them were worried their children were starting to assimilate into Dutch culture, or they were poor and looking for a new start. The Mayflower had about 100 people, but only about 40 were from the religious group in Leiden. Even if you want to consider the Pilgrims religious refugees, they represent a very tiny fraction of all the colonists that came over. They weren't even a majority on the Mayflower.

[Kenngo1969]

On 1/16/2023 at 1:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This has absolutely nothing to do with Book of Mormon historicity ... and I wonder, what makes you think that I am a skeptic?

It doesn't?  The hypothesis is that Joseph Smith's Abinadi was a character created as an anti-Calvinist vehicle, and yet, somehow, that says nothing about Book of Mormon historicity?   Mmm-kay.     Simple mind, and all that.  Carry on!

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

Before you confidently pronounce upon the evidence, you ought to at least look at what people have put together.

I honestly don’t believe that there is any evidence for your theory. But why don’t you give me a quick rundown of what you believe is your strongest piece of evidence? 

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

The Pilgrims considered themselves loyal to England, not captive to it. And they had already gained their religious freedom a decade earlier in Leiden. Most of the religious refugees actually stayed in the Netherlands. But a handful of them were worried their children were starting to assimilate into Dutch culture, or they were poor and looking for a new start. The Mayflower had about 100 people, but only about 40 were from the religious group in Leiden. Even if you want to consider the Pilgrims religious refugees, they represent a very tiny fraction of all the colonists that came over. They weren't even a majority on the Mayflower.

I’m quite familiar with the Mayflower Compact and the history of the pilgrims. I know that they still considered themselves to be loyal English subjects and that not all of them came seeking religious freedom. That’s really irrelevant. History is more complicated than you’re making it out to be. In 1 Nephi 13 we have a very short prophecy about hundreds of years of history. We can’t expect it to give us all of the details.

Many Europeans came to America seeking religious freedom and the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, which they didn’t have back in Europe. This is a fact of history. It’s beyond dispute.

It’s also a fact of history that the American colonists considered themselves to be in bondage to a tyrannical king. The king sent his army and navy (who were the most powerful on earth at the time) to bring the American colonists back under subjection. But against all odds the Americans prevailed and most were convinced that God had delivered them.

This is a perfect match to 1 Nephi 13. 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

This is a perfect match to 1 Nephi 13. 

Who were the "the saints of God" mentioned in 1 Nephi 13?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Who were the "the saints of God" mentioned in 1 Nephi 13?

To be clear, I was referring specifically to verses 13-19, not the entire chapter.

You are referring to verses 4-9 about the great and abominable church.

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.
5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.
6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.
7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.
8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.
9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

I believe that in this context the great and abominable church is primarily referring to the Catholic Church. And the saints of God would then be referring to righteous Christians who were persecuted and killed by the Catholic Church for daring to challenge the false beliefs and corruption of the church or refusing to deny spiritual experiences they had that the church felt threatened by.

Who do you think the saints of God in these verses were?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Who were the "the saints of God" mentioned in 1 Nephi 13?

The church of Jesus Christ 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I believe that in this context the great and abominable church is primarily referring to the Catholic Church. And the saints of God would then be referring to righteous Christians who were persecuted and killed by the Catholic Church for daring to challenge the false beliefs and corruption of the church or refusing to deny spiritual experiences they had that the church felt threatened by.

Elder McConkie? This is an honor. They told me you were dead.

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I honestly don’t believe that there is any evidence for your theory. But why don’t you give me a quick rundown of what you believe is your strongest piece of evidence? 

The best evidence the Book of Mormon is an early modern product is Skousen's and Carmack's work. You can find Carmack's Interpreter articles here: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/author/stanfordc/?journal He has been a contributor on this board for several years. As for me, I haven't published the vast majority of my research, so maybe just start with the video in the OP.

12 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I’m quite familiar with the Mayflower Compact and the history of the pilgrims. I know that they still considered themselves to be loyal English subjects and that not all of them came seeking religious freedom. That’s really irrelevant. History is more complicated than you’re making it out to be. In 1 Nephi 13 we have a very short prophecy about hundreds of years of history. We can’t expect it to give us all of the details.

I agree we shouldn't expect it to give all the details. But the details it does give should match.

12 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Many Europeans came to America seeking religious freedom and the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, which they didn’t have back in Europe. This is a fact of history. It’s beyond dispute.

It’s also a fact of history that the American colonists considered themselves to be in bondage to a tyrannical king. The king sent his army and navy (who were the most powerful on earth at the time) to bring the American colonists back under subjection. But against all odds the Americans prevailed and most were convinced that God had delivered them.

This is a perfect match to 1 Nephi 13. 

Look, I get this is the traditional interpretation. It's certainly the one I had up until a few years ago. But it's not a perfect match; it's merely a partial match.

1) The context of the narration (the immediately preceding ideas and use of the word "captivity") strongly implies that those going forth out of captivity were breaking away from the great and abominable church. While that was true of England as a country, it wasn't true of the individual colonists.

2) The colonists weren't escaping a tyrannical king when they left Europe. They were colonizing the land in the name of the king for the king's benefit. This doesn't match "they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters." However, the English and Dutch were breaking away from captivity when they began their overseas colonization efforts.

3) The colonist didn't go to war against their "mother Gentiles." They weren't separating religiously, they were separating politically. It would have been more consistent to say they went to war against their mother nation. The English and Dutch, on the other hand, were separating religiously. They were fighting wars to keep that religious autonomy.

4) Verse 19 says they were delivered "out of the hands of all other nations." Who were these other nations? The other nation involved, France, was helping the colonists. The English, Dutch, and other Protestant nations, on the other hand, were really in conflict with most of Catholic Europe including Spain, Portugal, the Holy Roman Empire, and Italy.

The traditional interpretation is far from a "perfect match." And at the places it doesn't match, my proposed explanation does. You can't just selectively look at the matches  and ignore the not matches.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The best evidence the Book of Mormon is an early modern product is Skousen's and Carmack's work. You can find Carmack's Interpreter articles here: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/author/stanfordc/?journal He has been a contributor on this board for several years. As for me, I haven't published the vast majority of my research, so maybe just start with the video in the OP.

Since I find this theory to be without any basis, I don’t have any interest in reading articles that may or may not have evidence for it. I don’t consider the supposed Calvin connection to be legitimate at all. If you have any actual concrete evidence for your theory, please share it. 

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

1) The context of the narration (the immediately preceding ideas and use of the word "captivity") strongly implies that those going forth out of captivity were breaking away from the great and abominable church. While that was true of England as a country, it wasn't true of the individual colonists.

There are different types of captivity being referred to. One form of captivity was religious captivity, which is why freedom of religion was a huge motivator for many of the American colonists. In America they found the freedom to worship as the pleased that they didn’t have back in Europe.

Another form of captivity was tyranny and despotism, which they largely escaped during the long period of salutary neglect. Then when the tyrannical king George clamped down on them, they broke free. 

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

2) The colonists weren't escaping a tyrannical king when they left Europe. They were colonizing the land in the name of the king for the king's benefit. This doesn't match "they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters." However, the English and Dutch were breaking away from captivity when they began their overseas colonization efforts.

See my previous comment. 

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

3) The colonist didn't go to war against their "mother Gentiles." They weren't separating religiously, they were separating politically. It would have been more consistent to say they went to war against their mother nation. The English and Dutch, on the other hand, were separating religiously. They were fighting wars to keep that religious autonomy.

Please see the verses 1-3.

1 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld many nations and kingdoms.
2 And the angel said unto me: What beholdest thou? And I said: I behold many nations and kingdoms.
3 And he said unto me: These are the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles.

The mother gentiles is the mother nation (or mother nations).

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

4) Verse 19 says they were delivered "out of the hands of all other nations." Who were these other nations? The other nation involved, France, was helping the colonists. The English, Dutch, and other Protestant nations, on the other hand, were really in conflict with most of Catholic Europe including Spain, Portugal, the Holy Roman Empire, and Italy.

The nations they were free from were Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, German States, Italian States, etc. People from all of these places settled in America and became independent of these mother nations.

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

The traditional interpretation is far from a "perfect match." 

No, it definitely still is a perfect match. In fact it’s the only interpretation that makes sense.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I believe that in this context the great and abominable church is primarily referring to the Catholic Church. And the saints of God would then be referring to righteous Christians who were persecuted and killed by the Catholic Church for daring to challenge the false beliefs and corruption of the church or refusing to deny spiritual experiences they had that the church felt threatened by.

 

Doesn’t make sense. Why would a Nephite record refer to a church that was primarily based in Europe and the Mediterranean, that was even more localized while plain and precious things were removed from scriptures as having dominion over the whole world?

Quote

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 bother is the church of the devil; wherefore, who so 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.

It makes it clear in the vision the phrase Great and Abominable Church is more about rejection of Christ than an actual organization. 

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Since I find this theory to be without any basis, I don’t have any interest in reading articles that may or may not have evidence for it. I don’t consider the supposed Calvin connection to be legitimate at all. If you have any actual concrete evidence for your theory, please share it. 

I already have my mind made up so I don't need to look at evidence that challenges my view. Confirmation bias at its best.

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There are different types of captivity being referred to. One form of captivity was religious captivity, which is why freedom of religion was a huge motivator for many of the American colonists. In America they found the freedom to worship as the pleased that they didn’t have back in Europe.

Another form of captivity was tyranny and despotism, which they largely escaped during the long period of salutary neglect. Then when the tyrannical king George clamped down on them, they broke free. 

See my previous comment. 

Please see the verses 1-3.

1 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld many nations and kingdoms.
2 And the angel said unto me: What beholdest thou? And I said: I behold many nations and kingdoms.
3 And he said unto me: These are the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles.

The mother gentiles is the mother nation (or mother nations).

The nations they were free from were Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, German States, Italian States, etc. People from all of these places settled in America and became independent of these mother nations.

No, it definitely still is a perfect match. In fact it’s the only interpretation that makes sense.

Nephi's vision is about a great and abominable church among many nations. Some break free of the church and go exploring the world including the land of promise. They are forced to defend themselves when the nations of the great and abominable church war against them. They humble themselves and maintain independence from the nations of the great and abominable church.

You've identified the great and abominable church as the Catholic Church. The nation associated with Catholicism would primarily have been Spain, who was the superpower of the day. But Spain doesn't even play a part in your story. The colonists didn't flee Spain or other Catholic nations. (There's a reason we all speak English.) They didn't go to war against Spain or other Catholic nations. So your story lacks the primary antagonist described in the vision.

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I already have my mind made up so I don't need to look at evidence that challenges my view. Confirmation bias at its best.

Considering that I’ve asked twice now to give me a brief rundown of what you consider to be your strongest piece of concrete evidence, and yet you refuse to do so, this is quite the false accusation. 

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

Nephi's vision is about a great and abominable church among many nations. Some break free of the church and go exploring the world including the land of promise. They are forced to defend themselves when the nations of the great and abominable church war against them. They humble themselves and maintain independence from the nations of the great and abominable church.

You've identified the great and abominable church as the Catholic Church. The nation associated with Catholicism would primarily have been Spain, who was the superpower of the day. But Spain doesn't even play a part in your story. The colonists didn't flee Spain or other Catholic nations. (There's a reason we all speak English.) They didn't go to war against Spain or other Catholic nations. So your story lacks the primary antagonist described in the vision.

Again, history is complex and impossible to fully capture in a prophecy consisting of a handful of verses. 

There’s nothing in this prophecy to suggest that the great and abominable church and the mother gentiles are one and the same. On the contrary, it’s quite clear that they are not referring to the same thing. I also said that in the context of these specific verses that I believe the great and abominable church PRIMARILY (not exclusively) refers to the Catholic Church. The reason is that prior to the reformation, this was the sole Christian church in Europe. We should also include the Eastern Orthodox Church here and to a certain extent the major Protestant state religions, like the Anglican Church.

Escaping the clutches of the corrupt and fully apostate great and abominable church was a process. The reformation in the 1500s was the beginning, but it was only a step in the right direction. Which is why people from Protestant European nations still felt oppressed and came to America seeking full religious freedom. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Considering that I’ve asked twice now to give me a brief rundown of what you consider to be your strongest piece of concrete evidence, and yet you refuse to do so, this is quite the false accusation. 

I have asked to see his method as well.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

. I also said that in the context of these specific verses that I believe the great and abominable church PRIMARILY (not exclusively) refers to the Catholic Church.

Yet the pilgrims were removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the Church of England, which was not Catholic.