Satan forms a great and abominable church

[telnetd]

"And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld 
it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which 
contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and 
it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record 
like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so 
many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto 
the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles" (1 Nephi 13:23).

"And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the 
Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of a great and abominable church, 
which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away 
from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also 
many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (1 Nephi 13:26).

In what time frame is the "book" considered to be of great worth unto the Gentiles?

After the twelve apostles of the Lamb delivered the covenants and prophecies to the 
Gentiles, how much time passed before Satan established this great and abominable 
church? Is there a specific historical event that marks the formation of this church?

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

"And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld 
it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which 
contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and 
it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record 
like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so 
many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto 
the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles" (1 Nephi 13:23).

"And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the 
Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of a great and abominable church, 
which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away 
from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also 
many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (1 Nephi 13:26).

In what time frame is the "book" considered to be of great worth unto the Gentiles?

After the twelve apostles of the Lamb delivered the covenants and prophecies to the 
Gentiles, how much time passed before Satan established this great and abominable 
church? Is there a specific historical event that marks the formation of this church?

As to your first question, the holy scriptures in their purity were no doubt of very great worth to the Gentile members of the Church of Jesus Christ during the Apostolic Period, but the Book of Mormon testifies that it wasn’t long thereafter that the Great Apostasy set in and the pure scriptural record was either tampered with or expunged of many of its most important doctrines and covenants. It might further be said that the Holy Scriptures would have continued to be of even greater worth to the Post-Apostolic Period Gentiles if the record had been allowed to remain in its pure, unadulterated state. 

Edited January 7, 2025 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

"And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld 
it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which 
contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and 
it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record 
like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so 
many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto 
the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles" (1 Nephi 13:23).

"And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the 
Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of a great and abominable church, 
which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away 
from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also 
many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (1 Nephi 13:26).

In what time frame is the "book" considered to be of great worth unto the Gentiles?

After the twelve apostles of the Lamb delivered the covenants and prophecies to the 
Gentiles, how much time passed before Satan established this great and abominable 
church? Is there a specific historical event that marks the formation of this church?

Download this article by the late Prof. Stephen Robinson

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol7/iss1/6/

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

In what time frame is the "book" considered to be of great worth unto the Gentiles?

From the time that they receive it and from that time forward.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

After the twelve apostles of the Lamb delivered the covenants and prophecies to the 
Gentiles, how much time passed before Satan established this great and abominable 
church?

It happened concurrently.  The church of the Lamb of God was attacked immediately.  The great and abominable church consists of "he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God."  (2 Nephi 10:16)  

Whenever God's work on earth intensifies, so does the opposition against it.  The exact same situation is described in Revelation chapter 12, where "the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born" (v 4), and "when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child." (v 13)  And "the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood." (v 15).  And "the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (v 17)

The war hasn't ended.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Is there a specific historical event that marks the formation of this church?

Maybe the war in heaven in the beginning?  Otherwise, nope.  It's been around for a long time.

The "formation" of that great and abominable church described in 1 Nephi 13 just happens in direct contrast to the formation of the church of the Lamb of God.  The devil ramped up his opposition to counter the establishment of Christ's church.

[MustardSeed]

Maybe the great and ab church is not actually a church. 

[teddyaware]

28 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Maybe the great and ab church is not actually a church. 

That’s the ticket! Contradict the scriptures because accepting their plain, straightforward, intended meaning is too unpopular and uncomfortable to accept. Questions: The principle of Occam’s Razor tells me that those who would have most likely been in a position to alter verses of scripture, and expunge whole important sections of scripture, would have been religious people who were in possession of those writings and belonged to some sort of religious organization, like a church. Do you agree? Or do you think it was some sort of nonreligious secular group that somehow got their hands on the scriptures and altered them?

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, teddyaware said:

That’s the ticket! Contradict the scriptures because accepting their plain, straightforward, intended meaning is too unpopular and uncomfortable to accept. Questions: The principle of Occam’s Razor tells me that those who would have most likely been in a position to alter verses of scripture, and expunge whole important sections of scripture, would have been religious people who were in possession of those writings and belonged to some sort of religious organization, like a church. Do you agree? Or do you think it was some sort of nonreligious secular group that somehow got their hands on the scriptures and altered them?

or, if you accept the late Prof. Robert J. Matthews of BYU's opinion, the doctrines were corrupted prior to the writing of the scriptures, so NT writings are evidence of the apostasy not the cause of it

[JAHS]

45 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Maybe the great and ab church is not actually a church. 

That’s the ticket! Contradict the scriptures because accepting their plain, straightforward, intended meaning is too unpopular and uncomfortable to accept. Questions: The principle of Occam’s Razor tells me that those who would have most likely been in a position to alter verses of scripture, and expunge whole important sections of scripture, would have been religious people who were in possession of those writings and belonged to some sort of religious organization, like a church. Do you agree? Or do you think it was some sort of nonreligious secular group that somehow got their hands on the scriptures and altered them?

I think the opinion of Church leaders is that reference to a Great and Abominable Church, is used to signify all churches or any other type of organization or cause, which are designed to take men on a course away from God and salvation. I think only God could know for sure which churches or organizations this would include. 

[InCognitus]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think the opinion of Church leaders is that reference to a Great and Abominable Church, is used to signify all churches or any other type of organization or cause, which are designed to take men on a course away from God and salvation. I think only God could know for sure which churches or organizations this would include. 

In other words (as stated in the actual text of the Book of Mormon), it is "he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God."  (2 Nephi 10:16)   This is in all periods of time and throughout all the world, inside or outside of any existing organization, and in fact may include a few individuals who claim to be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It has to do with the person's heart and goals, not a membership card that we carry in our pocket.

Edited January 7, 2025 by InCognitus

[Calm]

On 1/7/2025 at 9:10 AM, MustardSeed said:

Maybe the great and ab church is not actually a church. 

Quote

e "formation" of that great and abominable church described in 1 Nephi 13 just happens in direct contrast to the formation of the church of the Lamb of God

I think the direct contrast which works nicely for teaching purposes is evidence it isn’t an actual church, but more behavior, state of mind, etc.  And as pointed out above, that dovetails with 2 Ne 10:16

If we focus on looking for an actual church to fill this role, we may not notice behaviors in ourselves and others that “fight against Zion” and may even justify behaviors that disrupt Zion because of our concerns about the church we have inappropriately targeted as the G and A.

Edited January 8, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

their plain, straightforward, intended meaning

Iow, how you interpret them…

[CV75]

8 hours ago, telnetd said:

"And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld 
it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which 
contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and 
it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record 
like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so 
many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto 
the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles" (1 Nephi 13:23).

"And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the 
Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of a great and abominable church, 
which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away 
from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also 
many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (1 Nephi 13:26).

In what time frame is the "book" considered to be of great worth unto the Gentiles?

After the twelve apostles of the Lamb delivered the covenants and prophecies to the 
Gentiles, how much time passed before Satan established this great and abominable 
church? Is there a specific historical event that marks the formation of this church?

The context of 1 Nephi 13 would place the earliest access the Gentiles had with the written word at the time of the epistles of the original twelve apostles, notably Paul, so that would be around about 50 - 90 AD onward. These gospel writings ("books") included their witness of Christ, christological exegesis and portions from the Old Testament. Any of these sources, as available, were collected and eventually canonized into what we refer to the Bible today and are still of great worth despite any shortcomings one might find.

These books would likely have begun to have become intentionally corrupted almost immediately by some contemporaneous, perverse / great and abominable group, so this church (an ecclesiastical authority not of God but of the devil or of man), would have been formed around the same time these materials were created. The descriptions of it  sound very similar to a secret combination, so I would not expect a historical record of its inception and deeds that pinpoint “a specific historical event that marks the formation of this church.” Additionally, I think it safe to say that any enemies of Christ within the religious and political structures of the day who sought to undermine His witness would qualify as this church.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

or, if you accept the late Prof. Robert J. Matthews of BYU's opinion, the doctrines were corrupted prior to the writing of the scriptures, so NT writings are evidence of the apostasy not the cause of it

Can you share where he said this? My bias leads me to think he meant the compilation of the materials that were brought into the canon, not necessarily the original writings which became corrupted into these materials, or corrupted in their copying and translation. 

[CV75]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

That’s the ticket! Contradict the scriptures because accepting their plain, straightforward, intended meaning is too unpopular and uncomfortable to accept. Questions: The principle of Occam’s Razor tells me that those who would have most likely been in a position to alter verses of scripture, and expunge whole important sections of scripture, would have been religious people who were in possession of those writings and belonged to some sort of religious organization, like a church. Do you agree? Or do you think it was some sort of nonreligious secular group that somehow got their hands on the scriptures and altered them?

How about a nonreligious (and does is the devil count as nonreligious or religious?) secular group that infiltrated the gradually apostatizing Christian church units?

[Duncan]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Can you share where he said this? My bias leads me to think he meant the compilation of the materials that were brought into the canon, not necessarily the original writings which became corrupted into these materials, or corrupted in their copying and translation. 

“Apparently the original manuscripts of the Bible disappeared very early. This seems particularly true of the New Testament. Sir Frederic Kenyon, one of the greatest textual scholars of the early twentieth century, commented thus: ‘The originals of the several books have long ago disappeared. They must have perished in the very infancy of the Church; for no allusion is ever made to them by any Christian writer.’ Kenyon’s statement is particularly important to us because it means that for centuries there has not been an original Bible manuscript to guide the reader. Even in the early decades of the original Christian church, the original texts seem to have been absent. …

“The angel [in 1 Nephi 13:21–29] makes it clear that he is not talking about subtle accidents of hand and eye, resulting in a few misplaced letters or words—the unplanned errors of copyists. He pointedly ascribes these changes to the planned editorial work of designing men [see 1 Nephi 13:27–28]. …

“As we read the words of the angel, we discover that the world never has had a complete Bible, for it was massively—even cataclysmically—corrupted before it was distributed. Of course, in addition to the major willful corruption of the Bible in the early Christian era, the manuscripts have also continued to suffer the gradual and relatively mild changes, due to errors of hand and eye, that the scholars talk about. Thus there have been two processes at work: (1) a major, sudden, and deliberate editorial corruption of the text and (2) a gradual promulgation of variants that has occurred as a natural consequence of copying and translation” (Robert J. Matthews, A Bible! A Bible! [1990], 74–75).

Joseph Smith taught that “many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled” (History of the Church, 1:245). He also said that the Bible was correct as “it came from the pen of the original writers,” but that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (History of the Church, 6:57.)

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

“Apparently the original manuscripts of the Bible disappeared very early. This seems particularly true of the New Testament. Sir Frederic Kenyon, one of the greatest textual scholars of the early twentieth century, commented thus: ‘The originals of the several books have long ago disappeared. They must have perished in the very infancy of the Church; for no allusion is ever made to them by any Christian writer.’ Kenyon’s statement is particularly important to us because it means that for centuries there has not been an original Bible manuscript to guide the reader. Even in the early decades of the original Christian church, the original texts seem to have been absent. …

“The angel [in 1 Nephi 13:21–29] makes it clear that he is not talking about subtle accidents of hand and eye, resulting in a few misplaced letters or words—the unplanned errors of copyists. He pointedly ascribes these changes to the planned editorial work of designing men [see 1 Nephi 13:27–28]. …

“As we read the words of the angel, we discover that the world never has had a complete Bible, for it was massively—even cataclysmically—corrupted before it was distributed. Of course, in addition to the major willful corruption of the Bible in the early Christian era, the manuscripts have also continued to suffer the gradual and relatively mild changes, due to errors of hand and eye, that the scholars talk about. Thus there have been two processes at work: (1) a major, sudden, and deliberate editorial corruption of the text and (2) a gradual promulgation of variants that has occurred as a natural consequence of copying and translation” (Robert J. Matthews, A Bible! A Bible! [1990], 74–75).

Joseph Smith taught that “many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled” (History of the Church, 1:245). He also said that the Bible was correct as “it came from the pen of the original writers,” but that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (History of the Church, 6:57.)

This gets to the semantics of what "Bible" means. There was no Bible per se (as we have it today) before the writings were collected and canonized as such; the Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century seems to be the oldest known manuscript of the Old and New Testaments (including a couple of other early Christian texts we do not have in our Bibles today). The quote above refers to earlier, "original manuscripts" or texts (lost), which I take to not refer to this Bible "proper" and these were intentionally corrupted before the earliest Bible was compiled.

[Kenngo1969]

Apologies if anyone else has posted this already but I overlooked it.  (Just chalk it up to "great minds thinking alike," and that, "if something is worth saying, it's worth saying twice." )

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_great_and_abominable_church_in_the_Book_of_Mormon

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As to your first question, the holy scriptures in their purity were no doubt of very great worth to the Gentile members of the Church of Jesus Christ during the Apostolic Period, but the Book of Mormon testifies that it wasn’t long thereafter that the Great Apostasy set in and the pure scriptural record was either tampered with or expunged of many of its most important doctrines and covenants. It might further be said that the Holy Scriptures would have continued to be of even greater worth to the Post-Apostolic Period Gentiles if the record had been allowed to remain in its pure, unadulterated state. 

That is not what it says. It says parts of the gospel are taken out. Also covenants are lost. Nothing about altering the books that would later make up the bible. The bigger question is why didn’t any apostles write up the equivalent of a priesthood manual with ordinances and covenants in it? Something like Leviticus.

[Dario_M]

Satan have made a church? Really? What kind of church must that be then? Bound to be a really satanic one. Full of demons. Evilness. Anger. And satanic crosses and skulls everywhere in the church. 

[Calm]

It’s described in the Book of Mormon.  It’s more focused on wealth, power….greed and pride basically.

Ken’s link to FAIR’s explanation of it in his posts two stops above this one is one I recommend if the verses are confusing.

Here are the relevant ones from the Church’s website.  You can click on the scriptures to read them.

Quote

 

THE CHURCH OF THE DEVIL

Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God.

• The devil founded the great and abominable church, 1 Ne. 13:6 (1 Ne. 14:9).

• There are only two churches, one of the Lamb of God and one of the devil, 1 Ne. 14:10 (Alma 5:39).

• Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil, D&C 18:20.

• The great and abominable church shall be cast down, D&C 29:21.

 

From the only two churches link, we have these crucial details imo for identifying it, which up till now have prevented it from being specifically identified with any one existing or past Church or even Faith as none have achieved such total global dominance.  Might happen in the future, though I doubt it.

I definitely lean towards it being more a state of mind and who one chooses to associate with for what purposes.  Do those purposes raise up people seeking to be part of God’s Zion or do those purposes cause people intentionally to stumble?

Quote

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.

11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

Especially organizations that promote a discipleship of wickedness…a choice of life such as could occur in criminal or violent gangs, including drug gangs or cartels, any organized crime including organized scamming, some governments past and current that are about grinding down the vulnerable for the immoral gains of the so called elite.probably are part of it, some businesses that have intent on making life harder for people by incentivizing gambling and getting involved in addictive substances, predatory loaning practices, etc.

Edited January 8, 2025 by Calm

[Tony uk]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

It’s described in the Book of Mormon.  It’s more focused on wealth, power….greed and pride basically.

Ken’s link to FAIR’s explanation of it in his posts two stops above this one is one I recommend if the verses are confusing.

Here are the relevant ones from the Church’s website.  You can click on the scriptures to read them.

From the only two churches link, we have these crucial details imo in identifying it which up till now have prevented it from being identified with any one Church or even faith as none have achieved such global dominance.

I certainly found these links of interest, thanks Calm.

 My own understanding with regards to the Church of Satan. The term Church, in regards to Satan maybe a generic one. Refering to a large group of people, sharing the same thoughts and lifestyle.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

I certainly found these links of interest, thanks Calm.

 My own understanding with regards to the Church of Satan. The term Church, in regards to Satan maybe a generic one. Refering to a large group of people, sharing the same thoughts and lifestyle.

I agree.

I can’t remember if I have mentioned it to you before, but I am a member of FAIR.  We exist to both defend the Church against false accusations and misrepresentations as well as provide accurate info on a number of questions people have had over the couple of decades we have existed.

[Tony uk]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree.

I can’t remember if I have mentioned it to you before, but I am a member of FAIR.  We exist to both defend the Church against false accusations and misrepresentations as well as provide accurate info on a number of questions people have had over the couple of decades we have existed.

Hi Calm. Not sure if you mentioned in the past, my memory not has sharp as it used to be, age. I am not familiar with FAIR. Glad it exists, I feel that it is something that is of value and very much needed in the world at the moment.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not what it says. It says parts of the gospel are taken out. Also covenants are lost. Nothing about altering the books that would later make up the bible. The bigger question is why didn’t any apostles write up the equivalent of a priesthood manual with ordinances and covenants in it? Something like Leviticus.

The primary mode of transmission "back then" was oral, from which I think it would be even easier to delete and alter specific points. If they did write them down*, their cadre was too small, weak and dispersed to maintain continuity. They may have held them close to the chest like our Church did with the handbooks of yesteryear, and so were easily lost with their deaths.

*I've sometimes thought that the Sermon on the Mount was written by Jesus, which is how He recited it so well for the Nephites.

[telnetd]

On 1/7/2025 at 11:06 AM, Duncan said:

Download this article by the late Prof. Stephen Robinson

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol7/iss1/6/

Page 9 made this commment:

"Second, Nephi says that the scriptures were complete when they came forth from the
mouth of a Jew,but that the great and abominable church, which had its formation 
among the Gentiles, excised them (see 1 Nephi 13:24-26)".

Since the early church was entirely Jewish, wouldn't that formation have occurred
among them first?