Satan forms a great and abominable church

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, telnetd said:

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?

it sounds like, if you take Robert Matthew and Stephen Robinson's opinions, the doctrine preceded the writings and then doctrine was taken out of the writings, so who did it, when, someone Jewish, someone not, hard to say

[CV75]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

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?

Do you consider a Jewish person at the time of Christ and the first apostles to have been born, raised and living among the Gentiles? 

The members of the great and abominable church which had its formation among the Gentiles might have consisted of any combination of ethnicity and citizenship, and included disaffected saints. The same with the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ once the gospel was formally extended to gentile people; any combination of ethnicity and citizenship.

Whether actors from the great and abominable church infiltrated the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ and began to obtain, copy, alter and lose or destroy the texts accepted as scripture among the saints at the time, or pass them along to those who would, or whether these actors accomplished their aims through other means is not known in detail.

But from what Nephi wrote, the formation of the great and abominable church was not among the early church which was also formed among the Gentiles.

[MustardSeed]

On 1/7/2025 at 8:55 AM, 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?

There is a ton of symbolism in the scriptures.  Assuming this reference might also be so doesn’t make me a heretic. I do realize it’s sometimes satisfying to put another religion as Gods enemy and to hold ourselves up as  Gods favorite, but in my opinion, this particular reference has green lighted way to much unnecessary abuse on other organizations from us.   Feels pretty opposing to the plain, straightforward and intended message of “love one another.”

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

There is a ton of symbolism in the scriptures.  Assuming this reference might also be so doesn’t make me a heretic. I do realize it’s sometimes satisfying to put another religion as Gods enemy and to hold ourselves up as  Gods favorite, but in my opinion, this particular reference has green lighted way to much unnecessary abuse on other organizations from us.   Feels pretty opposing to the plain, straightforward and intended message of “love one another.”

The church (which published the article by Stephen Robinson in the Ensign outlining that the church of the devil is a symbolic church most of the time that Nephi uses the term, and even when it appears he was speaking of a real organization it could not have been any of the churches that exist now) agrees with you.  

Edited January 10, 2025 by bluebell

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The church (which published the article by Stephen Robinson in the Ensign outlining that the church of the devil is a symbolic church most of the time that Nephi uses the term, and even when it appears he was speaking of a real organization it could not have been any of the churches that exist now) agrees with you.  

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng#p9

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The church (which published the article by Stephen Robinson in the Ensign outlining that the church of the devil is a symbolic church most of the time that Nephi uses the term, and even when it appears he was speaking of a real organization it could not have been any of the churches that exist now) agrees with you.  

Well, then, I’m feeling pretty darn smart right now because I’m certainly not well read in religious studies. So I didn’t borrow the idea from anyone else! Breaking arm patting self on back 

[teddyaware]

10 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

There is a ton of symbolism in the scriptures.  Assuming this reference might also be so doesn’t make me a heretic. I do realize it’s sometimes satisfying to put another religion as Gods enemy and to hold ourselves up as  Gods favorite, but in my opinion, this particular reference has green lighted way to much unnecessary abuse on other organizations from us.   Feels pretty opposing to the plain, straightforward and intended message of “love one another.”

It appears you missed my point. I was drawing your attention to the fact that the individuals who tampered with and expunged vitally important sections from the original Holy Scriptures, in fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecy, were almost certainly the apostate Christian religionists who had the original unalloyed scriptures in their possession. Like it or not, these scripture altering religionists were members of the apostate Christian church that arose out from the organization of the original true church that was founded by Jesus Christ himself. Isn’t it perfectly obvious that the most likely culprits were members of the false church that emerged out of  the great apostasy? Who else could it be?

I don’t understand this hesitancy to accept the obvious fact that the false churches that emerged out from the original Church of Christ are the products of a Great Apostasy.  It’s especially hard to understand this hesitancy when the Lord himself testified plainly to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Christian churches of the 19th century world that emerged from the original church of the Great Apostasy were all also in a state of apostasy, and that unless there was a restoration of the original true Church of Christ, with its priesthood authority and power, the whole earth would be smitten with a curse at Christ’s Second Coming.

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” (Joseph Smith — History)

 

Edited January 10, 2025 by teddyaware

[MustardSeed]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It appears you missed my point. I was drawing your attention to the fact that the individuals who tampered with and expunged vitally important sections from the original Holy Scriptures, in fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecy, were almost certainly the apostate Christian religionists who had the original unalloyed scriptures in their possession. Like it or not, these scripture altering religionists were members of the apostate Christian church that arose out from the organization of the original true church that was founded by Jesus Christ himself. Isn’t it perfectly obvious that the most likely culprits were members of the false church that emerged out of  the great apostasy? Who else could it be?

I don’t understand this hesitancy to accept the obvious fact that the false churches that emerged out from the original Church of Christ are the products of a Great Apostasy.  It’s especially hard to understand this hesitancy when the Lord himself testified plainly to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Christian churches of the 19th century world that emerged from the original church of the Great Apostasy were all also in a state of apostasy, and that unless there was a restoration of the original true Church of Christ, with its priesthood authority and power, the whole earth would be smitten with a curse at Christ’s Second Coming.

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” (Joseph Smith — History

Edited January 10, 2025 by MustardSeed
Never mind

[CV75]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It appears you missed my point. I was drawing your attention to the fact that the individuals who tampered with and expunged vitally important sections from the original Holy Scriptures, in fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecy, were almost certainly the apostate Christian religionists who had the original unalloyed scriptures in their possession. Like it or not, these scripture altering religionists were members of the apostate Christian church that arose out from the organization of the original true church that was founded by Jesus Christ himself. Isn’t it perfectly obvious that the most likely culprits were members of the false church that emerged out of  the great apostasy? Who else could it be?

I don’t understand this hesitancy to accept the obvious fact that the false churches that emerged out from the original Church of Christ are the products of a Great Apostasy.  It’s especially hard to understand this hesitancy when the Lord himself testified plainly to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Christian churches of the 19th century world that emerged from the original church of the Great Apostasy were all also in a state of apostasy, and that unless there was a restoration of the original true Church of Christ, with its priesthood authority and power, the whole earth would be smitten with a curse at Christ’s Second Coming.

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” (Joseph Smith — History)

 

I think the “hesitancy,” if that is what it is (and it isn’t), has to do with a couple of things:

Ecclesiastical apostasy can result from rebellion (as with the great and abominable church), the loss of priesthood authority through death and material incapacity (some inflicted by the great and abominable church and some not) and dwindling in unbelief by a threshold number of church members (i.e., individual apostasy, some intentional and some not), with or without the precipitating action of the great and abominable church.

The religionists who interfered with the original scriptures used and written by the apostles may have gathered from any of the traditions in that place and time: the Jews’, the new Christians’, any of the polytheistic and state-sanctioned Roman religions. There is no one false church that emerged out of the great apostasy, there were many. The “Great Apostasy” is the condition, not the cause of lost priesthood authority. The great and abominable church is not an apostate church -- it never had priesthood authority -- it was a new construct antithetical to all things Christ (see 1 Nephi 13: 6 – 8), and a major contributor to the Great Apostasy, along with all other things carnal, sensual and devilish… or simply mortal and fallible.

So of course, the Lord would instruct Joseph not to join any of the sects of his day and place, not just because they were wrong (many faithful people, having nowhere else to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and being prepared for the Restoration to come, were inspired by God to worship Him through Christian participation in these sects), but because Joseph had a special role in restoring the covenants and priesthood authority to the earth. A lot of steps in this regard were taken well before organizing the official Restored Church in 1830.

A lot of steps were also taken by individuals, groups, sects and even churches (not to mention other spiritual and philosophical traditions across the globe that reflected, to the best of their wherewithal, the light of Christ, and typically unbeknownst to them) prior to Joseph Smith throughout the Great Apostasy and Reformation that must not be dismissed as operations of the great and abominable church. The Lord condemned the creeds and false professors, which is different than condemning a sect (or its good-faith adherents) simply because it was wrong.

There is a tendency to condemn good-faith adherents of a sect, who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it, just because the only sect they know is wrong, with which people are hesitant or uncomfortable. They are also uncomfortable condemning a sect, and with the attitude of generally condemning anything “not Mormon” simply because it is “wrong (not restored, not a fulness, etc.)”, and throwing out its adherents with the bathwater before they’ve had a chance to progress.

[Tony uk]

I am know expert on this, but I thought I would contribute the following.

I have heard of some works, known as The Didache. These early are supposedly connected with the early days of Christianity. A modern interpretation can still be obtained in book form.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Tony uk said:

I am know expert on this, but I thought I would contribute the following.

I have heard of some works, known as The Didache. These early are supposedly connected with the early days of Christianity. A modern interpretation can still be obtained in book form.

The Didache is interesting, as there are similarities between it and some of the chapters that Moroni included in the Book of Mormon.

See for example:  Book of Mormon Evidence: Didache and Moroni 2–6

[Tony uk]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The Didache is interesting, as there are similarities between it and some of the chapters that Moroni included in the Book of Mormon.

See for example:  Book of Mormon Evidence: Didache and Moroni 2–6

Many thanks for the response InCoognitus. I will take a look at that.

[telnetd]

On 1/9/2025 at 2:27 PM, CV75 said:

Do you consider a Jewish person at the time of Christ and the first apostles to have been born, raised and living among the Gentiles? 

The members of the great and abominable church which had its formation among the Gentiles might have consisted of any combination of ethnicity and citizenship, and included disaffected saints. The same with the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ once the gospel was formally extended to gentile people; any combination of ethnicity and citizenship.

Whether actors from the great and abominable church infiltrated the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ and began to obtain, copy, alter and lose or destroy the texts accepted as scripture among the saints at the time, or pass them along to those who would, or whether these actors accomplished their aims through other means is not known in detail.

But from what Nephi wrote, the formation of the great and abominable church was not among the early church which was also formed among the Gentiles.

No.  I would classify him or her as living among the Israelites.  I would answer yes 
instead if that Jewish person was living among the Gentiles in a Gentile region, like 
Italy.

[telnetd]

On 1/9/2025 at 11:58 AM, Duncan said:

it sounds like, if you take Robert Matthew and Stephen Robinson's opinions, the doctrine preceded the writings and then doctrine was taken out of the writings, so who did it, when, someone Jewish, someone not, hard to say

What doctrine?

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

What doctrine?

well, the atonement was only mentioned once in the current KJV

[CV75]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

No.  I would classify him or her as living among the Israelites.  I would answer yes 
instead if that Jewish person was living among the Gentiles in a Gentile region, like 
Italy.

That's what I meant, and additionally, living among their people who are living among the Gentiles in a Gentile nation or region, like Italy or Greater New York. Thank you!

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 1/7/2025 at 8:55 AM, 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?

I generally agree with you, but here we have to disagree. I believe any organization that advocates breaking the covenant and commandment breaking and don't believe it is any one organization (with all due respect to Elder McConkie). And if it was, I believe that Protestantism fits the bill better than RCC because if was after they got their hands onto it that it went to all nations.

Anyway:

"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."

From:

Devil

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/devil?lang=eng

 

 

[The Nehor]

On 1/9/2025 at 11:43 PM, teddyaware said:

It appears you missed my point. I was drawing your attention to the fact that the individuals who tampered with and expunged vitally important sections from the original Holy Scriptures, in fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecy, were almost certainly the apostate Christian religionists who had the original unalloyed scriptures in their possession. Like it or not, these scripture altering religionists were members of the apostate Christian church that arose out from the organization of the original true church that was founded by Jesus Christ himself. Isn’t it perfectly obvious that the most likely culprits were members of the false church that emerged out of  the great apostasy? Who else could it be?

I don’t understand this hesitancy to accept the obvious fact that the false churches that emerged out from the original Church of Christ are the products of a Great Apostasy.  It’s especially hard to understand this hesitancy when the Lord himself testified plainly to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Christian churches of the 19th century world that emerged from the original church of the Great Apostasy were all also in a state of apostasy, and that unless there was a restoration of the original true Church of Christ, with its priesthood authority and power, the whole earth would be smitten with a curse at Christ’s Second Coming.

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” (Joseph Smith — History)

 

There was no “original unalloyed scripture”. The New Testament is a mess of letters that were almost certainly never intended for a wider audience, the gospels which were created to try to preserve the story of the life of Jesus, and an apocalyptic writing declaring eventual victory over their oppressors written to a specific group of people partly written in code to avoid being overtly treasonous.

It is good stuff but there was no magical ur-text written by the finger of God that was corrupted. You can’t take the covenants out of the New Testament. They were never in there. They wouldn’t have fit in there.

 

[BCSpace]

On 1/7/2025 at 7:45 AM, telnetd said:

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?

For a while, the early Christian Church continued to call men to replace the original Twelve. But I think things went downhill bit by bit so that there is no person, date, or event one can pinpoint. The Church seems to take the safe route by not considering much of the history directly after the original Twelve. There is early evidence of debate about scripture. For example, the loss of verses about the doctrine of preaching the gospel to the dead...

"We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled." [Justin quotes some passages which the Jews evidently removed from Esdras and Jeremiah.] And again, from the sayings of some of Jeremiah, these have been cut out:  "The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 71-72

Justin Martyr lived from AD 100-165 and this work is typically dated between AD 155-160 so not too many decades after John the Beloved.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, BCSpace said:

"We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled." [Justin quotes some passages which the Jews evidently removed from Esdras and Jeremiah.] And again, from the sayings of some of Jeremiah, these have been cut out:  "The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 71-72

Justin Martyr lived from AD 100-165 and this work is typically dated between AD 155-160 so not too many decades after John the Beloved.

This where Trypho should have asked for a CFR.

[telnetd]

On 1/11/2025 at 2:58 PM, CV75 said:

That's what I meant, and additionally, living among their people who are living among the Gentiles in a Gentile nation or region, like Italy or Greater New York. Thank you!

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?

[telnetd]

On 1/11/2025 at 2:25 PM, Duncan said:

well, the atonement was only mentioned once in the current KJV

I think that was in response to what I asked when you said:

it sounds like, if you take Robert Matthew and Stephen Robinson's opinions, the doctrine preceded the writings and then doctrine was taken out of the writings, so who did it, when, someone Jewish, someone not, hard to say

I found one mention in the NT about the word "atonement" and about 81 occurrences
of "atone" or its variant in the entire KJV. The ESV, as in some other Bible translations,
uses "reconciliation" (Romans 5:11). This does not mean the doctrine of the atonement
has been removed.  The Bible speaks more about the atonement than any other LDS
canonical book.

It seems you apply an arbitrary method as to whether some writings have been taken
out of the Bible based on how many times a theme or doctrine is found.

Was the trinity also removed from the Book of Mormon and the other LDS canon 
because that word is not found therein?  What about other words not found in the
Book of Mormon ("passover", "godhead", "testament", and "pentecost")?  Were these 
doctrines removed too?

[CV75]

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

I answered this last week !

 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

I think that was in response to what I asked when you said:

it sounds like, if you take Robert Matthew and Stephen Robinson's opinions, the doctrine preceded the writings and then doctrine was taken out of the writings, so who did it, when, someone Jewish, someone not, hard to say

I found one mention in the NT about the word "atonement" and about 81 occurrences
of "atone" or its variant in the entire KJV. The ESV, as in some other Bible translations,
uses "reconciliation" (Romans 5:11). This does not mean the doctrine of the atonement
has been removed.  The Bible speaks more about the atonement than any other LDS
canonical book.

It seems you apply an arbitrary method as to whether some writings have been taken
out of the Bible based on how many times a theme or doctrine is found.

Was the trinity also removed from the Book of Mormon and the other LDS canon 
because that word is not found therein?  What about other words not found in the
Book of Mormon ("passover", "godhead", "testament", and "pentecost")?  Were these 
doctrines removed too?

it's factually incorrect to say the Bible speak smore about the Atonement more than any other canonical writings in the LDS canon. Can you tell me what the Resurrection means based on what the NT Tells you? No. Someone once said the Bible tell you what happened and the BOM tells you why it happened. 

arbitrary meaning what?

Some people believe that trinity was in the BOM But it was taken out, I don't believe that but others do. the BOM and the Bible have had a different transmission history and there isn't the Gold plates or the original manuscripts to see what was there that is why I said Robert Matthews and Stephen Robinson's "opinions", not facts as in they have examined the originals

[telnetd]

On 1/14/2025 at 1:24 PM, Duncan said:

Can you tell me what the Resurrection means based on what the NT Tells you?

How many, at a minimum, do you need?