- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yesterday in Gospel Doctrine we studied Book of Mormon lesson #4, which goes into more of the things Nephi saw in visions (the week before was all about the Tree of Life vision). We spent a lot of time talking about the Great and Abominable Church… which my father-in-law would say is the Catholics 🙄 … the lesson manual is very clear that this doesn’t refer to an actual church. (Even used a quote from BRM’sMormon Doctrineto back it up, which I think is interesting in and of itself.) Anyway, I find that this brings up a couple of interesting questions… 1) 1 Nephi 14:10 says that there are only two churches, the church of the Lamb of God and the church of the devil, the whore of all the earth, etc. But I don’t think we are meant to lump ALL churches other than the LDS one into the ‘devil’ category. (Maybe the Westboro Baptist Church.) I’ve mentioned before that my kids participate in a ‘sports ministry’ at a local Protestant church and we’ve been very pleased with this program. Is this church the church of the devil? Of course not! Any church that tries to bring people to God – and most of them do – can’t possibly be the church of the devil. But it 90-95% of world religions are the church of the Lamb of God (and Nephi was quite clear that it’s either/or, no shades of gray) then what on earth makes the LDS church so special?
2) The lesson manual emphasizes that the ‘church of the devil’ is not a specific church… yet Nephi uses the word ‘church’ over and over again in these chapters. Why would he keep using ‘church’to mean something that ISN’T a church? And… was ‘church’ even really an idea that existed in Jerusalem, 600 B.C.? I admit I’m not the best Biblical scholar, but I don’t really recall the word ‘church’ being used in the OT (or in the four Gospels; it doesn’t really crop up until much later in the NT). Where did Nephi get it from, and is it possible he meant something else entirely that was lost in translation?
(Lehi and his family would have been Jewish, and that fact has literally never occurred to me before now.)
I knew there was good reason to skip Sunday School yesterday. I can’t even begin to imagine what the discussion was like in my ward, but it was very likely as you allude to Joni – we’re of God and everyone else (including all other churches) are not. There would likely be an old guy in there who would assert the great and abominable was indeed the Catholics (that was widely taught not all that long ago, and I agree it is interesting about the BRM quote because he taught it). As a former Catholic (although not very devout, I can assure you that they are not the great and abominable and are for closer to us than most people believe. I have many of the same questions you do about that part. The idea of a church, Lehi/Nephi being Jewish, etc. I don’t take any scripture literally any more, including this. I have no clue what Nephi was talking about but I’m pretty sure he wasn’t talking about any specific church or all other churches. Like all prophets Nephi saw through a glass darkly and maybe he didn’t even know what he was talking about. For me it goes in the “ignore” file.
DarkJedi wrote:(that was widely taught not all that long ago, and I agree it is interesting about the BRM quote because he taught it).
Yep, the quote in the GD manual was from Mormon Doctrine –
SecondEdition. 
(And I wonder, did we back off on the anti-Catholic sentiment once the missionaries started having huge success in largely Catholic Central/South America, or was it the other way around? Chicken/egg?
😆 )Joni, That passage takes a black & white position. We are either with Jesus or we are against him. I suspect that when it first went to the press in 1829, most everyone would have associated the Catholic Church with it. However, I do think it works better as a take-sides statement for ourselves in how we approach this life better than an organizational question. Not saying I like it, because I don’t believe in the B&W division lines, but I think there is no need to associate it with a church or churches.
As for meaning, who knows? I will point out that in NT times, Paul frequently used the word ‘church’ but always, always, always, meant it as ‘congregation’… like we might use ‘ward’ or ‘branch’… the church in Philippi, the church in Rome, the church in Corinth. If you take it in that way, the BofM reference would mean those who follow Christ (as a group) and those who oppose Him (as a group).
Actually, I applaud the use of BRM to say it’s not the RCC. He said it was in the first edition of MD, but was called on the carpet, told he was wrong, and made to change it. Even someone like BRM can change.
I see it as more or less the same as what is found in Moroni 7:12: Quote:Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil;
First impression, way to go out on a limb there Moroni. After thinking about it some more, it feels like the determination of what is good or evil comes first. Like after you make the determination that something is good you can then say it is of god. It’s different than saying, this came from god therefore it must be good. To me that’s a
veryimportant distinction. A little earlier Moroni says:
Quote:Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift.
The Book of Mormon presents many binary characters. You are either all good or all evil. Personally I don’t know anyone like that. Good people do bad things and bad people do good things. Pablo Escobar comes to mind, perhaps not the best example, and I don’t mean to say that doing some good justifies any amount of evil. Now I’m off on a tangent.
Life isn’t black and white… and that’s a black and white statement if there ever was one.
Somewhat surprisingly, it seems that we were condemning all other churches since the very beginning.
Quote:
“Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” whom the Lord denounces… as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act. If any penitent believer desires to obtain forgiveness of sins through baptism, let him beware of having any thing to do with the churches of apostate Christendom, lest he perish in the awful plagues and judgments, denounced against them. The only persons among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who have authority from Jesus Christ to administer any gospel ordinance are those called and authorized among the Latter-day Saints. Before the restoration of the church of Christ to the earth in the year 1830, there have been no people on the earth for many generations possessing authority from God to minister gospel ordinances. We again repeat. Beware of the hypocritical false teachers and imposters of Babylon!– The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255
“The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church is the great corrupt ecclesiastic power, represented by great Babylon which has made all nations drunk with her wickedness, and she must fall, after she has been warned with the sound of the everlasting gospel. Her overthrow will be by a series of the most terrible judgments which will quickly succeed each other, and sweep over the nations where she has her dominion, and at last she will be utterly burned by fire, for thus hath the Lord spoken. Great, and fearful, and most terrible judgments are decreed upon these corrupt powers, the nations of modern Christendom; for strong is the Lord God who shall execute His fierce wrath upon them, and He will not cease until He has made a full end, and until their names be blotted out from under heaven.”
– Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.84 – p.85
“It was the apostate Catholics that first originated the idea and by them the fatal delusion has been handed down from generation to generation; and all the children that she has brought forth, or that have left her communion, have, more or less, imbibed the same great features of the apostasy. Well might the Revelator John, speaking by the spirit of prophecy, call her “the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth!” It is her true name, for all the “harlots” which she has brought forth have walked in the footsteps of their “Mother” in declaring against new revelation, and in pretending that ancient revelation is a sufficient rule of faith. It is to be expected that as is the Mother, so will be her Harlot daughters. …In the meantime, another harlot daughter of the Catholics–the Lutherans…”
– Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.40
“The present Christian world exists and continues by division. The MYSTERY of Babylon the great, is mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and it needs no prophetic vision, to unravel such mysteries. The old church is the mother, and the protestants are the lewd daughters. Alas! alas! what doctrine, what principle, or what scheme, in allWhat prayers, what devotion, or what faith, `since the fathers have fallen asleep,’ has opened the heavens; has brought men into the presence of God; and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to an innumerable company of angels? The answer is, not any: `There is none in all christendom that doeth good; no, not one.’
– Apostle John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.811
“Babylon, literally understood, is the gay world; spiritual wickedness, the golden city, and the glory of the world, The priests of Egypt, who received a portion gratis from Pharaoh; the priests of Baal, and the Pharisees, and Sadducees, with their “long robes,” among the Jews, are equally included in their mother’s family, with the Roman Catholics, Protestants, and all that have not had the keys of the kingdom and power thereof, according to the ordinances of God.
– Prophet John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.939
Perhaps we are a little more PC in our phrasing, but this seems to be pretty much what we are teaching and learning today.
Roy wrote:Perhaps we are a little more PC in our phrasing, but this seems to be pretty much what we are teaching and learning today.
I agree that that message (lamentably) is still getting through, but I think it’s cultural leftovers, rather than the teachings of the modern Church itself.
In 1975 (April GC), TSM said the following in describing the reformers:
Quote:Honest men with yearning hearts, at the peril of their very lives, attempted to establish points of reference, that they might find the true way.
I think that during my adult lifetime, there has been an acceptance that reformers (and by extension, their churches) are sincere attempts, driven by faith. William Tyndale, for example, has gotten a lot of air time in GC. BKP referred to him as a martyr, to whom we owe much. MRB called him courageous. RDH spoke in the same paragraph about how the Lord’s hand was over Wycliff, Tyndale and JS, and then called for us to be “as faithful, as devoted, as courageous as those who went before us”.
GBH said, to open GC in 2005, “My beloved brothers and sisters, on behalf of the worldwide membership of this Church, I extend to our Catholic neighbors and friends our heartfelt sympathy at this time of great sorrow. Pope John Paul II has worked tirelessly to advance the cause of Christianity, to lift the burdens of the poor, and to speak fearlessly in behalf of moral values and human dignity. He will be greatly missed, particularly by the very many who have looked to him for leadership.”
I attended a graduation at a Church university where a member of the Seventy spoke, and his entire message was following the example of Mother Theresa.
I don’t think the Church is merely being PC… I think the Church has found in modern times that it is better to be respectful of and cooperative with other religions.
The whole thing about the Catholic church being the abomidable church came from teachings in the 1950s era. The LDS church and whoever was the prophet at that time had a big blow up with the catholic church and that was taught ever since although the past decade or so it has died down. At the same time crosses became too Catholic to let go too so the LDS church made sure to take crosses out of the faith . I have found photos of the LDS church when crosses were accepted and I wish they would go back to it !!!!!!!!!!!!! jgaskill wrote:The whole thing about the Catholic church being the abomidable church came from teachings in the 1950s era. The LDS church and whoever was the prophet at that time had a big blow up with the catholic church and that was taught ever since although the past decade or so it has died down. At the same time crosses became too Catholic to let go too so the LDS church made sure to take crosses out of the faith . I have found photos of the LDS church when crosses were accepted and I wish they would go back to it !!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the forties there was almost open warfare in Utah between the LDS and Catholic churches. Catholics had announced the opening of a “mission” in Utah and some high church leaders interpreted that to mean a proselyting mission. It took nearly a year for people to realize that the term meant something different and for the LDS leaders to calm down.
The quotes above from the Pratt’s and John Taylor remind me of why I have no problem ignoring some of the stuff from those days and not feeling the least bit bad or unfaithful about it.
And I think it was David O McKay that served his mission in Italy and found it to be a hard mission and kind of held the position that the Catholic Church was a huge stumbling block to the progress of the church. I too wish there was not such an anti-cross mentality in the church. I have considered getting a cross tie clip. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When I started reading about the history of the cross in LDS culture, I was stunned. It really rocked me back in my heels a bit and I had to catch my balance. All those years of childhood and adulthood that I had passively listened while being told the cross was wrong in its symbolism. I had nodded my head, and assumed my leaders were correct. Since Christmas, I have worn a tiny James Avery “Latin” cross. It is about 1/2 inch long. I love the fact that the cross is empty. Christ is not there. He is risen. The symbolism of the empty cross has become meaningful to me. It makes me sad that such a symbol is controversial in LDS circles.
LookingHard wrote:And I think it was David O McKay that served his mission in Italy and found it to be a hard mission and kind of held the position that the Catholic Church was a huge stumbling block to the progress of the church. I too wish there was not such an anti-cross mentality in the church. I have considered getting a cross tie clip.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pres. McKay served in Scotland and, I think, Lorenzo Snow in Italy. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.
I had to teach this lesson last week. I wrote “Great and Abominable Church” on one side of the board and “Church of the Lamb” as headings(I think that’s how I called it.). I then had the class list attributes of each, and I wrote those attributes under the correct heading. We discussed the differences between the two, and how attributes of the abominable church can appear in any church, even ours. I had a really hard time with this lesson as people kept talking about how the destruction of many Native Americans was inspired and that dark skin was a curse. I mentioned how at the beginning the BOM mentions that the Lamanites are among the American Indians, and how most of the Native American who were killed were probably not Lamanites. (I don’t actually believe that any are/were Lamanites.) I was close to just ending class early and walking out. Instead, I read from the church’s essay about race and the priesthood. I read the ending where it says that black skin is not a curse. It made a guy in particular stop talking. There was decent conversation after that, but I left the lesson feeling exhausted and anti-social.
If people (including leaders at all levels) really understood the context of those chapters and the way those words are used throughout scripture, we could have avoided so much incorrect doctrine relative to race. I firmly believe much would be different if the membership really understood what is written in the Book of Mormon better – and the worst misinterpretations tend to be the most orthodox ones.
A recent post on W&T really fits in well with what I have been thinking. http://www.wheatandtares.org/20258/the-only-true-church-in-spacetime/ I hadn’t considered that perhaps the Mormon Church is preparatory to the version of the gospel we will live in the Celestial Kingdom, the same way that the Mosaic Law was preparatory to Christianity.
Maybe the Mormon Church is 2% of the way there. Other Christian churches are 1% of the way there. We look at them and say ‘well we have twice as much truth as you’ but from God’s perspective, we are only a tiny bit closer.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.