- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In my reading of the BoM I came across this passage that kind of surprises me. This is in 1 Nephi 14:10 where Nephi is allowed to see the things his father saw. Quote:
10 And he [an angel] 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.
Two Questions
1. Would you say that all churches other than the one true one can be considered the Church of the Devil? Isn’t this a little hard on the many good people who have chosen alternatives to the LDS Church such as mainstream Christianity?
2. Why does it say the church of the devil “sat upon many waters”? Churches don’t float on the water, so I’m puzzled by the use of the term “waters” when describing the church of the devil.
SilentDawning wrote:
Two Questions1. Would you say that all churches other than the one true one can be considered the Church of the Devil? Isn’t this a little hard on the many good people who have chosen alternatives to the LDS Church such as mainstream Christianity?
2. Why does it say the church of the devil “sat upon many waters”? Churches don’t float on the water, so I’m puzzled by the use of the term “waters” when describing the church of the devil.
1. I have come to conclusion that the number of hands determines how a person describes a spectrum of choices. Humans have 2 hands, so everything winds up in 1 hand or the other hand. For a long time, there was an “upgrade” in how we think and speak about choice – and it became a spectrum of choices, a series of points across a line (really the acknowledgement of points outside the hands going from 1 side to the other). In the last 10 years (ish), I have seen a lot more representations of concepts as radial graphs – which is a shift outside of the linear descriptions entirely.
I think that the Book of Mormon writing occurred during a period of humanity when binary (1 hand or the other) was the primary way of viewing choices – so all religions are forced into an “us vs them” description.
2. I always figured it had to do with “crossing waters” (rivers, oceans, etc.) to get to those new places. I also think it’s a way to describe foreign places – the time of Joseph Smith was around the time of Lewis and Clark, and was the start of migrations west in general. Exploration and classification was a Big Deal. The timeline of the Book of Mormon also deals with a lot of exploration – but the Book of Mormon also talks about classification and innovation periodically too (mostly social/government/moral innovation among people though).
It’s hard to tell the intent of the author but life is seldom as black and white as that verse implies. I’ve heard apologetics about that verse saying that it’s not referring to one
specificchurch but a more general “church of the Lamb of God” (any ideology that brings people closer to Christlike behaviors, regardless of religion or creed) and a more general “church of the devil” (any ideology that leads people away from Christlike behaviors, regardless of religion or creed). I’m not sure that interpretation adds anything meaningful, other than to get around some of the trouble other interpretations create. That apologetic essentially says the same thing as Moroni 7:12.
Quote:Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil;
Which at best earns a, “No duh.” from me.
As to the term “sat upon many waters,” the language and imagery is from the book of Revelation 17:1-2. This whole section of the Book of Mormon is Nephi experiencing what John the Revelator experienced. 1 Nephi 14:26-27.
The book of Revelation gives an interpretation of many waters in 17:15.
Quote:Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues.
Why those things constitute “water” is beyond me but that’s par for the course in Revelation.
BRM in his first version of Mormon Doctrine was explicit in naming the church of the devil as the catholic church. This also would seem to fit in well with the suspicion, distrust, and dislike of the catholic church in the time of JS. However, in later versions of Mormon Doctrine, BRM expanded the definition to include any system that offers a counterfeit salvation or takes people away from God. (I speculate BRM was strongly encouraged to make this and other changes by the sitting church president at the time that was not happy with the publication of MD) As a side note, the SDA to this day still see the church of the devil/mother of Harlots as the Catholic church. They also see many protestant churches as either part of the harlot or her daughters. They see themselves as the true church.
The JW’s take the view that the church of Satan is all false religion (basically everyone but them). Part of the evidence for corruption and false religion is involvement with political and economic interests. They would determine the LDS church as a false religion based on these two things alone.
nibbler wrote:
I’ve heard apologetics about that verse saying that it’s not referring to one specific church but a more general “church of the Lamb of God” (any ideology that brings people closer to Christlike behaviors, regardless of religion or creed)
I tried to give this as an option in SS a few years ago. I said that if the church of the devil can be an amalgamation of everything that takes us away from God then maybe the church of the lamb can include more than one organization that is bringing people closer to God. That theory was rather abruptly and categorically rejected by the instructor.
I like that description – IF it is applied as a generic way to describe churches, religions, doctrine, theology, etc. Some move people toward goodness, while others move people toward badness. Some support God, while others do not support God.
Of course, where any particular church, religion, doctrine, theology, etc. is seen in that distinction depends on the perspective of each individual – but I like it, nonetheless. I believe it mirrors actual life quite well, since it allows both to exist in the same church, religion, doctrine, theology, etc. – as well as in each individual person.
As the old saying goes, the victor in each case will be the ones we feed the most.
Also, Mormonism’s overarching theology of possible eternal reward for all fits this fairly well, even if the standard degrees of glory have three destinations, since it divides people into those who end up being ruled by / ruling with a God and those who end up being ruled by the Devil. When you look at it that way, everyone ends up being divided into only two categories – especially if eternal progression from glory to glory is part of the picture.
SilentDawning wrote:
In my reading of the BoM I came across this passage that kind of surprises me. This is in 1 Nephi 14:10 where Nephi is allowed to see the things his father saw.Quote:
10 And he [an angel] 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.
Two Questions
1. Would you say that all churches other than the one true one can be considered the Church of the Devil? Isn’t this a little hard on the many good people who have chosen alternatives to the LDS Church such as mainstream Christianity?
2. Why does it say the church of the devil “sat upon many waters”? Churches don’t float on the water, so I’m puzzled by the use of the term “waters” when describing the church of the devil.
I will make an effort to explain. Part of the problem in understanding ancient scripture is trying to understand ancient symbolism using modern style thinking. Very few living today have experience or understand the ancient kingdom types of government. Yet, we speak of heaven as a “kingdom” and think of G-d as the “king” of kingdom of heaven. Anciently it was understood that the religious organization that was properly connected to G-d was a type and shadow patterned after the Kingdom of heaven. In short – the church of G-d was an earthly manifestation of the kingdom of heaven or another way of thinking is that the “church” was the training ground preparing those involved for living in the Kingdom of Heaven and serving the King of Heaven.
In our modern society, we do not think of church as being that directly connected to G-d nor his “kingdom”. In essence it is just a place where we worship. We also think of worship as a stylized extension of our culture. Therefore, the modern idea of church is believed to be just a human extension of our various cultures. Nephi, being a prophet, saw our modern day and realized the problem and the disconnect between modern churches and G-d.
There is some perception and concept in the idea of “The One True and Living G-d”. If one believes that it is possible that there is a “One True and Living G-d” of this planet earth and its inhabitants then it stands to reason that there is, in the same manner, “One True and Living Church” that is his representation on earth of His Kingdom in Heaven. A G-d of such precise order as our earth and solar system that fits preciously into our very structured and order universe could not be represented such a disarray of conflicting competing organizations as we have in current modern churches.
Nephi also presents the idea that any human organization pretending to be the kingdom of G-d on earth that is not specifically otherized by Him (G-d) is made counterfeit with origins connected to the g-d of deceptions who is Satan. In the same manner that we guard our currency – any money claiming to be authorized by our US government – regardless of how much it looks to be real or how hardworking and honest those fooled – is counterfeit and those that created the counterfeit are criminal elements rebellious to the laws and order of the USA. A little side note here. Those that unknowingly believe the money to be lawful are not criminal agents of the seditious elements that created the counterfeit diversion and should not be thought of as criminals. Likewise, I do not believe those that unknowingly attempt to worship G-d at a counterfeit church ought to be criticized or held to account by those Saints of G-d that are building up the genuine Kingdom of G-d on earth.
As to the symbolism of waters – Water is referenced in creation and is an ancient symbol of the power of G-d. Water is also referenced in the epoch of the flood and baptism as an element of cleansing power. I believe Satan is attempting to present himself as the savior of mankind.
I think black-and-white thinking is comforting to some people. It takes all the complexity out of complex situations. It simplifies life into two choices, and some people take a lot of comfort in that. The black-and-white statement that seems to imply the Catholic Church is the church of the devil also doesn’t fit modern practice. One of my former bishops was telling me that the Mormon church gets along well with the Catholic church when there are humanitarian needs. He said that if there is a humanitarian need in part of the world where the church doesn’t have a presence (or at least, a strong enough presence), we just write a check to the Catholic church. I can’t see us writing a check to the Church of the Devil.
This reading of the scriptures has me questioning them in so many ways. I like the Book of Mormon as a reading experience, and for how it makes me feel when it moves into spiritual passages, but so much of it bothers me.
One, the style in which it was written. It has not been assembled the way the Bible was assembled — from books written by different writers with different writing styles. The whole book is written in one style as far as I can see with all the “and it came to pass” and “behold” throughout. You would think the Bible and the Book of Mormon would follow a similar path to completion.
Anyway, I don’t see the “only two churches” concept as a strength of the Book of Mormon.
SilentDawning wrote:
Anyway, I don’t see the “only two churches” concept as a strength of the Book of Mormon.
I do, but only if taken in a very broad sense. My own take on it is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Church of God (AKA Church of the Firstborn and several other names) are not the same thing. There is some support for this in our own theology where in Doctrine & Covenants the Church is mentioned prior to the formation of the CoJCoLDS, probably in reference to the Church of God. My own take on this is that there might well be only two churches – those that are with us and those that are against us. Since we believe every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ (a form of universalism), it would appear to be the Church of God will in the long run be quite large while the other church might be quite small. Just to clarify more, I believe all good people of all religions and belief systems belong (or will belong) to the Church of God.
In the quoted section the above could be inferred. The BoM does go on to trip itself up though, and for the life of me I can’t understand why. All it seems to have accomplished is to give some misguided GAs of a later era some fodder for accusing others of being the great and abominable church (still fairly widely believed among the Old Guard). I am grateful for some more modern GAs who have alluded to the idea that it’s a bit ridiculous for us to believe that we’re doing all the work of bringing people to Christ, especially when it’s very clear others have brought many more to Christ.
Watcher wrote:
A G-d of such precise order as our earth and solar system that fits preciously into our very structured and order universe could not be represented such a disarray of conflicting competing organizations as we have in current modern churches.
I have taken this same position.
1) It was awfully convenient for me to take this view seeing as how I had been born into the LDS church and had a vested interest in defending the only religious world that I knew.
2) I had reasoned that if G-d had any kinds of rules or steps for returning back to Him then He would set up an organization with spokesmen to communicate those steps in clarity. The problem for me now is that the LDS church is such a tiny percentage of the overall population that if this is G-d’s plan to teach and save his children then it is not a good plan. It barely scratches the surface and is really only available in a practical sense for those born in the right time and place. If G-d could set it up any way that He wanted then why wouldn’t He do something to make it less ambiguous. Maybe have angels visit and tell the world which organization truly represents Jesus and the Father.
3) Barring sending angels or having a voice speak from the sky or something like that, why would G-d send his message to a religious organization with as tortured of a history as we LDS have. To many people, our church is just weird. We are like the weird uncle that comes to thanksgiving dinner with his conspiracy theories about how he alone knows the truth. If the LDS church is revealed in heaven to be the only church and kingdom of G-d then lots of people will be left scratching their heads – as if to say “Really? Am I being pranked right now?”
How could the G-d of the universe be represented (and only represented) by the tiny weird little church that we have?
If god is perfect, precise, orderly, etc. that’s still only looking at one side of the equation. What does this perfect, precise, orderly entity have to interface with? The imperfect, the imprecise, and the disorderly. Is an omnipotent god hamstrung to have only one path, only one way to present itself; just the plan A with no plans B, C, etc. Or would a more infinitely minded god have a plan A for people that would respond to a plan A, a plan B for people that would respond to a plan B, etc.
What is more important, working to ensure that every individual receive the same ordinance and believe the same theology or working to ensure that every individual has opportunities to learn kindness?
There are multiple paths that could lead a person to perform a specific ritual and to believe a specific dogma. The roads to kindness are infinite.
Here I’d also point out that chaos is a necessary element of even the orthodox plan. How could a person exercise agency without conflict and competing agents?
Roy wrote:
Watcher wrote:
A G-d of such precise order as our earth and solar system that fits preciously into our very structured and order universe could not be represented such a disarray of conflicting competing organizations as we have in current modern churches.
I have taken this same position.
1) It was awfully convenient for me to take this view seeing as how I had been born into the LDS church and had a vested interest in defending the only religious world that I knew.
2) I had reasoned that if G-d had any kinds of rules or steps for returning back to Him then He would set up an organization with spokesmen to communicate those steps in clarity. The problem for me now is that the LDS church is such a tiny percentage of the overall population that if this is G-d’s plan to teach and save his children then it is not a good plan. It barely scratches the surface and is really only available in a practical sense for those born in the right time and place. If G-d could set it up any way that He wanted then why wouldn’t He do something to make it less ambiguous. Maybe have angels visit and tell the world which organization truly represents Jesus and the Father.
3) Barring sending angels or having a voice speak from the sky or something like that, why would G-d send his message to a religious organization with as tortured of a history as we LDS have. To many people, our church is just weird. We are like the weird uncle that comes to thanksgiving dinner with his conspiracy theories about how he alone knows the truth. If the LDS church is revealed in heaven to be the only church and kingdom of G-d then lots of people will be left scratching their heads – as if to say “Really? Am I being pranked right now?”
How could the G-d of the universe be represented (and only represented) by the tiny weird little church that we have?
If we attempt to measure any idea of what is good, just, beneficial, important or needed (or even any counterparts of bad, unjust, malevolent, unneeded or unnecessary) based on what we can mitigate between the birth and death of human life – let alone any life as we understand life – nothing can be rationalized or demonstrated by example. Not for any religion nor government notion of what ought to or ought not to be. There is no way to justify why one human was born 5,000 years ago in a barely subsistent rather ignorant hunter gather society only to be sacrificed in infancy and another human is born in an affluent modern society with unlimited access to political, scientific, social, religious and philosophical knowledge gathered over time.
How can any theologian or philosopher claim there is a just, compassionate or intelligent G-d or even a consistent just purpose of life – let alone, so called, intelligent life? Certainly not in the western Abrahamic religions. Perhaps, in some of the more mistic Eastern religions there are possibilities but none of them are keeping up with the explosion of recent scientific knowledge. Nor is there any possibility for justice between birth and death in any philosophy. There is just no mitigation for the intelligence of humans – with the single exception I know of in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do realize that it is possible that I have not discovered some obscure hidden answer – but the logic of that (outside of birth and death) has already been dismissed by other posters.
Only in LDS theology is a pre-existence explained that allows for intelligent humans using the process of agency to determine their specific life experience and course. Again, only in LDS theology is there a post mortal existence (spirit world) that completes any an all variations in mortal experience giving all opportunity for a just, compassionate and intelligent exercise of agency to determine their “eternal” destiny. I have yet to encounter any religion that suggest we intelligently determine our eternal destiny through our own agency — in essence all other imply we are only what G-d, circumstance or chance makes of us.
The short and simple purpose of a mortal human existence is only given any possibility of personal determination (agency) through the concepts of the plan of salvation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All else is unreachable through the appendage of the dichotomy between precept of good and evil that cannot be completed in mortality because in mortality we are ignorant and dependent on things beyond our mortal control or choice. Without a pre-existence and post mortal spiritual reconciliation based in agency there can be no rational and consistent purpose of anything. If there is – I have not encountered it but I would gladly consider any other rational intelligent possibility.
Watcher wrote:
Without a pre-existence and post mortal spiritual reconciliation based in agency there can be no rational and consistent purpose of anything. If there is – I have not encountered it but I would gladly consider any other rational intelligent possibility.
I think that is a fair assessment Watcher. It reminds me of an analogy of a 3 act play by Elder Packer. We are in the middle part and it doesn’t seem to make any sense because we cannot remember the first act and the third act hasn’t happened yet.
Part of my difficulty is that if the plan of happiness were a three act play then it would be a play where the first and third parts are so very different from the middle as to seem from different plays altogether. In the first act we live with Heavenly Father and Jesus. In the second act we arrive at earth with no memories and whether or not G-d exists at all or what meaning the mortal life has is all up for debate and taken on faith.
And that is the crux. It is a leap of faith for those that are able to make the leap. I further believe that some of us are not capable to make the leap (either because of nature or life experiences). Fortunately, I also believe that there will be accommodations made for all things that are beyond the individual’s control. Indeed, I believe that there will be accommodations, invitations, encouragement, and support made sufficient for each and every one of us so that in the end only those that actively choose to turn away from G-d will be left out.
Similar to what OT said, if there are only two churches then in the final accounting all but the sons of perdition will belong to the Church of the Lamb.
Roy wrote:
Watcher wrote:
Without a pre-existence and post mortal spiritual reconciliation based in agency there can be no rational and consistent purpose of anything. If there is – I have not encountered it but I would gladly consider any other rational intelligent possibility.
I think that is a fair assessment Watcher. It reminds me of an analogy of a 3 act play by Elder Packer. We are in the middle part and it doesn’t seem to make any sense because we cannot remember the first act and the third act hasn’t happened yet.
Part of my difficulty is that if the plan of happiness were a three act play then it would be a play where the first and third parts are so very different from the middle as to seem from different plays altogether. In the first act we live with Heavenly Father and Jesus. In the second act we arrive at earth with no memories and whether or not G-d exists at all or what meaning the mortal life has is all up for debate and taken on faith.
And that is the crux. It is a leap of faith for those that are able to make the leap. I further believe that some of us are not capable to make the leap (either because of nature or life experiences). Fortunately, I also believe that there will be accommodations made for all things that are beyond the individual’s control. Indeed, I believe that there will be accommodations, invitations, encouragement, and support made sufficient for each and every one of us so that in the end only those that actively choose to turn away from G-d will be left out.
Similar to what OT said, if there are only two churches then in the final accounting all but the sons of perdition will belong to the Church of the Lamb.
Thank you for your kind post. I agree that the concept of a 3 act play fits somewhat. However, I would take this concept a little deeper. More along the line of the concept behind the Star Trek “Kobayashi Maru”. This was a test of character in a no-win scenario. There is a concept or idea that we learned and developed in the pre-existence. Our mortal experience is then a final test or trial in preparation for our eternal glory.
I sometimes think of glory in terms of money, wealth and position but all in an eternal spiritual sense. Our solar system is believed to be 4.5 billion years old. I am of the impression that we, as spiritual offspring of G-d the Father have been around learning from our Father for at least that time. If we compare that time to distance and let 1,000 years be a foot. We, if we live to be a hundred years or less old; we will spend about an inch to complete our mortal trial. If we were traveling from Salt Lake City to Dallis Texas – that would be the amount of time we have spent preparing. The last inch of the journey would be our mortal trial.
To make our trial effective – the trial, of necessity must be done without knowing the outcome – which includes all the planning and preparation made in the pre-existence. Our mortal probation, though but a moment, of necessity is blind. Therefore we come to this life without knowledge of our pre-existence and armed only with faith. This makes the trial poignant and real; forcing us to pass through the sacrifice, suffering and death, demonstrating our true character only through faith. When completed we are ready to exercise our agency as to our choice of Glory within the “kingdom” of G-d.
I agree with you and OT that all who exercised their agency in the pre-existence to complete a mortal trial will be saved in the one true church (or Kingdom of G-d). I have speculated that much like the circumstance in this life that there will be some (perhaps very few – including Satan and his followers and perhaps others that are called sons and daughters of perdition) that will choose (by their agency) to not participate in any of the one true Church (kingdom). Perhaps we may even see them from time to time and say hello. The ancient concept of being in the presents of G-d meant more along the lines of counseling with G-d. Since I equate attending church as being in counsel with G-d – I speculate some to be agents unto themselves and not interested in counseling with G-d – but I believe the opportunity will always be available but at such a point – I do not think anyone will have a change of heart. C.S Lewis presented this concept in his short book titled “The Great Divorce”.
Watcher wrote:
More along the line of the concept behind the Star Trek “Kobayashi Maru”. This was a test of character in a no-win scenario. There is a concept or idea that we learned and developed in the pre-existence. Our mortal experience is then a final test or trial in preparation for our eternal glory.
Fascinating. I remember that you had theorized elsewhere that the a primary common element of the human experience is suffering. Therefore, mortal life could be a test of character on how we deal with suffering (both our own and that of others). I certainly hope that we all rise to the challenge to offer compassion and support to one another in our mutual suffering. Very interesting idea!
Roy wrote:
Watcher wrote:
More along the line of the concept behind the Star Trek “Kobayashi Maru”. This was a test of character in a no-win scenario. There is a concept or idea that we learned and developed in the pre-existence. Our mortal experience is then a final test or trial in preparation for our eternal glory.
Fascinating. I remember that you had theorized elsewhere that the a primary common element of the human experience is suffering. Therefore, mortal life could be a test of character on how we deal with suffering (both our own and that of others). I certainly hope that we all rise to the challenge to offer compassion and support to one another in our mutual suffering. Very interesting idea!
You are so right. I have observed that those that have suffered are the best to comfort those who are similarly suffering. There is one more thing to complete and give reason to all this seemingly needless suffering and sacrifices. It is that; what appears to be a no-win scenario that can only end in death (both physical and spiritual) becomes a no-lose scenario with the atonement of Christ. Regardless of how badly we fail the trial and what was lost – all is forgiven and restored because of the atonement of Christ. The only thing that remains is that we forgive – both others (including the so called righteous Saints) as well as ourselves – which gives us true eternal peace and ends the suffering. Both in ourselves as well as with others.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.