Two churches- Church of Jesus Christ..and the great and abominable church?

[prisonchaplain]

I think the bigger misconception is the perception that this means the individuals in it are evil, or that all the teachings within such are evil/wrong.

Yeah...the little word with the big sting is "abominable."

[Jamie123]

Yeah...the little word with the big sting is "abominable."

Yup...the one little word that turns this...

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdsCmnj-RhdR_nA-1ol7GlXp1wdnOq4VXuEvzl4iFZXwbt_SgR0A

Into this...!

[RMGuy]

In my simple mind, I worked it out as those who live pure religion vs secularism. I've met way too many good, "God fearing" people to think otherwise.

That is an interesting perspective slamjet......that could apply to some members of the church that I have met as well.........concerned more with dogmatic doctrine, than spirituality.

-RM

[Blackmarch]

Yeah...the little word with the big sting is "abominable."

I have yet to see any ancient prophet butter things up (actually i think Christ is the only one i can think of that probably used the softest language in regards to other religions). By the same token any time someone claims their church to be the true one, or to claim another not to be true they are saying that the other church(es) are part of the whore that is talked about in revelations... And the only folks that i can think of that avoid this are the ones that say there is no true church, or that all churches are true (but this has whole other bag of problems in relation to the Gospel of Christ).

The problem is, is how we percieve the meaning of such phrases... which usually turns out to be a bit different than how they were used by the authors of scripture back then.

Generally our first reaction today would be "gee, he's saying we prostitute and do child sacrifice" or something like that.

Which would be incorrect (even tho there have been churches and religions in the past that have done stuff like that in the past, taht undoubtedly adds to that)- for instance what would be closer to what they would be talking about wwpould be something like "baptising with the authority of God is good, but baptising without the authority of God is an abomination to him."

Does that mean one who does so without the authority is in danger of hellfire and damnation? that depends, mainly on what they know to be true, and what they do in relation to that knowledge.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Blackmarch

[prisonchaplain]

Let me try to put myself in thine shoes...if someone was capable of entry into the Celestial Kingdom, and of rather quickly gaining exaltation, and I dissuaded him from this course, by condemning the restoration, and urging him back to apostate traditionalism, then this soul would enter the Terrestial Kingdom. As wonderful as that might be, it is far less than what his potential was. As an agent that held him back, I might be labeled "abominable." Maybe even a well-intended abomination.

[Blackmarch]

Let me try to put myself in thine shoes...if someone was capable of entry into the Celestial Kingdom, and of rather quickly gaining exaltation, and I dissuaded him from this course, by condemning the restoration, and urging him back to apostate traditionalism, then this soul would enter the Terrestial Kingdom. As wonderful as that might be, it is far less than what his potential was. As an agent that held him back, I might be labeled "abominable." Maybe even a well-intended abomination.

In this hypothetical scenario, I'm assuming that this dissuader did not know in his heart that the restoration was true?

What did this dissuader do when he finally recognised the truth of it (whether in mortality or after)?

also there is a second story, the story of the one who was dissuaded-

Why did the dissuaded stop seeking for truth (and i'm not referring to his being turned away from the restoration by the dissuader)

Also was paul an abomination? - does unknowinlgy partaking in an abomination make one abominable?

(altho i wouldn't mind being that snowman from jamies post ^.^)

Edited September 28, 2011 by Blackmarch

[rameumptom]

Such issues as PC brings up is exactly why God will make the final decisions and judgments and not any of us. It is very possible that there are issues that God will take into consideration in handing out rewards.

[Obolus]

As an agent that held him back, I might be labeled "abominable." Maybe even a well-intended abomination.

PC, who are you concerned about being 'labeled' by in your hypothetical? The Mormons? Or God?

[Seminarysnoozer]

In this hypothetical scenario, I'm assuming that this dissuader did not know in his heart that the restoration was true?

What did this dissuader do when he finally recognised the truth of it (whether in mortality or after)?

also there is a second story, the story of the one who was dissuaded-

Why did the dissuaded stop seeking for truth (and i'm not referring to his being turned away from the restoration by the dissuader)

Also was paul an abomination? - does unknowinlgy partaking in an abomination make one abominable?

(altho i wouldn't mind being that snowman from jamies post ^.^)

Hypothetical example - Korihor.

[Blackmarch]

Hypothetical example - Korihor.

except korihor didn't believe he was doing it for god, or earnestly believed he was doing the right thing doesnt work to well with the hypothetical. this is why i am trying to work within the hypothetical given by PC. because we can gain insight to how we see how this applies in our views. Edited September 28, 2011 by Blackmarch

[LittleWyvern]

Let me try to put myself in thine shoes...if someone was capable of entry into the Celestial Kingdom, and of rather quickly gaining exaltation, and I dissuaded him from this course, by condemning the restoration, and urging him back to apostate traditionalism, then this soul would enter the Terrestial Kingdom. As wonderful as that might be, it is far less than what his potential was. As an agent that held him back, I might be labeled "abominable." Maybe even a well-intended abomination.

We need to remember that God only judges us based on what we know is right. So, while we cannot even pretend to think we know how God will judge someone, I think that He would at least keep these two things in mind in judging this hypothetical situation:

• You were doing what you thought was right: i.e. sharing the gospel as commanded in the scriptures
• The hypothetical person chose the path he thought was right based on his knowledge

I think it's wrong here to assume both the final destination of a soul and a label on yourself (especially one so drastic as "abominable") given so few details. When God judges, He takes the whole picture with a perfect understanding. This is why we as people here on earth often think ourselves into paradoxes such as this when we think on the judgement: our perspective is narrowed to what is happening right now. God knows (and uses, I'm sure) the eternities before and the eternities after this life.

[Soninme]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

As an agent that held him back, I might be labeled "abominable." Maybe even a well-intended abomination.

I guess I am stirring the pot but Paul clearly says if one doesn't preach the true gospel or preaches a different Jesus then "let him be accursed".

False teachings about God and His ways were punishable by death in the OT. (Deut 13) (Deut 18:20)

Now we don't stone false teachers today but remember what Jesus said of the teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees, calling them "whitewashed tombs" "blind guides" and "hypocrites".

False teachings are what separate people from God now and for eternity, if that's not an abomination what would be?

2 Corinthians 11: 1 Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly—and indeed you do bear with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

[rameumptom]

Let's look at this from a whole Mormon perspective, and not just bits and pieces of scripture taken out of context. In Paul's day, the "gospel" was not just one set of perfect instructions. The Jewish-Christians were expected to live the law of Moses, while the Gentile Christians were not. Seems like there was some variability allowed in the gospel, so that both could worship and not be "accursed."

The teachings of Christ given by most Christian churches are terrestrial in nature. If a person listens to prison chaplain's teachings and follows them, that person will merit at least a terrestrial reward. THAT is NOT abominable in any form or way.

LDS do not understand their own doctrine very well. It is too easy to do a quick read of things and then interpret them in ways that God never meant. When the Lord states in D&C 1 that the LDS Church is the "only true and living church with whom I, the Lord, am well pleased", he is not saying it is the only true or living church. He is saying it is the only one he is "well pleased" with. Obviously, the various churches offer various levels of true, living, and pleasingness to God.

According to the scriptures and Joseph Smith, what are the key concepts of the gospel? Christ was crucified, resurrected, and atoned for our sins. God lives and loves us. There are prophets and apostles to guide us.

Most Christian churches can agree with all those points. That they may disagree on certain aspects (Trinity vs Godhead, all prophets versus only dead ones, etc), does not turn them into accursed and evil entities.

[Soninme]

In Paul's day, the "gospel" was not just one set of perfect instructions. The Jewish-Christians were expected to live the law of Moses, while the Gentile Christians were not. Seems like there was some variability allowed in the gospel, so that both could worship and not be "accursed."

Ram

Did I misunderstand you?

Do you have a scriptural reference that "Jewish-Christians were expected to live the law of Moses"?

or that they were/are saved (my term) differently than Gentile Christians?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Let's look at this from a whole Mormon perspective, and not just bits and pieces of scripture taken out of context. In Paul's day, the "gospel" was not just one set of perfect instructions. The Jewish-Christians were expected to live the law of Moses, while the Gentile Christians were not. Seems like there was some variability allowed in the gospel, so that both could worship and not be "accursed."

The teachings of Christ given by most Christian churches are terrestrial in nature. If a person listens to prison chaplain's teachings and follows them, that person will merit at least a terrestrial reward. THAT is NOT abominable in any form or way.

LDS do not understand their own doctrine very well. It is too easy to do a quick read of things and then interpret them in ways that God never meant. When the Lord states in D&C 1 that the LDS Church is the "only true and living church with whom I, the Lord, am well pleased", he is not saying it is the only true or living church. He is saying it is the only one he is "well pleased" with. Obviously, the various churches offer various levels of true, living, and pleasingness to God.

According to the scriptures and Joseph Smith, what are the key concepts of the gospel? Christ was crucified, resurrected, and atoned for our sins. God lives and loves us. There are prophets and apostles to guide us.

Most Christian churches can agree with all those points. That they may disagree on certain aspects (Trinity vs Godhead, all prophets versus only dead ones, etc), does not turn them into accursed and evil entities.

I think "expected" is a little strong, don't you think it was more like 'permitted'? ... not to take away from your other comments, cause I agree with everything else you say here about christian teaching.

[Vort]

I do not know what the "great and abominable church" refers to. The angel told Nephi there were "save two churches only", and specified them as the church of the Lamb of God and the great and abominable church. What does "church" mean here?

This is long before Greek was the common language of Palestine and southern Europe, and hundreds of years before Koine Greek was even spoken at all. Since our word "church" comes from a Greek term (though apparently not directly from "ἐκκλησία" ekklasía, the Greek word normally translated as "church"), we must assume the word stands for some Hebrew term. The corresponding Hebrew term, כָּחָל KaHaL, actually means much the same thing as ἐκκλησία -- a meeting or assembly of people.

(I do not speak or read either Greek or Hebrew. This is my non-expert understanding. Take it for what it's worth.)

So the angel appeared to be saying, perhaps, that there are two groups to which people join themselves, the white hats and the black hats. It is possible (though by no means obvious) that "the church of the Lamb" did not refer specifically to the kingdom of God on earth, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or whatever incarnation was available at the time, but rather to the larger community of all those who sought after God. I don't know this to be the case, but it does seem unlikely that the angel was using "church" in a modern sense.

Now, what is an "abomination"? You can go to Blue Letter Bible and investigate the different Hebrew and Greek words so translated in the KJV, if you like. It boils down to this: An abomination is something loathsome, and seems to be associated with idolatry and perversion of the worship of God. So what do we see in Joseph Smith's time? Religion used as a means of harrowing people up and dividing communities. God used as a blunt instrument to bludgeon those whose beliefs are different from one's own. Preachers sharing their understanding of the gospel as a way to gain converts, status, power, and wealth. Creeds defined not as a way to bring people to the living God, but as a constraint on their beliefs so they don't get too far from the expected. It is no wonder that the Lord said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight and that all those professors (which I take to mean the learned conveyors of religious dogmas and not merely those who professed this or that) were corrupt.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, who are you concerned about being 'labeled' by in your hypothetical? The Mormons? Or God?

In this case, it would be the non-LDS person who convinced either an LDS member or an investigator to return to traditionalism. (It's a hypothetical mean to examine how it might be reasonable to say a non-LDS church was abominable).

[bytor2112]

From 1988 Ensign, by Stephen Robinson:

The word great in the phrase great and abominable church is an adjective of size rather than of quality and, like the Hebrew gadol or the Greek megas, informs us of the great size of the abominable entity. Secondary meanings might refer to great wealth or power.

The term abominable is used in the Old Testament to describe what God hates, what cannot fail to arouse his wrath. In Daniel, the abomination of desolation is that thing so hateful to God that its presence in the temple causes the divine presence to depart, leaving the sanctuary desolate. In the Old Testament, the terms translated into English as abominable or abomination (Hebrew roots shiqqutz, ta’ab, piggul; Greek Septuagint and New Testament bdelugma) are usually associated with idolatrous worship or gross sexual immorality.

The word church (Hebrew qahal or edah; Greek ekklesia) had a slightly broader meaning anciently than it does now. It referred to an assembly, congregation, or association of people who bonded together and shared the same loyalties. Thus, the term was not necessarily restricted to religious associations; in fact, in Athens the Greeks used the term to denote the legislative assembly of government.

Originally, the term ekklesia, formed from two words meaning call and out, referred to those citizens whom heralds called out or summoned to public meetings. Thus, it was an ideal word to represent the body of individuals whom God “calls out” of the world through the Holy Ghost. The civil dimension of the word appears in Acts 19:32, where assembly in the KJV is a translation of the Greek ekklesia. We must, however, remember that we don’t know the original word on the gold plates that Joseph Smith translated as church. Whatever it was, the Prophet chose to translate it as church instead of as assembly.

When we put all this together, we find that the term great and abominable church means an immense assembly or association of people bound together by their loyalty to that which God hates. Most likely, this “church” is involved specifically in sexual immorality, idolatry (that is, false worship), or both. While the book of Revelation does not use the exact phrase “great and abominable church,” both John and Nephi use a number of similar phrases to describe it. They call it the “Mother of Harlots, and Abominations,” “mother of abominations,” and “the whore that sitteth upon many waters.” (Rev. 17:1, 5; 1 Ne. 14:10–11.)

More here

[Obolus]

In this case, it would be the non-LDS person who convinced either an LDS member or an investigator to return to traditionalism. (It's a hypothetical mean to examine how it might be reasonable to say a non-LDS church was abominable).

The only person for whom it is reasonable to say so is God. Mormons, despite their foibles and misunderstandings of their own scriptures, are not the originators of the text, nor do they sit in the judgment seat.

For the question to bear any legitimate answer, it must be posed to the originator.

[prisonchaplain]

Obolus, if so...then any who dare answer it without a "thus saieth the Lord," would be operating well outside the parameters of their job description, right? :-)

[john doe]

I'm of the opinion that it refers to the fact that in the end there will be two factions: those who are believers in Christ, and those who fight against Him. Jesus said that if you are not for Him, you are against Him. There will be no fence-sitters or sideliners allowed. If you are not engaged in His good cause, then you are de facto allowing Satan to win.

[mordorbund]

So..what is the great and abominable church? Is it all churches lumped into one that don't have the true priesthood power?

The church of the Lamb is more general than the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Nephi uses the phrase "church of the devil" as a synonym for "great and abominable church".

And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.

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.

When taken in connection with the Book of Mormon, modern revelation suggests that early missionaries were to proselytize to churches within the Church of the Lamb.

[Obolus]

Obolus, if so...then any who dare answer it without a "thus saieth the Lord," would be operating well outside the parameters of their job description, right? :-)

What do you mean by "answer it"? Do you mean a judgment passed, or an "Our doctrine states..."?

Even if a member of the Church does infer some sort of self-righteous judgment when they remit the information, they are still not the text itself. And the text is what is in question here. Not the people.

[prisonchaplain]

What I am suggesting is that if anyone, member or not, dares to label a particular other church as abominable, then, based upon your statement, they would be attempting what only God is qualified to do. All I intended was to draw a conclusion from your statement, to see if I understood it properly.

[Jamie123]

This is long before Greek was the common language of Palestine and southern Europe, and hundreds of years before Koine Greek was even spoken at all. Since our word "church" comes from a Greek term (though apparently not directly from "ἐκκλησία" ekklasía, the Greek word normally translated as "church"), we must assume the word stands for some Hebrew term. The corresponding Hebrew term, כָּחָל KaHaL, actually means much the same thing as ἐκκλησία -- a meeting or assembly of people.

We sometimes use the word "church" today in a similar sort of sense. When a group of people is referred to as a "broad church", it simply means they have a wide range of differing opinions, and does not necessarily have anything to do with religion.

By the way, I believe the English word "church" is a worn-down form of the Greek word "Kuriakon" - which means "belonging to the Lord". The Scots word "Kirk" (still used in the Church of Scotland) is more obviously related to the original.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Jamie123