I wanted to continue my series on the book Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie. With the election of Pope Francis this week, I thought that would be an interesting place to go. Elder McConkie didn’t have much good to say about Catholicism. Let’s compare the 2 revisions for Catholicism
| 1958 version – Catholicism | Additions and Deletions | 1979 version – Catholicism |
| See Church of the Devil | See Church of the Devil | [There is no entry] |
Church of the Devil? Seriously? Do you think this is one of the 1000 errors cited by Mark E. Peterson?
Now, let’s compare the 2 versions for Church of the Devil.
| 1958 version – Church of the Devil | Additions and Deletions | 1979 version – Church of the Devil |
| See Apostasy, Babylon, Devil, Second Coming of Christ, World.There are two scriptural senses in which the titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used: 1. All Churches or organizations of whatever name or nature—whether political , philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God; and 2. The Roman Catholic Church specifically—singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being “most abominable above all other churches.” (1 Ne. 13:5) | See Apostasy, Babylon, Devil, Kingdom of the Devil, Second Coming of Christ, World.The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature—whether political , philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God. ; and 2. The Roman Catholic Church specifically—singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being “most abominable above all other churches.” (1 Ne. 13:5) | See Apostasy, Babylon, Devil, Kingdom of the Devil, Second Coming of Christ, World.The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature—whether political , philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic or religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God. |
| Salvation is in Christ, is revealed by him from age to age, and is available only to those who keep his commandments and obey his ordinances. These commandments are taught in, and these ordinances are administered by, his Church. There is no salvation outside this one true Church, the Church of Jesus Christ. There is one Christ, one Church, one gospel, one plan of salvation, one set of saving ordinances, one group of legal administrators, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4:5) | Salvation is in Christ, is revealed by him from age to age, and is available only to those who keep his commandments and obey his ordinances. These commandments are taught in, and these ordinances are administered by, his Church. There is no salvation outside this one true Church, the Church of Jesus Christ. There is one Christ, one Church, one gospel, one plan of salvation, one set of saving ordinances, one group of legal administrators, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4:5) | Salvation is in Christ, is revealed by him from age to age, and is available only to those who keep his commandments and obey his ordinances. These commandments are taught in, and these ordinances are administered by, his Church. There is no salvation outside this one true Church, the Church of Jesus Christ. There is one Christ, one Church, one gospel, one plan of salvation, one set of saving ordinances, one group of legal administrators, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4:5) |
| Any church or organization of any kind whatever which satisfies the innate religious longings of man and keeps him from coming to the saving truths of Christ and his gospel is therefore not of God. Such agencies have been and are founded or fostered by the devil who is an enemy to all righteousness. | Any church or organization of any kind whatever which satisfies the innate religious longings of man and keeps him from coming to the saving truths of Christ and his gospel is therefore not of God. Such agencies have been and are founded or fostered by the devil who is an enemy to all righteousness. |
Any church or organization of any kind whatever which satisfies the innate religious longings of man and keeps him from coming to the saving truths of Christ and his gospel is therefore not of God. |
| Hence we find our Lord saying, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matt. 12:30.) And hence we find Alma inviting the wicked to repent and join the true Church of Christ and become the sheep of the Good Shepherd. “And now if ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd, of what fold are ye?” he asks. “Behold, I say unto you, that the devil is your shepherd, and ye are of his fold; and now who can deny this? Behold, I say unto you, whosoever denieth this is a liar, and a child of the devil.” (Alma 5:49; Jos. Smith 2:19.) |
Hence we find our Lord saying, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matt. 12:30.) And hence we find Alma inviting the wicked to repent and join the true Church of Christ and become the sheep of the Good Shepherd. “And now if ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd, of what fold are ye?” he asks. “Behold, I say unto you, that the devil is your shepherd, and ye are of his fold; and now who can deny this? Behold, I say unto you, whosoever denieth this is a liar, and a child of the devil.” (Alma 5:49; Jos. Smith 2:19.) |
Hence we find our Lord saying, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matt. 12:30.) And hence we find Alma inviting the wicked to repent and join the true Church of Christ and become the sheep of the Good Shepherd. “And now if ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd, of what fold are ye?” he asks. “Behold, I say unto you, that the devil is your shepherd, and ye are of his fold; and now who can deny this? Behold, I say unto you, whosoever denieth this is a liar, and a child of the devil.” (Alma 5:49; Jos. Smith 2:19.) |
| Iniquitous conditions in the various branches of the great and abominable church in the last days are powerfully described in the Book of Mormon. (2 Ne. 28; Morm. 8:28, 32-33, 36-38; D&C 10:56) It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this “church which is most abominable above all other churches” in vision. He “saw the devil that he was the foundation of it”; and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been part of this satanic organization. (1 Ne. 13:1-10.) | Iniquitous conditions in the various branches of the great and abominable church in the last days are powerfully described in the Book of Mormon. (2 Ne. 28; Morm. 8:28, 32-33, 36-38; D&C 10:56) |
Iniquitous conditions in the various branches of the great and abominable church in the last days are powerfully described in the Book of Mormon. (2 Ne. 28; Morm. 8:28, 32-33, 36-38; D&C 10:56) Nephi saw the “church which is most abominable above all other churches” in vision. He “saw the devil that he was the foundation of it”; and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been part of this organization. (1 Ne. 13:1-10.) |
| He saw that this most abominable of all church was founded after the day of Christ and his apostles; that it took away from the gospel of the Lamb many covenants and many plan and precious parts; that it perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it deleted many teachings from the Bible; that this church was “the mother of harlots”; and finally that the Lord would again restore the gospel of salvation. (1 Ne. 13:24-42.) | He saw that this most abominable of all church was founded after the day of Christ and his apostles; that it took away from the gospel of the Lamb many covenants and many plan and precious parts; that it perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it deleted many teachings from the Bible; that it was “the mother of harlots”; and finally that the Lord would again restore the gospel of salvation. (1 Ne. 13:24-42.) | He saw that this church took away from the gospel of the Lamb many covenants and many plan and precious parts; that it perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it deleted many teachings from the Bible; that it was “the mother of harlots”; and finally that the Lord would again restore the gospel of salvation. (1 Ne. 13:24-42.) |
| Nephi beheld further that this church was the “mother of abominations,” and “The whore of all the earth” who “sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.” In contrast the dominions of the true Church were small upon the earth. (1 Ne. 14:9-17; 2 Thess. 2:1-12.) | ||
| Similar visions were given to John as recorded in the 17th and 18th chapters of Revelation. He saw this evil church as a whore ruling over peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues; as being full of blasphemy, abominations, filthiness, and fornication; as having the name, “MYSTERY, BABLYON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH”; as drunken with the blood of the saints; as reveling in wealth and the delicacies of the earth; as ruling from Rome, the city built on “seven mountains”; as making merchandise of all costly items and of “slaves, and souls of men.” And then John, as did Nephi, saw the fall and utter destruction of this great church whose foundation is the devil. | Similar visions were given to John as recorded in the 17th and 18th chapters of Revelation. He saw this evil church as a whore ruling over peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues; as being full of blasphemy, abominations, filthiness, and fornication; as having the name, “MYSTERY, BABLYON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH”; as drunken with the blood of the saints; as reveling in wealth and the delicacies of the earth; as |
Similar visions were given to John as recorded in the 17th and 18th chapters of Revelation. He saw this evil church as a whore ruling over peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues; as being full of blasphemy, abominations, filthiness, and fornication; as having the name, “MYSTERY, BABLYON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH”; as drunken with the blood of the saints; as reveling in wealth and the delicacies of the earth; as making merchandise of all costly items and of “slaves, and souls of men.” And then John, as did Nephi, saw the fall and utter destruction of this great church whose foundation is the devil. |
| In this world of carnality and sensuousness, the great and abominable church will continue its destructive course. But there will be an eventual future day when evil shall end, “and the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire.” (D&C 29:21; Ezek. 38:39; 1 Ne. 22-23; Rev. 18.) Before that day, however, desolations will sweep through the earth and the various branches of the great and abominable church “shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.” (1 Ne. 22:13-14; 14:3.) The contentions and entanglements between the Catholic Church and communist forces could well lead to a fulfillment of this prediction. | In this world of carnality and sensuousness, the great and abominable church will continue its destructive course. But there will be an eventual future day when evil shall end, “and the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire.” (D&C 29:21; Ezek. 38:39; 1 Ne. 22-23; Rev. 18.) Before that day, however, desolations will sweep through the earth and the various branches of the great and abominable church “shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.” (1 Ne. 22:13-14; 14:3.) |
In this world of carnality and sensuousness, the great and abominable church will continue its destructive course. But there will be an eventual future day when evil shall end, “and the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire.” (D&C 29:21; Ezek. 38:39; 1 Ne. 22-23; Rev. 18.) Before that day, however, desolations will sweep through the earth and the various branches of the great and abominable church “shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.” (1 Ne. 22:13-14; 14:3.) |
| The resurrected Christ gave to the Nephites this test whereby they might distinguish the true Church from any other: 1. It would be called in his name, for “how be it my church save it be called in my name?” he said. 2. It would be built upon his gospel, that is, the eternal plan of salvation with all its saving powers and graces would be had in it. 3. The Father would show forth his works in it, meaning that miracles, righteousness, and every good fruit would abound in it. 4. It would not be hewn down and cast into the fire as much surely come to pass with the great and abominable church. “If it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.” (3 Ne. 27:4-12.) | The resurrected Christ gave to the Nephites this test whereby they might distinguish the true Church from any other: 1. It would be called in his name, for “how be it my church save it be called in my name?” he said. 2. It would be built upon his gospel, that is, the eternal plan of salvation with all its saving powers and graces would be had in it. 3. The Father would show forth his works in it, meaning that miracles, righteousness, and every good fruit would abound in it. 4. It would not be hewn down and cast into the fire as much surely come to pass with the great and abominable church. “If it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.” (3 Ne. 27:4-12.) | The resurrected Christ gave to the Nephites this test whereby they might distinguish the true Church from any other: 1. It would be called in his name, for “how be it my church save it be called in my name?” he said. 2. It would be built upon his gospel, that is, the eternal plan of salvation with all its saving powers and graces would be had in it. 3. The Father would show forth his works in it, meaning that miracles, righteousness, and every good fruit would abound in it. 4. It would not be hewn down and cast into the fire as much surely come to pass with the great and abominable church. “If it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.” (3 Ne. 27:4-12.) |
Wow. “Satanic organizations” and “entanglements between the Catholic Church and communist forces” seems a bit over the top rhetoric. Aren’t you glad this book is no longer published?
The 1979 version is better by far, but what do you think of it? Do you think this is still acceptable concerning the “church of the devil”?
Wheat & Tares 
One bag question: Where would he have ever gotten such an idea. I’ve not found any reference to the RCC in other sermons, books or tracts.
I might have missed it. But never saw it before this McConkie reference in his 1958 edition
These rants about Catholicism and Papists have been quite common over the centuries. There probably isn’t that much difference between McConkie’s notions and the diatribes of the noted British cleric Charles Kingsley of the century previous.
The abuses of conscience and freedom by large organizations are practically a given. All large organizations—without exception.
It wasn’t acceptable, but it certainly was accepted. McConkie was in no way unique in harboring extremely bigoted views. Lots of people say lots of stupid things. Ever since that unpleasant afternoon in the Garden.
This book, more than any other, is a testament to me that we need to reopen our canon of scripture. When apostles can teach their opinions as actual doctrine, it can create obvious problems. We need a way in our Church to distinguish actual revelation that our leaders get from their opinions.
We have that mechanism. We teach that we can still add to our scriptures. We teach that God can still reveal his will through His prophets and apostles. Unfortunately, those revelations are diluted by the morass that is books like Mormon Doctrine. We should instead do like our earlier leaders and add actual revelations from God to our scriptures.
But that’s just my opinion, and we see how wrong those can be.
The 1978 version is better, but it, too has problems. For example,
I disagree with this assessment. Although this is a common view, it is arrived at by arbitrarily making Nephi’s words a pure symbol, despite the fact that they are nested in a prophecy which in interpreted literally. When people come to that part of his prophecy, they cannot conceive of the conditions that would be required to have it literally come to pass, and they apply the prophecy to their own times and not to the future, and since the conditions today do not give a literal fulfillment, they just assume that this part of Nephi’s prophecy is a symbol. Everyone is guilty of this misinterpretation, including this Mormon apostle.
This is another false presupposition, namely that the GAAC has already been established. But it most obviously hasn’t, as yet. These prophecies still pertain to the future.
Nephi named the book as “the book of the Lamb of God” and his descriptions of it do not match the Bible. McConkie and most Mormons are just assuming things beyond what the text indicates.
This is more assumption that the GAAC is already among us. For an alternate view of this prophecy, see 1 Nephi 13 & 14 commentary, using CTC’s view.
Typos: I meant the 1979 version. Also, “…nested in a prophecy which is interpreted literally.”
McConkie stated, even in the “edited” version:
Given this quote, it does seem that ironic that the latest Catholic Pope is known for renouncing the rich things of the world and focusing on the poor and needy.
In contrast, one year ago this weekend, our leaders stood in front of the most expensive shopping mall ever built (with luxury stores like Tiffany and Porsche) and said, “One, two, three, let’s go shopping!” Hmmmm.
Mike S. (no. 3) — I think re-opening the canon is entirely the wrong answer — after all, if it was so easily done, then these thoughts we now find objectionable might already be in the canon. Anyone erred who ever thought of McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine as real Mormon doctrine — it never was — it was one man’s theologizing. Re-opening the canon will only for the insertion of today’s fads, it seems to me. I’d rather not re-open the scripture canon until God tells us to.
There’s a good post at Times and Seasons about individual theologizing (called Theology, Worship, and Children’s Games).
The saddest thing about Mc Conkie and Mormon Doctrine is that it colored my view of people other than Mormons. My father kept MD with his scriptures and taught from it. My (X) husband also taught from it as did I. We were at BYU in the mid 70s and MD was thought of as the “truth” because it came from an apostle of the Lord. As I’ve matured (late 50s now)I have been able to discard much of the MD teachings. yet one of the Mc Conkie sons is my SP and still holds to what his father taught and wrote. Looking back, I believe MD created a lot of ill will between Mormons and non-Mormons. I now believe there is good/truth in all religions and reject MD. Which makes it more difficult to 100% believe everything modern prophets/apostles teach and promote. The example of the City Creek Mall promoting materialism is an apt comparison. I still can’t reconcile the church’s involvement at all. Since then I have paid my tithing to support young missionaries in my ward. All in all MD was not true doctrine and it’s a shame it was promoted as such.
#7 ji: Re-opening the canon will only for the insertion of today’s fads, it seems to me.
I agree that this would be the case if random musings like those of McConkie were added to the canon.
However, as a member of the LDS Church, I believe that if God had some doctrine or practice that He wanted us to understand or follow, there is one person on the earth uniquely qualified to receive that revelation – the current Prophet. We sustain him as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator every year in conference. I would include these revelations in our canon.
This would solve problems like those that Mormon Doctrine caused. Because it wasn’t an official part of our canon, members and non-members alike could easily recognize that it was one man’s opinion.
Mike, I just don’t understand your reasoning. Recently Elder Packer had his talk edited because he called the PoF revelation. (Packer is next in line for prophet.) If Packer and Monson had seniority swapped, I doubt Packer would have edited his talk, and perhaps PoF would be considered canonized revelation. Do you think that’s a good example of opening the canon? How would personal opinions be avoided?
If Brigham Young had canonized his remarks about blacks (which we now believe were personal opinions, not revelation), then a more open canon would have probably been worse, don’t you think?
#10 MH: Do you think that’s a good example of opening the canon? How would personal opinions be avoided?
Perhaps I’m naive. I like the think that our prophet actually talks to Christ – as in face to face, or at least hears His actual voice. I think this, because if not our prophet, than who on the entire face of the earth would God and Christ talk to (assuming this is the “one and only true Church”)? If even our prophet doesn’t talk to God, what hope is there for some schmuck like me?
So the question is really: are the heavens are so closed to our prophets that there is nothing worth adding to our canon for nearly the past century (other than a couple declarations correcting prior false opinions)? This is what it really comes down to, because God is a God of Truth. If they are God’s actual words, then canonize it.
If they are God’s actual words, then canonize it. I think that’s what they have been doing.
Nephi taught that the Church of the Devil is any church that is not the church of the Lamb of God.
This has always made sence to mean. I can’t see God, being a God of confusion. And, if the church is not of him, then it is either of man or the devil. Pretty simple concept to me.
Will,
Why wouldn’t God offer many churches that are of the Lamb of God? Different products appeal to different people. Don’t they all point to him?
Will,
Would that mean that the Hebrews and Jews were also of the Church of the Devil? And anyone who has not had the opportunity to hear the Gospel is also of the devil?
Mike, I don’t think you are naive, but I don’t believe you believe what you wrote in #11. Open canon is a little off topic for this post but I would love to have you write up what you mean in a post. I know you wrote a post about reopening the canon, but in light of mcconkie, id like you to address that issue about avoiding errors in revelation. I certainly don’t think earrings needs to be canonized, and I don’t know how you can force monson to receive revelation. I don’t think your position about the canon is at all practical
Forty years ago, as a missionary in a heavily Catholic country, we engaged/indulged in considerable speculation on this topic. In conversation with the MP, he agreed with my assertion that both the Church of the Lamb and the Church of the Devil (representing the people on the earth united for good and the people on the earth united doe evil, respectively) had as members people whose names were found on the rolls of the LDS Church.
Will #13,
So, since this is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not the Church of the Lamb of God, does that mean we belong to the Church of the Devil?
And if you say that “the Church of the Lamb of God” is not the literal name of a literal church that Nephi was referring to in his prophecy, but instead is just Nephi using symbolism and metaphor, what makes you so certain these words are not to be taken literally?
I’m just curious as to what your keys of interpretation are.
I agree with Roger. There are plenty of church members who indulge in materialism and who lead people astray. They fit the description. And there are plenty of Catholics who are humble and striving to do God’s will. I see this as about where individuals’ hearts are, not organizations comprised of people of all types.
False priests who oppress could be another description. It is not difficult to see the tie to the Church of the Devil from that temple ceremony context.
But would a false priest mean one who is called of God by laying on of hands by those in authority or one who is a priest by the definition of the theology which they represent who is not applying the theology according to the Gospel of the scriptures? Alma the Elder seems likely to be lumped into this strata until he was converted by the preaching of the prophet Abinidi.
My mormon doctrine is a 1966 model. Living away from Utah, I am not aware that it has ever been brought to the attention of the members at large that this is no longer the reference book to go to, by the church. Has it?
We still have quotes from MD in Sac Meeting talks.
But then it has not been announced that there are new scriptures either.
I was speaking to another memeber who pointed out that the church used to promote the idea that native americans and polynesians were all lamanites, now there is some dna evidence that only a small group are(he has the cd) the church is not correcting the old position or promoting the new information.
Rigel, I always wonder what the script writer thought it meant when he had Satan say; :I reign from the rivers to the end of the earth, there are none who molest or make afraid” Would it be bad to have a world where none molested or made afraid?
I was looking for the clarification of beliefs that were on LDS newsroom last year and they have gone. Were they not correct either?
Interesting question Geoff…when it gets to that part, I always think to myself, here comes ‘Satan’s Soliloquy’. My personal interpretation is to think of the synonym for ‘molest’ as ‘disturb’ or ‘bother’…meaning none will dare to disturb the status quo when evil is fully embraced as the norm. No one will dare to make people fear the spiritual consequences of sin.
I remember high council talks growing up about the Catholic church being the GAAC. I was taught that in SS class, too. I had Catholic friends who didn’t seem abominable at all. I attended mass a few times as part of their weddings. I asked my Institute instructor about it because I felt uneasy somewhere deep down inside. He confessed he had been taught this also, but that he believed it was anyone from anywhere belonging to any church or organization who had gotten caught up in pride — which is the basis of all sin, according to him. Thus, he believed some in our own faith belonged to that church. He tried to live each day in awareness that pride could ruin true righteousness.
Joseph taught that there is truth in all religions. Obviously, there have also been errors in ours. And most of our prophets have stated at one time or another that they have never seen Jesus Christ, and that revelation comes as thoughts and feelings — not word-for-word dictation through an urim and thumin, a seer stone, or a walkie talkie.
Oh, and we were always taught that the communists were the church of the devil. That the USSR was the great Satan.
Now, in my twilight years, I’ve come to believe that these two bad churches are the paradigms of thought of fallen mankind. They are all precepts that are counter to the doctrines of Jesus Christ. They live in us all until we become the children of Christ and strive our whole lives to rid our hearts and minds of these false prideful beliefs that keep us from becoming more wholly Christlike. In some ways, one could say mortality is the GAAC, unless we put off the natural person and become as a little child, etc. Perhaps mortality, itself, is the whore of all the earth. Thus, in rising above our mortalness, we overcome, or overthrow the whore within. I’m not big on Nephi’s metaphor choice….but, I see his point.
Anyway, that’s my dollar ninety-nine special which is what 2 cents is worth at today’s rate.
#16: mh I don’t know how you can force monson to receive revelation. I don’t think your position about the canon is at all practical
I actually agree with you. And it makes me terribly sad.
I’m another who goes with the state of the individual not the organisation interpretation. I think the blanket assignation of the Catholic Church as the GAAC was horrendous.
#21 Mike S: “But then it has not been announced that there are new scriptures either.”
There was a FP letter read out in SM a couple of weeks ago (3 letters in total, as I recall, but one the relevant one) announcing the updated scriptures, and which is now pinned to our notice board at church.
This discussion is great. And it does raise additional thought-provoking questions. Such as: what is the definition of “great and abominable”? Certainly, nearly all people would agree that the child sexual abuse scandal perpetrated by some priests – and the cover-up that ensued – would be viewed as abominable. And the size and scope of the abuse was great indeed. But how does that directly reflect on a church? It’s priesthood? It’s way of choosing and overseeing clergy? Not good, obviously.
Is it behavior like this that would categorize an organization as “abominable”? Or is it doctrine? Does the Lord view transubstantiation as abominable? Or, how about Luther’s doctrine that “faith only” is required for salvation? Could the “great” have reference to power, and the unrighteous dominion it can produce? Take your pick of world organizations throughout history that fall under that banner.
Most of all, as several have pointed out, GAAC certainly doesn’t allude to individuals of any organization who live righteously. Jesus pointed this out to the “chosen people” of his time that many in Tyre and Sidon would be in better shape on judgement day than they would. I certainly know that I wouldn’t want to be in a foot race with Mother Theresa to see who reaches the Celestial Kingdom first.
Thanks again for this post. I have few definitely answers, but much to ponder.
Why is it we LDS want “to be commanded in all things”? Why do we salivate over the slightest even implied statement from any church leader that ‘doctrine’ is being pronounced? example the recent remarks from a leader about there being no problem with drinking Coke. By the way some reacted you would think the mountains were ready to part. New doctrine had been proclaimed! this is a mystery to me. Yeah, as a child of the 70’s, MD had its effect on my young testimony. But, as the saying goes, “when I was a child I thought as a child.” Do Mormon leaders say ignorant things? Clearly. But probably more than most we teach the power of personal revelation. Are we permitted to grow and change as a church and individuals? Clearly. It seems of no value to me to try to use doctrine to persecute any group or individuals in the cause of ‘being right’. I have heard some really ignorant things of late by people of faith, including LDS, about gays, etc., that are fantastically hurtful to our supposed goal of bringing people to Christ. Anyways. I follow the prophet. Not what the prophet wrote a decade ago or a dead prophet.