LDS Mormon Church - Other Churches are abominations?

[DW1980]

I read the "Joseph Smith - History" in the Pearl of Great Price at the weekend and it states that the creeds of the Churches are abominations, and the Churches are all wrong:

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

At the start, it specifically mentions Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists. I googled this, and found references to similar teaching in the Book of Mormon in 1 Nephi 13:

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God. (side question... I notice this is past tense, suggesting it no longer contains the fullness of the Gospel, is this saying the Bible has been corrupted?)

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.​

These are quite some accusations, and it suggests that, at least in Joseph Smith's day, he didn't consider other Churches to be "valid".

I'm not sure which Church was the target here, but since the NT was completed, copied and distributed long before the Roman Catholic Church was formally established, it wouldn't make historical sense to say that the RC Church is in view here.

Either way this is a serious accusation, which seems to conflict with the current image the Mormon Church presents - "we're just another Christian Church". How can they say that while their scriptures claim that we are all corrupt and abominations?

 

[Albion]

.

 

[Ironhold]

In LDS theology, the "Great and Abominable Church" is a collective consisting of those who follow Satan, whether they know it or not; it doesn't identify any one single religious denomination.

And while we do regard other churches as not having correct doctrine, we do *not* deny that for the most part the individual members are doing their best to come to Christ based on what they know how to do.

 

[Jane_Doe]

The first post here has a couple of different ideas mixed in (and/or touches on them). I'll try to separate them out and address each one.

1) There is only one Truth.
Yes, LDS believe that there's only one Truth. For example, "Does the Lord's Supper turn into flesh and blood, or not?". Some Christians churches will say "no", some will say "yes". Both cannot be correct. Therefore, one of these Christian churches is teaching something incorrectly. LDS aren't one to overlook and say 'same difference it doesn't matter' to important theological points. In this case, the LDS answer is "No, the Lord's Supper is symbolic" and that the other position is incorrect.

There are bunch of different theological points I could have used as an example here, where one group is wrong in this area, another in this area, etc. Ultimately LDS do believe that our position is the most correct one, just as Catholics do theirs, Calvinists do theirs, etc. There are differences and it would be silly for us to just "same difference it doesn't matter" them. Of course, we should also acknowledge the points each group has in common. And all things should be done with love and respect, including disagreeing. I hold no ill will towards a Methodist who believes their position to be most correct saying that (though obviously I disagree).

(To be continued...)

 

[Jane_Doe]

2) The Creeds
One point of disagreement among Christian faith is issues of epistemology. Debates like sola scriptura vs including ecumenical statement XY vs also including other statements, etc have gone on for centuries. For LDS the fundamental epistemological approach is "Truth comes from God via revelation". Therefore, we happily accept past & present revelatory statements as authoritative, but non-revelatory statements such as the Creeds.

So yes, LDS do not consider the Creeds to be authoritative on principle of the matter-- truth does not come from sinners voting in a council, but from God-given revelation! This is a very strongly held belief as you'll see highlight here:

all their creeds were an abomination in his sight

It specifically highlights the creeds specifically as being an abomination. They are not from God and hence corrupt. Someone who professes a statement that originates from the Creeds is professing corrupt doctrine.

3) This doesn't mean everything a Creedal Christian believes is corrupt.
Thankfully, not everything a Creedal Christian believes originates with the Creeds. In so much as the beliefs originates in scripture (which is the majority), we gladly celebrate together. For example singing "Joy to the World" together is just fantastic. We're not going to ignore other people's very real love of Christ, brand them "nonChristians", or anything like that. Everything good you have, I celebrate. When a person is interested in joining the LDS Church, the approach is "bring everything good you have to the table and let us add to it".

When a person is not interested in joining the LDS Church, the approach is still to respect your beliefs and your right to practice. In fact, it's so important to us it's literally our 11th Article of Faith:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

 

[Jane_Doe]

4) Talking specifically about this quote (and echoing @Ironhold 's really good reply):

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.​

The church being talked about here is a bigger concept than a physical building or congregation. Rather it's talking about "do you follow Christ or the devil". The devil's church (aka the great and abominable church) is not a physical building or congregation, but anyone who follow him. Heck, I will even admit that there are some individuals sitting in LDS pews that love sin and don't follow Christ as they should.




I think that hit all the original post here. Let me know if I missed a point.

 

[Albion]

The OP seemed to say that some institutional church/denomination or churches (not a building or a generalization) appears to have been in mind when the following was penned:

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

 

[Jane_Doe]

The OP seemed to say that some institutional church or churches (not a building or a generalization) appears to have been in mind when the following was penned:

Hence the clarification that this is not specific building or physical institution.

 

[Albion]

Hence the clarification that this is not specific building or physical institution.

No one thinks that it referred to a building. As for the idea that the reference is to all people who are following Satan, that isn't a church.

The meaning of the passage appears to be something else.

 

[DW1980]

Hence the clarification that this is not specific building or physical institution.

To clarify - this was why I said it couldn't be the Catholic Church in view, badly worded but Churches and our beliefs generally... which fits the Joseph Smith - History.

 

[Jane_Doe]

No one thinks that it referred to a building. As for the idea that the reference is to all people who are following Satan, that isn't a church.

*Shrug* I'm just explain the passage and LDS beliefs.

 

[DW1980]

Maybe we can think of it like this - if I was to become a Mormon, I would have to be baptised in a Mormon ceremony, despite the fact that I have been baptised by immersion in a Baptist Church. Likewise, if a Mormon converts, he or she would be baptised. But, when people change denominations (e.g. Baptist to Catholic or vice versa) we don't "re-baptise" them. I think this highlights the gulf when we don't recognise the baptism of the other as valid. I come from a Baptist background, so was taught only adults should be baptised on confession of faith - yet we had members who were Presbyterian by background who had not needed to be baptised to become Church members. So although the Baptist church had issues with infant baptism, it wasn't enough to stop Presbyterians joining the Church.

In a similar way, my current Church would not re-baptise someone from mainstream Churches, and allows "dual" membership (you can be a member of our Church and another Church). That doesn't apply to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (I know this from a conversation some years ago with my pastor before I joined the Church, when at the Membership Classes we discussed baptism and membership of other Churches - these were the two she mentioned as would need to be baptised).

 

[Jane_Doe]

Maybe we can think of it like this - if I was to become a Mormon, I would have to be baptised in a Mormon ceremony, despite the fact that I have been baptised by immersion in a Baptist Church. Likewise, if a Mormon converts, he or she would be baptised. But, when people change denominations (e.g. Baptist to Catholic or vice versa) we don't "re-baptise" them. I think this highlights the gulf when we don't recognise the baptism of the other as valid. I come from a Baptist background, so was taught only adults should be baptised on confession of faith - yet we had members who were Presbyterian by background who had not needed to be baptised to become Church members. So although the Baptist church had issues with infant baptism, it wasn't enough to stop Presbyterians joining the Church.

Talking about baptism is talking about baptism. Heck, one of the disagreements in different Christian groups is if a person even needs to be baptize / what it means.

For LDS, being baptized by one who has the authority from God is an important thing (aka His priesthood). Other baptisms are important in regards to that person's love of God -- like my husband's Evangelical baptism was/is one of the most important moments in both our lives. But from the LDS perspective it was not done by one holding Christ's authority/priesthood.

Other groups have different views on baptism. Which is obvious. If a group has different views on baptism than other, I find nothing wrong with that-- like a Baptist insisting a person's baptism being a believer's baptism and rejecting the Catholic infant baptism. I don't think the Baptist should point at the Catholic as say "you're not a Christian!". No, instead talk about how you believe differently on baptism.

 

[DW1980]

4) Talking specifically about this quote (and echoing @Ironhold 's really good reply):

The church being talked about here is a bigger concept than a physical building or congregation. Rather it's talking about "do you follow Christ or the devil". The devil's church (aka the great and abominable church) is not a physical building or congregation, but anyone who follow him. Heck, I will even admit that there are some individuals sitting in LDS pews that love sin and don't follow Christ as they should.

I think that hit all the original post here. Let me know if I missed a point.

Thanks

I'll respond tomorrow, but will take time to read your comments carefully this evening once I am home.

 

[Creekwalker]

Joseph Smith’s imagination was fundamentally opposed to the basic doctrines of Christianity. Just do some research and save me the effort of pecking it out on this iPad. While you’re at it look into the scandle of the Abraham text in The Pearl. It has been absolutely proven that the scrolls JS supposedly interpreted have nothing to do with Abraham. He is never mentioned. Rather the scroll is a garden variety Egyptian funeral rite. Thank goodness for the Rosetta Stone which enabled scholars to really interpret the Egyptian! There are books and good documentaries on this.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Joseph Smith’s imagination was fundamentally opposed to the basic doctrines of Christianity. Just do some research and save me the effort of pecking it out on this iPad. While you’re at it look into the scandle of the Abraham text in The Pearl. It has been absolutely proven that the scrolls JS supposedly interpreted have nothing to do with Abraham. He is never mentioned. Rather the scroll is a garden variety Egyptian funeral rite. Thank goodness for the Rosetta Stone which enabled scholars to really interpret the Egyptian! There are books and good documentaries on this.

If you would like to get some of the LDS perspective on this, I recommend: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

For me though, my faith isn't based on the Rosetta stone or men with archeology degrees, but rather in my communion with God and the witness He gives me. I know there's people in the world who mock the idea that there is a God, let alone that He loves or speaks to men, but for me I could no more deny that they the fact I have a nose on my face. Jesus Christ is my Savior- He dragged me out of sorrow and sin, and brings joy to my life every day.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

One has to consider the passages in the light of the history and culture in which it was written. Joseph Smith rejected the organised churches of his day and started his own one. It is interesting that the Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist churches are featured, because in the early 19th Century American, those were the prominent churches of the day.

It is understandable that the 21st Century interpretation of the passages would be different from the early 19th Century interpretation. We need to determine the author's intention when he wrote those passages. It was certainly a rejection of the organised churches of his day, and to show that the Mormon church of his day was the only true one. He was calling folk to reject the prominent churches and to join his movement.

In the 21st Century, where the prominent Christian churches do not have the profound influence on society that they had in the early 19th Century, it is understandable that the Mormon church has taken a step back from promoting itself as the only true church, making it "just another Christian church." This is especially true in the light of the rise of cultish organisations like the one under Jim Jones where they all killed themselves so that they could get to heaven earlier. Also the cult formed in Waco by David Kadesh. I think the Mormon church wants to distance themselves from cults like that which rejected the organised churches and proclaimed themselves as the only true church, but were exposed as cults that drew their members to ruin and death, separating families, causing spiritual and sexual abuse among their members.

So, the Mormon church is re-interpreting the original passages to make themselves closer to the mainstream, and therefore more respectable and accepted as a Christian church in its community.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Hi @Oscarr , you new avatar makes me smile!

One has to consider the passages in the light of the history and culture in which it was written. Joseph Smith rejected the organised churches of his day and started his own one. It is interesting that the Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist churches are featured, because in the early 19th Century American, those were the prominent churches of the day.

The exact passage references earlier is:
"It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, a“Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist."

This is explaining about his environment, as part of the narrative. It is not a specific call out to these churches being "extra evil" or anything like that.

In the 21st Century, where the prominent Christian churches do not have the profound influence on society that they had in the early 19th Century, it is understandable that the Mormon church has taken a step back from promoting itself as the only true church, making it "just another Christian church."

Your tag describes you as being Pentecostal. If that is your belief and you belief that to be the most correct beliefs, I urge you to say so unapologetically-- don't "same difference" your precious beliefs. I would likewise urge the Catholic and Orthodox to do the same, as I do with my faith. Beliefs are important. On the same note, just because you believe Pentecostal is most correct doesn't mean you should ignore the real love Catholic or Orthodox or LDS or anyone else has for Christ. Their love for Him is also important. That's what I do as well.

I take no offense at someone believing their Pentecostal/Catholic/Baptist faith is the most correct- take pride in your beliefs. I applaud your love of Christ. But it does sting when these same people completely deny my love of Christ, shoving me out the door branded "nonChristian". My love of Christ is the central foundation of who I am, to deny that is... you're denying the very core of me.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Hi @Oscarr , you new avatar makes me smile!

The exact passage references earlier is:
"It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, a“Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist."

This is explaining about his environment, as part of the narrative. It is not a specific call out to these churches being "extra evil" or anything like that.

Your tag describes you as being Pentecostal. If that is your belief and you belief that to be the most correct beliefs, I urge you to say so unapologetically-- don't "same difference" your precious beliefs. I would likewise urge the Catholic and Orthodox to do the same, as I do with my faith. Beliefs are important. On the same note, just because you believe Pentecostal is most correct doesn't mean you should ignore the real love Catholic or Orthodox or LDS or anyone else has for Christ. Their love for Him is also important. That's what I do as well.

I take no offense at someone believing their Pentecostal/Catholic/Baptist faith is the most correct- take pride in your beliefs. I applaud your love of Christ. But it does sting when these same people completely deny my love of Christ, shoving me out the door branded "nonChristian". My love of Christ is the central foundation of who I am, to deny that is... you're denying the very core of me.

I was merely commenting on the passages quoted in the light of the history and culture of the time as compared with our current history and culture which have gone through major changes over the last 150 years or so. It is factual that Joseph Smith left the organised church because he was disillusioned with it. However, he was just 16 years old at that time, so his decision was hardly one of a mature and experienced person.

I have, indeed, a Pentecostal theology. This does not mean that I am allied to the modern Pentecostal movement. My theology is the same as the Westminster Confession of Faith, plus the belief that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today's believers. I certainly do not consider the Pentecostal church as being the only true Church. My view of the true Church are those who have received Jesus Christ as Saviour. I am therefore part of the same Church as you are, because you have received Christ as Saviour as well. My church fellowship is Presbyterian, and I can fellowship and work in that context without any problems with my personal theology.

So, I am not making any attacks on your faith today. Why? Because today is Wednesday, and I don't attack other people's faith on Wednesdays. Furthermore, we are members of the same Church that is the true body of Christ. We are fellow members of many who are spread around all the different denominations. That makes us on the same side!!

 

[Ironhold]

Just do some research and save me the effort of pecking it out on this iPad.

FYI - Saying any variation of "The information is out there. Look it up yourself" is generally viewed as being tantamount to surrendering when employed in an online discussion because it's regarded as you admitting you don't actually have any information.

While you’re at it look into the scandle of the Abraham text in The Pearl. It has been absolutely proven that the scrolls JS supposedly interpreted have nothing to do with Abraham. He is never mentioned.

You think these arguments are anything new or sensational?

Try this:

Mormon Answers, LDS FAQ: The Truth About the Book of Abraham, Part 1