In chapter 14, verse 10, however, Nephi describes the archetypal categories: “There are save two churches only”—the church of the Lamb of God, or Zion; and the church of the devil, or Babylon. “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.”
Apocalyptic literature is dualistic. Since it deals with types, everything boils down to opposing principles: love and hate, good and evil, light and dark. There are no gray areas in apocalyptic writing. In this sense, there are only two categories in the realm of religion: religion that will save and religion that won't. The former is the Church of the Lamb, and the latter, no matter how well intentioned, is a counterfeit.
In the historical sense, though, only one entity can be the great and abominable church. Well-intentioned churches would thus not qualify as the mother of abominations described in 1 Nephi 13. They do not slay the saints of God nor seek to control civil governments nor pursue wealth, luxury, and sexual immorality.
In either the apocalyptic sense or the historical sense, individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there are Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his lifestyle, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his lifestyle. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records.
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=168
This is just a snippet. The whole article is excellent.
Now, I've answered a number of your questions, but yet you have failed to answer mine in post 551. If you would like to continue our little “give & take”, then you need to give as much as you take.
So true!
Apocalyptic literature is dualistic. Since it deals with types, everything boils down to opposing principles: love and hate, good and evil, light and dark. [Reno]
Oh, that helps. Not only are we -- according to the Mormons -- the church of the devil...the great whore of all the earth -- but we're "boiled down" to also being hate[ful]...evil...and dark, eh?
...there are only two categories in the realm of religion: religion that will save and religion that won't. The former is the Church of the Lamb, and the latter, no matter how well intentioned, is a counterfeit.
So, not only are we as Mormons claim to be Satanic, whorish world-wide, hate[ful], evil, and dark, but counterfeit to boot. (What other compliments do you have up your sleeve to add to this stellar list?)
Furthermore, you are a heretic at least in this statement you claim above, for religion in and of itself doesn't save anyone! The man-God, Jesus Christ, saves! Anybody or anyTHING -- even a religion -- competing with Jesus as Savior is an outright idol!
In the historical sense, though, only one entity can be the great and abominable church. Well-intentioned churches would thus not qualify as the mother of abominations described in 1 Nephi 13. They do not slay the saints of God nor seek to control civil governments nor pursue wealth, luxury, and sexual immorality.
Oh, gee thanks. Only our spiritual ancestor -- our "mom" church way back then -- actually qualified as "abominable"...(but only because we don't go so far as to kill, run for public office, or pursue riches and sex outside of marriage...which I guess means if we seek to control civil governments by running for public office, why that apparently would throw us right back into qualifying for "abominability?"
In either the apocalyptic sense or the historical sense, individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there are Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his lifestyle, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his lifestyle. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records.
So, in a perfect round-about way, you actually are saying here that the churches we belong to are indeed Satanic, after all...but our hearts may be disloyal to him...and, depending upon our heartthrobbing (or better stated, lack of it) after Lucifer, we may escape the consequences of such Satanic church membership. (Gee, do we say a collective thanks?)
Well, at least, even though your answer doesn't always cut to the chase, you've confirmed for one & all members of non-churches that LDS do indeed believe our churches to be downright Satanic (even if we as individual members aren't)...coupled, of course, with all the additional ugly descriptions of what a Satanic church would encompass.
Finally, this STILL takes me back to your comment from 692 -- which is why I raised the question to begin with: You said to GF in #692 I respect your beliefs & wish you the best in them. The difference is that I'm not in the business of berating your beliefs & calling your church satanic & otherwise.
Yet you admitted to me by direct implication that you indeed consider our churches to be "satanic." How is that any "difference" to what your claim was to GF?