Mormon Myths
Great and Abominable Church
(c) Copyright Michael R. Ash 2002. All rights reserved
Is Roman Catholicism the “Great and Abominable Church”?
In 1 Nephi chapter 13 we read of Nephi’s vision of the great and
abominable church – whose founder was the devil (6) – which would take many
precious teachings away from the scriptures (26-29). Some Latter-day Saints have
supposed that the “great and abominable church” refers to the Roman Catholic
Church. The source of this belief is often laid at the feet Elder Bruce R.
McConkie who made such charges in his first edition of Mormon Doctrine:
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 the 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 a part of this satanic organization.(McConkie [1958],
130.)
Then speaking of harlots in the figurative sense, he [Nephi]
designated the Catholic Church as ‘the mother of harlots’... (Ibid.,
314-315.)
[Under the heading, “Church of the Devil”] The Roman Catholic
Church specifically – singled out, set apart, described, and designated as
being ‘most abominable above all other churches’ (I Ne. 13:5). (Ibid., 129.)
Later
editions of Mormon Doctrine (the second edition didn’t appear until 1966)
removed such references, but not before the LDS bestseller popularized the
belief among many Latter-day Saints. (See Quinn 2002, and Mauss, 162-3.1) McConkie, however, was not the
first general authority to suggest that the Book of Mormon’s “great and
abominable church” and “church of devil” referred to the Catholic Church. In
1854, Orson Pratt wrote that the founder of the Roman Catholic Church was “the
Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God”
and that they derived their “authority from the Devil....” (Orson Pratt, 2:4, 205.)
Pratt’s The Seer like McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine caused
heartburn for first presidencies and other general authorities (although we are
uncertain whether the anti-Catholic references were major, minor, or of no
conern to the overall problems in both publications). “In April 1855,” notes
Gibson, “Brigham Young wrote to the editor of Great Britain’s official LDS
Church Publication, The Millennial Star, and asked him to cease
republishing The Seer in England. Brigham Young stated that while there
were many beautifully written articles in it, there were also ‘many items of
erroneous doctrines.’ For that reason the Saints were cautioned against
accepting the magazine.” (Gibson [1995].) For the next decade Young continued to make
statements regarding some of the “objectionable” teachings found in Pratt’s
publications. Likewise, in 1960, two years after McConkie published Mormon
Doctrine, the first presidency noted that the book was a “‘concern to the
Brethren ever since it was published’” and they felt that it was “‘full of
errors and misstatements.’” (Buerger [1985], 9.)
Pratt and McConkie were not alone, however, in their classification of the
Roman church as the “great abominable church.” In 1882, for instance, an article
in the Contributor claimed that many scriptures (including ones from
Revelation) “point to the Roman Catholic power as that great and abominable
church.” (“Inconsistencies of Modern Christianity,” Contributor,
[November 1882], 4:2, 65.) A dozen years before McConkie published his book,
President J. Reuben Clark made some remarks in a Conference address about “that
great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth....” “I am not going to
say what that church is,” he said cryptically, “though I have a very definite
and clear idea.” (President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report,
April 1946, p.156.)
Just after the first printing of Mormon Doctrine, and perhaps in
thanks to McConkie’s reintroduction of the issue, Reynolds and Sjodahl, in their
Commentary on the Book of Mormon suggested that the references in
Revelation and Nephi to the mother of harlots and abominations and the
great and abominable church “have been understood to refer to the Roman
Catholic church and papacy.” (Reynolds and Sjodahl, 1:114.)
Despite first presidency concerns about Pratt’s and McConkie’s publications,
the concerns never focused on the anti-Catholic remarks and therefore we
continue see other occasional anti-Catholic references made by LDS leaders when
discussing chapters 13 and 14 of 1 Nephi. Is this then the official and current
LDS belief? Is Roman Catholicism the “church of the devil” the “great and
abominable church” and the “mother of abominations?” The answer, quite frankly,
is “no.”
Why, some might ask, would some Latter-day Saints, even general authorities,
misinterpret the Book of Mormon’s meaning of the “great and abominable church”?
As I’ve noted in other writings, the Church was not restored in a cultural
vacuum. Early Saints brought their world views with them. The same thing, of
course, continues to happen today. In the early days of the Restored Church many
Protestants were anti-Catholic and believed that the Roman Catholic Church was
the “mother of harlots and abominations” mentioned by John in his Revelation
(17:5). Anti-Catholic articles were printed in major frontier newspapers,
Catholics were at times treated to violence, and Catholic doctrines were
referred to as “‘repugnant’” and “‘blasphemous.’” Prior to the early nineteenth
century, Roman Catholicism “had been branded as an illegal form of worship in
New York. Members of this communion were not permitted to proselyte, erect
cathedrals, nor celebrate public Mass.” (Backman, 59.)
Anti-Catholicism is as old as the Reformation. Martin Luther himself referred
to the popes collectively as the “‘whore of the devil.’” (Vogel, 59 and Wright, 2:568.) Adam Clarke’s
popular nineteenth-century Bible commentary equated the “great whore that
sitteth upon many waters” (Rev. 17:1) with the Catholic Church. (Vogel, 60.) Some early
nineteenth-century Protestant writings referred to the Roman Catholic Church as
“‘the whore’” and the “‘mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.’” (Ibid.) Yet other religious
figures of the day believed that not only were Catholics part of the “the
whore,” but so were competing Protestants. (Ibid., 61.) From comments of early Latter-day Saints it
becomes obvious that the Saints were familiar with such anti-Catholic rhetoric.
In 1835, for instance, Oliver Cowdery mentioned that several Protestant groups
including Baptists and Presbyterians referred to the Catholic Church as “‘the
Beast.’” (Ibid., 60.) George
Q. Cannon (George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses [June 11, 1871],
14:167), Orson Pratt (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses [January 25,
1874], 16:347), John Taylor (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses [October
8, 1882], 23:262), as well as articles in the Messenger and Advocate
(3:9, 513), and the Times and Seasons (3:15, 815 and 4:10, 149), all
pointed out that Protestants referred to the Catholic Church as the “mother of
harlots.” Like some of these nineteenth-century religious leaders, several early
Saints noted that the children (Protestants) of the “mother of harlots” were as
corrupt as the parent organization. (Orson Pratt [1850], 44.) A bad tree, these Saints argued,
produces bad branches. (Times and Seasons, 3:15, 815.)
This rejection of Catholicism and Protestantism – which was not necessarily
unique to Mormonism (Vogel,
61.2) – lead to some LDS comments (in typical
nineteenth century hyperbole) which have been misconstrued by LDS critics as
demonstration that Mormonism isn’t Christian or that it attacks Christianity.
“Has this great and abominable power,” Orson Pratt asked for example, “under the
name of ‘the mother of harlots,’ popularly called Christendom, fought against
the Saints in this country?” (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses [July 10,
1849], 7: 184.) Writing in The Seer, Pratt claimed: “Both Catholics and
Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” whom the Lord denounces
by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their
fornications and wickedness.” (Orson Pratt, 255.) In a similar vein, John Taylor once said:
“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense.... It is a
sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the devil
could not invent a better engine to spread his work that the Christianity of the
nineteenth century.” (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses [January 17,
1858], 6:167.)
In the context of the times, we can see that when these early LDS leaders
spoke with nineteenth-century hyperbole, they were not so much attacking other
Christian faiths as they were resorting to the same rhetoric as the Protestants
themselves while claiming that there was an apostasy after the death of Christ
apostles, and the world remained in apostasy until the restoration of the Gospel
through Joseph Smith. So how should the Book of Mormon’s “great and abominable
church” be understood? Not all early LDS authorities took the anti-Catholic
approach. B.H. Roberts believed that the “church of the devil” comprised that
which is evil, untrue, as well as all “combinations of wicked men.”
They constitute the church of the devil, the kingdom of evil, a federation
of unrighteousness; and the servants of God have a right to contend against
that which is evil, let it appear where it will, in Catholic or in Protestant
Christendom, among the philosophical societies of deists and atheists, and
even within the Church of Christ, if, unhappily, it should make its appearance
there. But, let it be understood, we are not brought necessarily into
antagonism with the various sects of Christianity as such. So far as they have
retained fragments of Christian truth -- and each of them has some measure of
truth – that far they are acceptable unto the Lord; and it would be poor
policy for us to contend against them without discrimination. Wherever we find
truth, whether it exists in complete form or only in fragments, we recognize
that truth as part of that sacred whole of which the Church of Jesus Christ is
the custodian; and I repeat that our relationship to the religious world is
not one that calls for the denunciation of sectarian churches as composing the
church of the devil. All that makes for untruth, for unrighteousness
constitutes the kingdom of evil – the church of the devil. All that makes for
truth, for righteousness, is of God; it constitutes the kingdom of
righteousness – the empire of Jehovah; and, in a certain sense at least,
constitutes the Church of Christ. With the latter – the kingdom of
righteousness – we have no warfare. On the contrary both the spirit of the
Lord’s commandments to his servants and the dictates of right reason would
suggest that we seek to enlarge this kingdom of righteousness both by
recognizing such truths as it possesses and seeking the friendship and
co-operation of the righteous men and women who constitute its membership. (Roberts, 1:34.)
Roberts
made of point of noting that he did not believe that Nephi’s vision of the
“great and abominable church” did not refer “to any one of the many divisions of
Christendom.” (Roberts
[1909], 3:264-5.) Likewise, in a 1906 Conference address, Roberts remarked
that he had previously been asked if the Book of Mormon’s “church of the devil”
referred to the Catholic Church.
“Well,” said I, in answer, “I would not like to take that position,
because it would leave me with a lot of churches on my hands that I might not
then be able to classify.” So far as the Catholic church is concerned, I
believe that there is just as much truth, nay, personally I believe it has
retained even more truth than other divisions of so-called Christendom; and
there is just as much virtue, and I am sure there is more strength in the
Roman Catholic church than there is in Protestant Christendom.
I would
not like, therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the church of the
devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all of the various
divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom combined as such church;
nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the Buddhist sects; nor the followers of
Confucius; nor the followers of Mohammed; nor would I like to designate even
the societies formed by deists and atheists as constituting the church of the
devil. The Book of Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context
– with the chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the chapter
in which it is found – then, I think, those who study it in that manner will
be forced to the conclusion that the Prophet here has in mind no particular
church, no particular division of Christendom, but he has in mind, as just
stated, the whole empire of Satan; and perhaps the thought of the passage
would be more nearly expressed if we use the term “the kingdom of evil” as
constituting the church of the devil. (B. H. Roberts, Conference
Report, April 1906, p.14, 15)
More recently other LDS scholars have
taken the same perspective on this issue. Among these we include Daniel Ludow
(Ludlow, 123), Kent P. Jackson
(Jackson, 21), Robert J.
Matthews (Matthews, 29),
Hugh Nibley, and others. The “great and abominable church,” Nibley once wrote,
are “any who fight against Israel. It doesn’t pinpoint any particular church
here.” (Nibley [1986b],
4.) Stephen Robinson has given probably the best treatment on this subject and
notes that Nephi’s reference to the “great and abominable” church is used in two
different ways – as an historical institution (chapter 13) and typologically
(chapter 14). (Robinson
[1988], 36.) Let’s deal with the latter type first. Apocalyptic literature
(such as Revelation and 1 Nephi 13-14) must often be understood
symbolically.
The church of the devil is equivalent to that great and spacious building
seen in vision by both Nephi and his father. (See 1 Ne. 8:26-28, 31, 33-34; 1
Ne. 11:35-36.) The apocalyptic description of the great and spacious building
matches the characteristics of the church of the devil; the artificial
structure without foundation represents the carnal world, and its values and
life-style include mockery of the kingdom of God. It fights against the
Apostles of Jesus Christ, and its fall will be great, for “thus shall be the
destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight
against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (1 Ne. 11:36.) (Ibid.,
36-37.)
Robinson also uses the comparison of Zion and Babylon. Both
refer to particular cities, but they also refer to a state of righteousness or
wickedness.
Just as Zion is wherever the pure in heart dwell (see D&C 97:21), so
Babylon is wherever the wicked live. Latter-day Saints don’t seem to have any
trouble understanding that Zion is a spiritual category that may in different
contexts mean Salt Lake City or a branch in some outlying area of the world or
Far West or Jerusalem or the city of Enoch or the New Jerusalem. Why, then, is
it difficult to understand Zion’s opposite, Babylon, in the same way? (Ibid., 37.)
Nephi in
fact notes this typology when he says, “There are save two churches only” the
church of the Lamb of God (Zion); and the church of the devil (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.” (1
Nephi 14:10.) st as there are historical counterparts to Zion and Babylon,
however, there was also an historical “great and abominable church.” This is
where some have suggested the Roman Catholic Church. Robinson claims, however,
that this is “untenable, primarily because Roman Catholicism as we know it did
not yet exist when the crimes described by Nephi were being committed. In fact,
the term Roman Catholic only makes sense after A.D. 1054 when it is used
to distinguish the Western, Latin-speaking Orthodox church that followed the
bishop of Rome from the Eastern, Greek-speaking Orthodox church that followed
the bishop of Constantinople.”
In the period between Peter and the Roman emperor Constantine, there were
many Christian churches besides the Orthodox church: Ebionites, Syrian and
Egyptian churches, Donatists, Gnostics, Marcionites, and so on. Even if we use
the term Catholic for the church Constantine made the state religion in
A.D. 313, the New Testament as we know it was already widely circulating. That
is, the plain and precious parts had already been removed. The notion of
shifty-eyed medieval monks rewriting the scriptures is unfair and bigoted. We
owe those monks a debt of gratitude that anything was saved at all. (Ibid., 38.)
Dr.
Nibley made the same argument many years earlier. The plain and precious parts
of the Gospel he observed, “were all taken away before the Roman Catholic Church
appeared at all.” (Nibley
[1986b], 4.) “The great apostasy,” Nibley notes elsewhere, “came in the
second century; the scriptures were completely corrupted by then. This is long
before the Roman [Catholic] church became the leading church. The Roman church
was ‘small potatoes’ at that time. It wasn’t until the fourth century that they
took over. You must not identify this just with the Roman Catholic Church.
People do because that’s a simplistic answer.” (Nibley, 196.)
The Catholic church of the fourth century,” writes Robinson, “was the
result of the Apostasy – its end product – not the cause.” “No single
known historical church, denomination, or set of believers,” Robinson continues,
“meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church.... Rather, the
role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and
churches in many different times.” (Robinson [1988], 38.)
Clearly, whatever denominational name we choose to give it, the earliest
apostate church and the great and abominable church that Nephi and John
describe are identical. The fact is, we don’t really know what name to give
it. I have proposed hellenized Christianity, but that is a description rather
than a name.
The historical abominable church of the devil is that apostate
church that replaced true Christianity in the first and second centuries,
teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scriptures. It dethroned God in
the church and replaced him with man by denying the principle of revelation
and turning instead to human intellect. As the product of human agency, its
creeds were an abomination to the Lord, for they were idolatry: men
worshipping the creations, not of their own hands, but of their own minds. (Ibid., 39.)
Robinson
also makes this important point:
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 Latter-day Saints who belong
to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his
life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb
because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more
on who has your heart than on who has your records. (Ibid., 37.)
The
Church has always recognized – despite periods of hyperbolic rhetoric – that
there is truth in other faiths. More than one LDS authority has noted that other
spiritual leaders, including Calvin and Luther “were inspired in thoughts,
words, and actions....” and that such inspiration “came from the Father, his Son
Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost....” (Joseph F. Smith, “Editor’s Table,”
Improvement Era [June, 1907], 8; see also German E. Ellsworth.,
Conference Report [April 1912], 89 - 90.) What Latter-day Saints claim is
that Mormonism embraces all truth. Bring us your truth, the Church offers, and
we will add to it. Joseph once said:
Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists,
&c,, any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We
should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them
up, or we shall not come out true “Mormons.” (HC, 5:517.)
B.H. Roberts, who was thoroughly
familiar with the writings and recorded sermons of Joseph Smith, observed:
It was not the aim of Joseph Smith in his life’s work to found a new
religion. Throughout he presupposes the truth of the Christian religion, and
accepts it. He realized that “other foundation can no man lay than that is
laid, which is Christ Jesus.” (CHC, 2:362.)
“Did I build on any other man’s
foundation?” Joseph once asked. “I have got all the truth which the Christian
world possessed, and an independent revelation in the bargain....” (HC, 6:479). “There is some truth
in all religions, in heathendom as well as in Christendom,” observed Orson
Whitney. “And it is the truth in those systems that perpetuates them, not the
errors with which the truth is mixed. There are millions of good, honest people
all over the world, in all the churches, but they have not the fulness of the
Gospel. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is its one depository.
This is the claim we make. This is the ‘Mormon’ attitude.” (Orson F. Whitney,
Conference Report [October 1929], 29.) “Although I was going to say I am
not a Universalist,” John Taylor once remarked, “but I am, and I am also a
Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic, and a Methodist, in short, I believe in
every true principle that is imbibed by any person or sect, and reject the
false. If there is any truth in heaven, earth, or hell, I want to embrace it, I
care not what shape it comes in to me, who brings it, or who believes in it,
whether it is popular or unpopular. Truth, eternal truth, I wish to float in and
enjoy.” (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 1:155.)
In a 1909 Conference, Charles Callis gave a good overview of the LDS view of
other churches (especially in regards to the early days of the restored church)
when he said:
Some people say, “Is not the religion of my father and mother good enough
for me? They were good people, and if I can live to be as good as my father
and mother, I am satisfied.” But, in that, men and women deceive themselves.
Our fathers and mothers lived up to the best light they had before the gospel
was restored. They obeyed God to the best of their ability, when they lived up
to the measure of truth He gave unto them. But the Lord in this day hath
spoken unto the people and commanded that they should obey the fullness of the
everlasting gospel. (Charles A. Callis., Conference Report [April
1909], 19.)
In conclusion, while some – though not all – Latter-day
Saints through the years have connected the Book of Mormon’s “great and
abominable church” to Roman Catholicism (just as many Protestants read the same
thing into John’s “mother of harlots”), when we read what the text (1 Nephi)
actually says (exegesis) rather than what we read into the text
(eisegis), we find that the Book of Mormon (and hence official LDS
doctrine) is not anti-Catholic. We also understand, in the context of the times,
that early Latter-day Saints understood that while other faiths were apostate,
they nevertheless were often inspired and embraced many truths. The Saints
offered such believers added truths.
1 At times LDS missionaries
have referred to the Catholic Church as the “GA” (pronounced gee-ay) ?an
acronym for “Great and Abominable.” Use of acronyms among LDS missionaries is
not limited to the Catholic Church. Some missionaries refer to those belong to
the Jehovah’s Witnesses as jay-dubs (short for JW’s). Even within the
Church such acronyms are often used by missionaries or members. “GA,” for
example, can also refer to a “general authority” (which can make things
ironically confusing), and “SP” for “stake president,” “MP?for “mission
president,” and so on.
2 Methodist leader Roger
Williams, for instance, believed that the Church of England was “‘a daughter...
of the great whore of Rome.’” (See Vogel, 61.)
Michael R. Ash