Atheists are the whore of the earth

Thank you, Elder Oaks, for telling my friends and family in your recent article in the March 2015 Ensign, that I belong to the great and abominable church, whose founder is the devil, the whore of all the Earth. Over the last six months, my faith in God has waned thin, and I have come to believe that he probably does not exist. Losing my faith has not been an easy transition. I know it's been sad for many of my family members as they worry about the welfare of my and my family members' souls. I am sorry for that. I didn’t plan for this to happen. It's also hard for me to know people think I am "fallen". I also apologize if this post will cause further distress. Since Elder Oaks is directly painting my newfound beliefs in association with the devil, I feel compelled to respond and bring to light the implications of his article. His article will directly affect my life by encouraging my family and friends to associate me with the devil. I want to draw attention to what Elder Oaks is doing and let his words and name calling stand in the open.

It upsets me that Elder oaks is driving a wedge into me and my family's wounds by associating me with the devil, the great and abominable church, and the whore of the Earth. As I lean towards de facto atheism, Elder Oaks also says that I belong to an organization seeking to bring the saints into captivity. I used to hope that the church was distancing itself from such abusive and harmful rhetoric, but I don’t know if it ever will. I’ve always remembered how Neil Anderson compared Ex Mormons to Judas Iscariot, and now Elder Oaks is saying my new beliefs are from the devil, the mother of abominations and great whore of the Earth. It seems to me like he is sort of playing the nazi card. It really bugs me because many people who leave Mormonism lean towards atheism. I understand that members of the church will be encouraged to disagree with atheism, but I don't see how it's helpful to encourage members to think that their atheist friends, family, or acquaintances are part of the devil's great and abominable church. All of the nasty baggage associated with the devil is passed along to atheists when an association between the two is made. I don’t see any charity in creating this association, especially any charity worthy of someone who declares themselves to be an apostle of Jesus Christ.

Somebody asked me why an atheist would be upset that someone says they are following the devil, since atheists don't even believe in the devil. Simply put, this is because the devil represents evil, even if he isn't real. Imagine the most evil, villainous characters from books or movies. Then, imagine somebody says you are a follower of this villain. That you're a follower of Lord Voldemort, of Count Dracula, of Hannibal Lector, etc. Does the fact that you don't believe this villain is real alter the reality of the insult itself? Furthermore, imagine that this villain is widely believed by millions of people, including your friends and family, to be real. Not only do they believe he is real, but they believe he has real power to influence people to do evil things. They believe that this villain has influenced real people like Hitler and other liars and cheats and murderers to do evil. They believe that all that is good comes from God and all that is evil comes from the devil (Moroni 7:12). Now, imagine that your family and friends are told that you are a follower of this villain. One need not read between the lines to grasp the direct implication that you will be influenced by this villain to do evil. This imaginary scenario is not imaginary; it's what is happening with Elder Oak's article.

I almost find it comical that he uses this language in the same article where he encourages Mormons to contend for the free exercise of religion. On the one hand, Elder Oaks vilifies atheists, saying that their philosophy is of the devil and is the mother of abominations, but on the other hand he tries to cover his tail by saying, “we should not seem to deny that our nations include and are blessed by citizens of Jewish, Muslim, and other non-Christian persuasions, as well as by atheists.” I don’t think you can very successfully argue and advocate for tolerance when you are also telling people that they are of the devil. It seems counter productive to say that atheists can bless our country while also saying that they are following the devil.

If a religion or philosophy causes or is believed to cause harm, then I fully support a dialogue that explores this. It's important to me that we as a society move towards peace and happiness and do away with anything hurtful or harmful, if at all possible. If Elder Oaks thinks atheism is harmful, I welcome an explanation of why it is harmful. I don't think proclaiming that atheism is the devil's church contributes to this dialogue or explains why atheism is harmful; rather, this in itself seems like harmful name calling.

A little background and some more specifics of Elder Oak’s article:

The Book of Mormon speaks of a great and abominable church in 1 Nephi 13: 4-26

In those verses, the Book of Mormon seems to describe the great and abominable church in a historical setting, in a timeline that specifically precedes Christopher Columbus but comes after Jesus and his 12 apostles died. It also describes this church altering the Bible. Thus, the great and abominable church has often been associated with Catholicism. This isn’t very politically correct, so the church has moved away from this interpretation over the last 30-40 years.

1 Nephi 14:10 (a scripture that Elder Oak's references in his article) adds some more imagery, and also a bit of leeway when describing who exactly this church is:

 10 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."  (Emphasis added)

Elder Oaks references this scripture and expounds on it, saying:

“Book of Mormon prophecies describe the “great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil” (1 Nephi 14:17). This “church” is prophesied to have “dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people” (1 Nephi 14:11). Called “most abominable above all other churches,” this church is also said to act “for the praise of the world” in bringing “the saints of God … down into captivity” (1 Nephi 13:5, 9).

Because no religious denomination—Christian or non-Christian—has ever had “dominion” over all nations of the earth or the potential to bring all the saints of God down into “captivity,” this great and abominable church must be something far more pervasive and widespread than a single “church,” as we understand that term today. It must be any philosophy or organization that opposes belief in God. And the “captivity” into which this “church” seeks to bring the saints will not be so much physical confinement as the captivity of false ideas.

Nephi was told by revelation that there were only “two churches”: “the church of the Lamb of God” and “the church of the devil” (1 Nephi 14:10; see also 13:4–6). This description suggests the contrast between those who believe in God and seek to serve Him according to their best understanding and those who reject the existence of God (see 1 Nephi 14:10).” (Emphasis added)

It’s not politically correct to call Catholics the whore of the earth anymore, but Elder Oaks has no problem giving this title to atheists in the same article where he laments religion not being more politically acceptable. A cynical point of view is that Elder Oaks is lamenting losing the battle on social issues and is trying to garner support from other churches. To try and gain this support, perhaps he is trying to change historical interpretations of the Book of Mormon and find common cause with other churches. If he can't take the abusive language out of the Book of Mormon, maybe he can change the direction of it and then use it to rally other churches to his cause against a common enemy (atheists?).

Keep in mind this wasn't Elder Oaks shooting from the hip. This is a well-crafted essay that got through the correlation committee and was published in the Ensign. It's not doctrine, of course, but it sure seems like the church itself thinks it's politically acceptable to label atheists as being of the great and abominable church, and linking to a scripture that describes it as the whore of the earth. I hope the days are ending when a church can say stuff like this and get away with it. I also wonder if this name calling is not producing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Declaring atheists as the great and abominable church that will seek to bring the church into captivity seems like one of many unnecessary jabs at a hornet’s nest.


EDIT:

I don't want this to imply that the love family and friends have for me is shallow and/or easily influenced. In fact, I believe Elder Oaks could single me out by name and call me evil, and those who I love who love me back would not be swayed. Regardless, I regret that the family and friends I love dear are being encouraged to think of me as part of the devil's abominable church. I hope that this vilification does not continue, and will not force my family and friends to choose between viewing me as a good, not evil person, and choosing to believe whole heartedly in the words of their religious leader.