abomination

Abomination. Such an ugly word. So politically incorrect. However impolite the word, it is a useful word when one really wishes to up the ante, crank up the heat, put the hammer down, tighten the screws—you get the point. The word is more than useful for expressing the depth and magnitude of offensive sin, guilt, wickedness, etc. found in idolatrous thoughts, words, attitudes, deeds, actions, policies, procedures, etc.
 
This insensitive word is a thoroughly biblical, nay, scriptural word. In his two most “lawyerly” books, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, Moses, the great Jewish lawgiver, uses it some 20 times each.[1] Not to be outdone, Ol’ grandpa Proverbs shows his affection for the word by utilizing it over 20 times. But the award for abomination exposition goes to the Hebrew prophet, Ezekiel, who more than matches Moses’ legalistic uses and doubles grandpa Proverbs’ use of the word.
 
The exilic prophet, Daniel, may win the prize for the most memorable mention when he utilizes the word to describe the devastating impact of idolatry located in God’s own temple.
 
“...they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.”[2]
 
In his desire to describe the vile and destructive nature of idolatry, Jesus picks up on Daniel’s theme.
 
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place…”[3]
 
Taking his lead from Daniel and Jesus, Joseph Smith explains that the portrayal and warning concerning “the desolation of abomination” is one of the great and holy missions of God’s latter-day ministers. Through the latter-day prophet, God instructs his elders to go
 
“unto the great and notable cities and villages, reproving the world in righteousness of all their unrighteous and ungodly deeds, setting forth clearly and understandingly the desolation of abomination in the last days.”[4]
 
Most impolite, indeed. But, abomination’s devastating effects simply must be described in all their gory detail. It’s necessary to individual salvation. It’s necessary to the latter-day restoration.
 
The word “abomination,” in fact, holds an interesting place in the restoration and in the history and theology of the people formerly known as Mormon. One might be forgiven for thinking of the word as foundational to the faith. In fact, to say that it is foundational may be an understatement. The faith might not, probably would not exist without it.
 
I doubt that many would object to the suggestion that Joseph Smith’s 1820 religious experience that has come to be formally titled, “The First Vision,” rests at the very foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are several accounts of this religious experience. Some accounts—that of 1832, for example—are somewhat more “personal” than others.[5] The “official” 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price, is more “institutional” as is reflected in Joseph’s introductory comments to the account.
 
“I have been induced to write this history… in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession. In this history I shall present the various events in relation to this Church, in truth and righteousness, as they have transpired, or as they at present exist, being now [1838] the eighth year since the organization of the said Church.”[6]
 
In this “official” account, Joseph reports seeing “a pillar of light exactly over [his] head.” This light “descended gradually until it fell upon [him].” In this light, Joseph saw “two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above [him] in the air.” Immediately, one of them, God the Father, spoke, and, “pointing to” the second, said, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”
 
This “Beloved Son” had much to say. In fact, he said so much that even eighteen years later, there were many things spoken in this first vision which Joseph “[could]not write at this time.” There’s no good use in speculating on what other things might have been said or why they were not recorded or revealed. On the other hand, an awareness that “many other things” were spoken and left unrecorded, might serve to focus the mind on Joseph’s 83-word summary of what was said and was recorded.
 
“I was answered that I must join none of them, 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 corrrupt; 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. ‘ He again forbade me to join with any of them…”[7]
 
These well-known words were consistent both with Joseph’s “object in going to inquire of the Lord… to know which of all the sects was right, that [he] might know which to join,” (1.18) and with the 1838 version’s interest in presenting “the facts” as they existed “in relation both to [himself] and the Church.” 
 
All of this brings us back around to that most impolite, insensitive, and politically incorrect word: “abomination.”
 
With our modern sensibilities and in our desire to be politically correct, we are fond of hedging. “All churches possess truth and are populated with good people.” Very nice. Fair enough. All of that can be true. But it doesn’t change “the facts.” God does not hedge. 
 
“...all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrrupt; 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.”
 
Whatever truth “all” other churches may possess, it is drowned in a sea of “abomination.” Whatever goodness may exist among their individual members, their religious leaders are “all corrupt.” They are all deniers. And what is it that they “deny”? Our knee jerk reaction is to say that they “deny the power of God.” But this seems not to be exactly accurate. What they deny is “the power of godliness.” And if they deny the power of godliness, what is it that they empower? They empower ungodliness.
 
Visitors to this site will not be surprised at the turn this homily now takes. By now, they have probably come to expect it.
 
American “Christianity’s” abomination, corruption, and empowerment of ungodliness has led our country to… wait for it… the election of Caligula. There is no way on God’s green earth that Caligula would have been elected without overwhelming support among Americans who call themselves Christians, especially those who are called evangelical. Worse, even in the face of (predictable) corruption, immoral conduct, language, and policy, “Christians” remain Caligula’s staunchest supporters. Without him, it is highly doubtful that he would still be in office—and certainly not at the conclusion of the current impeachment inquiry taking place in the U.S. House of Representatives.
 
By electing, sustaining, and thus empowering Caligula’s exercise of ungodliness, the abomination that is American “Christianity” has lived up to--or down to, if you prefer--the divine estimation that God himself first articulated to an uneducated, uncultured, apolitical boy two hundred years ago. Too bad that neither they nor the people who concluded that the boy was a prophet have given heed to the unmistakable and unambiguous warning about the reality and nature of American “Christianity’s” abomination. 
 
But, you don’t have to take my word for it. To be fair and accurate, we’ll let one of their own, Pastor Jeffress—one of modern American “Christianity’s” most successful purveyors of abomination and corruption—speak, spew forth really, his latter-day abomination for them. Now, examples of American “Christianity’s” abomination abound. Any foolish attempt to catalogue them all would have us here for a month of Sundays, a month of Sabbath rests, with our labor still far from complete. We’ll mention just one, as it is fresh in our mind. I apologize for the length of the following quotation, but as the man seems to be everywhere these days, including in Caligula’s head, and is a bit of a windbag and blowhard, it seems unavoidable.
 
“In an interview in 2016 with Mike Gallagher, a conservative radio talk show host, Jeffress described how he reacted to the question of whether he would prefer a president who governed according to the principles Jesus spoke of at the Sermon on the Mount. 
 
“‘Heck no,’ Jeffress said. ‘I would run from that candidate as far as possible, because the Sermon on the Mount was not given as a governing principle for this nation.’ 
 
“He went on to say that governments are exempt from such biblical principles as forgiveness, or the willingness to turn the other cheek. ‘Government is to be a strongman to protect its citizens against evildoers,’ he claimed. ‘I don’t care about that candidate’s tone or vocabulary, I want the meanest, toughest, son of a you-know-what I can find, and I believe that’s Biblical’....
 
“In a phone interview with the Washington Post in August 2017, Jeffress said of Trump’s remarks (which critics described as saber rattling) that ‘God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary,’ adding that this gives government ‘the authority to do whatever, whether it’s assassination, capital punishment or evil punishment to quell the actions of evildoers like Kim Jong Un.’
 
“He went on to contend that Romans 12, which commands we ‘do not repay evil for evil,’ does not apply in the context of foreign policy, referencing again his belief that presidential decision making is biblically exempt from the principles laid out at the Sermon on the Mount. As he told the Post, ‘A Christian writer asked me, ‘Don’t you want the president to embody the Sermon on the Mount?’ I said absolutely not.’ The Sermon on the Mount, which Jeffress is so quick to brush aside, is Jesus’s most famous and cited sermon in the Gospels. It included guiding principles such as these: caution your tongue and the manner in which you present yourself (Matt. 5: 33–37), do not seek vengeance (Matt. 5: 38–42), don’t be braggadocian (Matt. 6: 1–18), don’t follow the crowd (Matt. 7: 13–14), and, importantly, be cautious about who you trust as your teachers (Matt. 7: 15–23). 
 
“These, among others, are the principles that a major influential Christian evangelical leader who sits on the president’s Evangelical Advisory Board says should be run from ‘as far as possible’ when choosing a president.
 
“And Jeffress wasn’t simply saying he could look past someone not holding to the specific principles spoken at the Sermon on the Mount. Similar principles are not hard to find in good people of other faiths or of no religious faith at all. No, Jeffress was saying he prefers the opposite. He’s saying that it is good in this context to be bad. 
 
“In essence, Jeffress was making the case that Donald Trump’s sinful nature is a virtue. 
 
“This is actually much more antithetical to Christian teachings than focus group member Mark Lee’s claim that he would check with Trump before believing Jesus about world affairs. Jeffress is essentially saying he wouldn’t even ask because Jesus, apparently, wouldn’t get it.”[8]
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you modern American “Christianity.” An abomination if ever there was one. A blasphemy and affront to God. I give you the people who put their “Dear Leader,” their anti-Messiah, Caligula—an abomination if ever there was one—in a position to wield ungodly power. I give you the people who, denying the power of godliness, continue to support Caligula in his exercise of the power of ungodliness. In his enthusiasm for “Christian” abomination, it seems that he has chosen to exercise ALL the powers of ungodliness.
 
The usual academic practice is to begin with “definitions.” But, because I am not, here, engaged in academia, but in spiritual warfare against the powers of darkness, I did not feel bound by such academic conventions. However, my decision was based on esthetic preferences and should not be seen as a denial of the importance of definitions. Therefore, it seems wise to now take a moment and examine definitions.
 
As noted in an earlier footnote, the two Hebrew words that the King James translators rendered into English “abomination” are šeqeṣ and tôʿēbâ. The former “has been associated etymologically with Akk. šaqāṣu, “give someone the evil eye.”[9] It is indicative of that which is “detestable,” “contemptible,” “abhorrent,” loathsome,” and “revolting.” It carries within it the idea of that which is “forbidden.” Hebrew tôʿēbâ possesses the same characteristics as šeqeṣ. It too means “detestable,” “contemptible,” “abhorrent,” loathsome,” and “revolting.” It is to be “offensive” or “repugnant.” It is indicative of thoughts, words, attitudes, and deeds that are “ethically or cultically beyond the pale.”[10] It is indicative of departure from God. In the Hebrew Bible, tôʿēbâ is often indicative of willful departure from God, most often taking the form of idolatry. In fact, the word, tôʿēbâ, can often be a stand in for “idol.”
 
In the Greek New Testament, the Greek word, bdélygma produces our English “abomination.” “The basic stem means ‘to cause abhorrence’ and the group is often used for an improper or shameless attitude.” It can possess the meaning of “to censure” or “to reject.”[11]
 
Finally, our English, “abomination” comes from Latin “ab-omen,” and means “shun as an evil omen.”
 
As you can see from this brief survey, “abomination” carries within its eleven letters an intensity seldom matched by other negative words indicative of sin and error. It seems to justify our initial assertion that the word is most useful “when one really wishes to up the ante, crank up the heat, put the hammer down, tighten the screws” on sin and error.
 
This, then, is God’s verdict concerning American “Christianity.” If it was true two hundred years ago, it is surely doubly so now. It is abhorrent and loathsome and repugnant. It is an offense against Jesus Christ, whose name it blasphemously uses in vain. Its doctrines are no more than a series of “evil utterances.” It is under divine censure. It is, as Joseph Smith was warned, to be rejected. It is to be shunned as is a deadly infectious disease. Are there individuals within its institutions that are good and approved of God? Yes. But the institutions, their doctrines, their leaders, and their ethics are perverted “beyond the pale.” Those good people who join and remain in its ranks become “twofold more the child of hell”[12] than they would be outside the fold.
 
It should not escape our notice that “abomination” is often a stand in for an “idol.” Idolatry is about placing one’s confidence, security, and sense of “self in “wealth,” “power,” and “prestige,” and the accumulation of such lies, rather than in one’s relationship with the God of Heaven. Christians have, they vainly imagine, found true power in their allegiance with Caligula. He has become an idol. This idol will, like all anti-Christs throughout human history, speedily drag their souls down to hell.[13]
 
I am not like Moses, or Nephi, or Mormon, who sought a delay in their society’s final “desolation of abomination.” I feel more kinship with the angels who “are waiting the great command to reap down the earth, to gather the tares that they may be burned.”[14] For me, it can’t be too “speedy” or come soon enough.
 
“Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth,
 a day of wrath, a day of burning,
a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation;
and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth,
saith the Lord.
And upon my house shall it begin,
and from my house shall it go forth,
saith the Lord;
First among those among you, saith the Lord,
 who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house,
saith the Lord.”[15]
 
“How long, O Lord, holy and true,
Dost thou not judge and avenge…
them that dwell on the earth?”[16]


[1] These calculations and those that follow are based on the King James Version of the Bible and its translation of the two Hebrew words, šeqeṣ and tôʿēbâ.
[2] Daniel 11.31
[3] Matthew 24.15
[4] DC 84.117
[5] In the 1832 account, Joseph reports that “my mind become excedingly (sic) distressed for I become convicted of my Sins.” Jesus allays Joseph’s feelings of personal unworthiness with these comforting words, “Joseph my Son thy Sins are forgiven thee.” There is nothing in the “official” 1838 account to suggest that Joseph possessed such thoughts of personal unworthiness or that his first vision entailed such a redemptive “born again” experience.
[6] JSH 1.1-2
[7] JSH 1.19-20
[8] Ben Howe, “The Immoral Majority,” p. 46-47
[9] Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. XV, p. 465
[10] See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. XV, p. 591ff.
[11] See Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged-Little Kittle).
[12] See Matthew 23.15
[13] See Alma 30.60
[14] Dc 38.12
[15] DC 112.24-26
[16] See Revelation 6.10