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

In my previous blog entitled, “Gadianton Robbers Among Us” (6 November 2019), I quoted Helaman 7.4-6 in which Mormon lamented the destructive corruption that ran rampant in Nephite government in the lifetime of Nephi II. He lamented the existence of “Gadianton robbers” who were “filling the judgment–seats.” These robbers had “usurped the power and authority of the land; laying aside the commandments of God, and not in the least aright before him; doing no justice unto the children of men; condemning the righteous because of their righteousness; letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money.” Their objectives were crystal clear to Mormon and, indeed to anyone with the slightest degree of discernment: “that they might get gain and glory of the world, and, moreover, that they might the more easily commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills.”
 
Obviously, my referencing Mormon’s critique of Nephites society is not happenstance. I believe with the utmost conviction—a conviction that borders on or crosses over to that of testimony—that this Nephite experience is utterly applicable to what we are today witnessing in the administration of America’s Caligula.
 
This conviction has been strengthened as I have heard and read testimony presented during the recent impeachment hearings. All that this administration has done in and to Ukraine has been for the purpose of “get[ting] gain and glory of the world, and, moreover, that they might the more… do according to their own wills,” constitution and morality be damned. Even if there were no moral or physical harm done to the Ukrainian people (who really cares, anyway, that Ukrainian soldiers and civilians almost certainly died in combat against their Russian opponents because Caligula had a personal, not national, interest in withholding needed funding in hopes of seeing a political opponent smeared. Certainly not Americans of the immoral “America First” persuasion) the immoral conduct of this would-be-emperor right here on the American shores should be enough to convince any decent person that he must be removed from the office that he has so thoroughly besmirched. 
 
The moral harm done to an ally, along with the vile and unconstitutional behavior of Caligula and his little band of robbers, would in themselves be enough to fill a book-length blog. In considering Caligula’s infamy, I have been reminded of one of the Book of Mormon’s most notorious and villainous characters: Wicked King Noah. He, too, was guilty of a book-length list of moral harms and “unconstitutional” behavior. Today, I will explore just one evil that these two perverted men—wicked King Noah and America’s Caligula—have in common.
 
The enlightened social critic, Mormon, records that Noah
 
“...changed the affairs of the kingdom. For he put down all the priests that had been consecrated by his father, and consecrated new ones in their stead, such as were lifted up in the pride of their hearts” (Mosiah 11.4-5).
 
Now, we must first understand that in the context of ancient societies and cultures “priest” was not simply a religious title with purely religious functions. Rather, “priest” is indicative of an administrative position that is part of the government. There is no such thing as a “secular” government in the ancient world. This was true right on through the Middle Ages. In fact, it can legitimately be argued that the United States of America is the first secular government ever formed. It was the invention of the “founding fathers.”
 
Anyway, King Noah’s new-fangled public officials primarily served a propagandistic purpose. Their principle function was to act as King Noah’s “yes-men” that “they should speak lying and vain words to his people” (Mosiah 11.11).
 
No doubt, Noah’s criminal innovation was initially met with skepticism in many quarters and was viewed as strange, outside accepted norms—its long-term implications not fully appreciated. However, with time, its dire consequences became ever more apparent. In the end, the destructive nature of the crime became absolute.
 
Since his election, we have witnessed Caligula “put down” experienced, competent, respected, constitution loving, and patriotic public servants and diplomates who dare challenge his flouting of constitutional principles and his claim to “absolute” rights and powers—“do according to [his] own will.” Often—in fact, normally—he has intimidated, slandered, demeaned, and bullied them. He has rudely and crudely fired them. He has replaced them, surrounded himself with criminals—I have lost count of the number of Caligula’s associates who have been convicted of felonies and are serving prison sentences.
 
“Thy princes are rebellious,
   and companions of thieves:
every one loveth gifts,
   and followeth after rewards…” (Isaiah 1.23)
 
 Caligula demands all around him to be sycophants. Cult followers. Yes men and yes women. Individuals fully willing, anxious, even, to defile themselves by “speak[ing] lying and vain words to his people.”


However, with the beginning of impeachment hearings, Caligula’s “changing the affairs of the kingdom” and “putting down” of those who have faithfully served their country has escalated. His slander of loyal, life-long diplomates such as George Kent and Bill Taylor (“a pitiful, ignorant insubordinate gossip” according to Caligula’s gaddianton-style attorney) have reached new lows, below contemptible. They are positively unholy and ungodly. They are, to put it bluntly, satanic.
 
His vile hordes have stooped so low as to suggest that with a name like “Yovanovitch,” the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, perhaps, had Ukrainian interests more in mind than American—i.e., her resistance to Caligula’s immoral and unpatriotic dealings with Ukraine was, somehow, treasonous. This they do to a faithful public servant who earned the “Senior Foreign Service Performance Award” six times and the State Department's “Superior Honor Award” five times. Caligula, himself, has offered veiled and intimidating threats against her. She is “the woman”—the millionth evidence of his ungodly misogyny—of whom Caligula threateningly said, “She’s going to go through some things” as colleagues were warning her that she should leave Ukraine, as she was no longer safe there.
 
Unfortunately, politicians on the right—co-conspirators who have sworn to uphold the 
constitution--have decided that Caligula is not to be held accountable for his 
unconstitutional and/or immoral, unethical misdeeds—surely, if Caligula’s behavior does not warrant impeachment, then impeachment is no longer constitutionally meaningful and our republic can go down any and every darkest path imaginable. Hail Caesar.
 
Politicians on the right, of course, are only looking after their own interests. Indeed, the gaddianton-style senate leader, McConnell, “told Republican Senators their best bet was to calibrate their own message about the impeachment inquiry to fit their political situation” (Every Republican for himself: McConnell told senators in closed door meeting to come up with their own Trump defense,” Tom Boggioni, rawstory.com, emphasis added).
 
Wicked King Noah would be proud to have such loyal sycophants.
 
Having said all this, we have only skimmed the surface of the right’s toxic and 
blasphemous support of the man-who-would-be-emperor. We have still not come to the worst, the vilest, the most ungodly part of the despicable state in which our country has entered. Oh, no. Not by a long shot.
 
American politicians on the right are only puppets. Marionettes without a soul. Others pull the strings. And, lo and behold, it is “Christians” who are their puppet masters. It is “Christians” who, shamefully, put in the White House the vile man who lives up in every moment to his moniker, Caligula. It is “Christians” who have concluded that their anti-messiah—their “vessel” to use their perverted theological term—cannot be held accountable, no matter of what evil he is guilty.
 
My own people—the people formerly known as Mormon—long ago concluded that “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over.” Christians have adopted the same nonsense about their precious anti-messiah. He is not to be questioned. Though they would not have maintained—no, not in a million millenniums—such a position when Barack Obama was president, they have now concluded that the apostle Paul had it right after all.
 
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Romans 13.1-2).
 
How very convenient!. It was by means of the exact same type of scriptural wresting that American “Christians” justified slavery and would, no doubt, reinstitute the practice if ever they gained control of our government. May we never be a “Christian” nation!
 
But, we can thank God that the “founding fathers” who American “Christians” claim so vociferously to honor, felt free to act contrary to American “Christianity’s stupid scripture wresting of Pauline writings and so resist the King of Britain—whose power, by American “Christians’” lights, must have been ordained of God, as the king, himself, most certainly maintained. And we can thank God for such loyal, devoted, and patriotic followers of Jesus as Abinadi, who, free of the same American “Christians’” stupid scripture proof-texting, stood boldly against the wiles of wicked King Noah even though “the eyes of the people were blinded” and “they hardened their hearts against the words of Abinadi” (Mosiah 11.29). Even though it ultimately cost him his life.
 
We desperately need principled Christians like Abinadi. Yes, we need them to stand against immoral and unconstitutional leadership such as that represented by Caligula. But something else; something at least equal in importance to the survival of America’s constitution, perhaps, is at stake: the very soul and survival of Christianity in America.
 
“…the wickedness of the church was a great stumbling–block to those who did not belong to the church; and thus the church began to fail in its progress” (Alma 4.10).