The False Prophet of the Great and Abominable Church

Greg Matson, of CWIC Media, had a conversation with Dan Ellsworth, who has written a book defining Marxism so that Church members can recognize it for what it is: Marxism: A Latter-day Saint Perspective. While this is aimed at a Latter-day Saint audience, I think most of it would be fully applicable to other Christian readers as well. Ellsworth has been frustrated with Church members (few, but still too many) who, for whatever twisted reasoning, espouse and support Marxist ideas—some knowing the roots of their ideas, but also many not knowing. He wanted a way to give them the knowledge they needed, so he wrote a book to make that information dump in the simplest way.

Greg Matson (left) and Dan Ellsworth talk about Marxism,
screenshot from here

About fifteen minutes into the video, there’s a two-minute segment I want to share, and then we’ll talk:

Dan Ellsworth: Antonio Gramsci, he was he was an Italian socialist activist after Marx, who just fell in love with Marx's theories, also traveled to Russia and saw what Vladimir Lenin was doing with the Russian Revolution and you know the Bolshevik Party and stuff. And he thought a lot about, you know, what is really going on. OK. Marx offered—he functioned kind of like a prophet, like, you know, foretelling the future of the world and society.

 

And so, after he died, you know, you have people like Gramsci who had come to follow his teachings. They're sitting there saying, “Wait a minute.” OK. “This is not all happening the way he envisioned. So how do we make sense of this?” Right? And he looked to Russia, to what they were doing, what Vladimir Lenin was doing, and he saw that there was a contradiction between how Vladimir Lenin was doing Marxism versus how Marx taught Marxism.

 

And here's what Antonio Gramsci said; he was talking about the Russians, and he said, “They are not Marxists. That's what it comes down to. They have not used the Master's works.”

 

OK, I'm gonna stop right there. He calls him the master.

 

Greg Matson: Yeah.

 

DE: So let that sink in. Right? To draw up a superficial interpretation, dictatorial statements which cannot be disputed. Now pay attention to what he says here: “They live out Marxist thought, the one which will never die. The continuation of idealist Italian and German thought and that in Marx had been corrupted by the emptiness of positivism and naturalism.” So Gramsci is saying Marxist thought didn't originate with Marx, will never die. It's going to keep going after Marx, did not originate with him either. And in Marx, he said, it had actually been corrupted by some of his biases.

 

So Gramsci saw that there's this pure kind of current of thought that is actually the real Marxism. OK? That's amazing for a Marxist to admit, right? Because, when you understand what Gramsci is saying there, then the word Marxism, like the real meaning, starts to become clear. It's not, you know, it's not Karl Marx's economic theories about communism. Those are part of how he envisioned, you know, this Marxism playing out in kind of the economic sphere. But Marxism is something different. It's a whole— It's kind of a formula that predates Marx and will always exist.

 

GM: Yeah, that's interesting, because—and we've had this discussion before—going back into, you know, let's call it gospel history, scriptural history. I think we've talked about Cain and Abel before. I can't remember.

 

DE: Yeah, we might have.

 

GM: Yeah. And then, of course, the war in heaven.

 

DE: Yes.

 

GM: And what you have there. And I've got, you know, some interesting thoughts there also. But it's almost as if, as you say, you're—when you talk about Marx's interest and veneration of—honestly, veneration of Satan—then and you get this idea with the restored Gospel of, well, he's kind of in tune with him, right, in a sense of how—what is the philosophy of Satan.

 

DE: Yeah.

 

GM: Right? And what does he want. It's, if you parse out, if you critically think about the war in heaven and the plans that are presented there, it's hard not to draw a conclusion that this, as you're describing, this undercurrent that Gramsci is speaking of, is way— You know, it existed way before we even had the Earth.

 

DE: Yeah. Absolutely. That's what becomes clear when you dive into this stuff.

Karl Marx didn’t invent Marxism? No. Karl Marx was an admirer, a disciple, you might say, of Satan. He wasn’t an atheist; he knew God existed but supported Satan’s intention to thwart God.

This seems insane, and you could probably argue that he was. But there are things in his society that Marx used to develop his own sense of justice. Ellsworth talks about how, during the 1800s, during the Industrial Revolution, conditions were pretty ugly:

DE: You have a lot of families being broken up to work in factories. You have child labor. You have a lot of actual, like, real exploitative business practices going on in Europe and other places. And so—I think it's important for us to recognize that people like Karl Marx saw those things in the world and hated that unfairness.

Ellsworth points out that, you can’t go thinking Marx was this benevolent guy trying to make humanity better. His personal life shows a mean, vicious, often vindictive person. With all his notoriety, only a dozen or so people were willing to show up at his funeral.

Karl Marx in 1975, image from Wikipedia

But for many people, they’re drawn to Marxism still, not because they’re outright satanists, but they are drawn to Marxism as a possible solution to terrible conditions. For most of us, working conditions have improved since the early Industrial Revolution, but people still react to what they view as unfairness. People in poverty-stricken countries are often susceptible to a Marxist regime coming in and promising a better world. Mao did that in China, for example. Then, of course, because Marxism isn’t just a proposed economic system, because it’s actually satanist, the revolutionary force turns on itself. The disciples who dedicated their lives to the cause are tortured and killed. You might say, that’s not a bug; it’s a feature. Marxism ends in misery and massive death. Always. Because it is actually an evil thing. It just disguises itself as caring, to lure people in.

Today, people who’ve been indoctrinated with Marxism in college think it’s new, edgy, and cool. And they say things like those former Marxists just didn’t do it right. Just like Gramsci said of Marx himself.

What caught my attention in the conversation was that the idea we call Marxism is older than Marx, older even than our world. Ellsworth supposes that, during the War in Heaven, which Satan waged and lost, causing him to be cast out of heaven for his rebellion, that even then Satan (he was called Lucifer then) used the benevolent lure: “I’ll make sure no soul is lost” and then under his breath, by taking away their ability to choose and replacing it with coercion; and “I’ll make everyone equal,” no matter whether they do work or do nothing. For some reason that appealed to a third part of the spirits in Heaven, who chose Satan even when they had lived in God’s presence. And maybe even then they told themselves they were the good guys.

"Paradise Lost" by Gustave Dore,
I previously used this in a post called "Agency"

Ellsworth boldly calls Marxism the Great and Abominable Church. This is a term used in the Book of Mormon [1 Nephi 13:6]. I think it can be used interchangeably with other terms for the same thing: the Whore of All the Earth [1 Nephi 14:10], the Revelation 13 beast rising out of the sea, the beast from Daniel’s dream [Daniel 7:7] with the ten crowns, secret combinations [Ether 8:24]—along with more modern terms such as the worldwide cabal, or the Deep State. (I wrote about the Rev. 13 sea beast here, as well as a couple of times this year.)

While Marxism may be only a part and not the whole of this beast, I think these all refer to the same thing. In Revelation 13, the sea beast has one head that is mortally wounded, and yet the beast revives. This is symbolic, and there are various theories as to the meaning. But I have speculated that we thought we had given a death blow to Marxism in World War II; the Nazis were defeated, along with Axis powers of Italy and Japan; communism was an enemy to the free world and utterly shamed in pretty much all social circles; the Soviet Union eventually collapsed and released its various states from its total domination; even China entered into trade with the world. And then, in this century, it has revived. Emphases and forms are slightly different, but Marxism is fully alive again. 

So it might be useful to look at what qualifies Marxism as a church that is Great and Abominable. You may have noticed that Satan is a counterfeiter. If Christ’s gospel is the true Church, Satan’s church is going to have parallels. Wherever Christ builds and grows, Satan’s way will tear down and destroy. 

We’ll do a side-by-side comparison in a bit, but first, Ellsworth explains the Marxist process. Marx started with property: some people had it and some people were oppressed, obviously by those who had property. He wanted to do away with property, to flatten everything, not of course really understanding that humans have a God-given right to the fruits of their labors; to steal the fruits of their labors is to steal the portion of their lives spent building up that surplus over their subsistence. But Marx hated that some people could gain property while other could not or would not gain as much.

The pattern is to find something and tear it down. Ellsworth outlines the formula:

Marx had a formula. He said there's property—and in his case he was talking about capital and private property ownership. That's this thing that is kind of exclusive. And then society builds this thing called a superstructure—that is, you know, all of our customs and traditions, and our ideas about economics and law and religion and those things. And we protect the ownership of private property, right, through this ideology, this system called capitalism that “maintains oppression of ordinary people.”

So the formula is to take the thing that seems to benefit some and then call those that have it the oppressors. Gramsci suggested, instead of just property, use culture. Out of this comes the Frankfurt School. Ellsworth continues:

And then you have it branching into these fruits of Critical Race Theory and Queer and Gender Theory, where now the property is being normal in the case of Queer Theory. Queer Theory hates the idea that anything is considered normal, and so they have this ideology of, okay you know, “They're trying to protect normal, which is a thing that only some people have access to through an ideology called heteronormativity,” right. And with Critical Race Theory, “They're trying to protect racial privilege using white supremacy,” right. So it's this formula that Marx established, he kind of synthesized, that is now applied to all of these different other things. And in the case of feminism, well, what is the property? It's male privilege or male power or things like that, and the ideology is patriarchy. It's the Marxist formula.

So the purpose of Marxism is to tear down whatever can be considered an inequality, so that those with whatever it is are oppressors of those without that thing—and the only cure is to tear down the society that has these inequities.

Now, for the comparisons (based mainly on their conversation, with a few things I may have added):

 

Christ’s Church—the Real Church	Satan’s/Marx’s Church—the Counterfeit
Conversion—an awakening, coming to know it’s true.	Conversion—an awakening, “wokeness” to awareness of patriarchy or heteronormativity or whatever.
Rituals: baptism, sacrament, temple covenants of obedience, sacrifice, purity, consecration—showing dedication as a disciple.	Praxis (action oriented toward changing society): Pride parades, for example, or displaying BLM stickers, pride flags, and symbols. Abortion—child sacrifice—is considered a sacrament; live children can also be sacrificed to the ideology (transgender surgeries, for example).
Confess and repent of sin; become a better person.	Denying power greater than self, denying authority beyond self—However, there must be submission to the ideology. Sin is to be the oppressor, as defined by the ideology, from which there is no repentance, but there must be continual confession of this sin with accompanying expressions of guilt.
Love one’s neighbor.	Attack and criticize relentlessly in the service of Marxist ideology.
Love God with devotion.	Love the Party and specific authoritarian figures with full devotion.
Spread the gospel; share the gospel, the tenets of the religion; invite others to come unto Christ.	Spread the new Godless covenant of relentless political activism. Inculcate the tenets of the religion through all forms of communication and education/indoctrination—and shut down (censor) all opposing words.

Ellsworth wrote the book for Latter-day Saints that have been seduced by this counterfeit religion—to give them a better view of what’s happening, and maybe change their minds, to re-convert to Christ. Marxism—in any of its forms—is completely incompatible with the Gospel of Christ. It is anti-Christ.

Ellsworth mentions a talk at a recent conference by Faith Matters, their Restore Conference 2024, intended, as they say “to inspire and nourish faith.” I’ve heard the occasional podcast and think they’re probably sincere. Anyway, one of their speakers, Neylan McBaine, he says “takes a feminist approach to the gospel and talks about patriarchy.” He says,

 

You know, I read her talk. And I don’t know if the people who heard her talk understand that they were being invited on the Marxist covenant path in that setting.

Marxism tears down; if they are saying Church leaders are patriarchal oppressors, they are saying the Church—the restored Church of Jesus Christ—should be torn down. That is the end point; there is no other eventual conclusion.

Greg Matson mentions a professor who was invited to speak at BYU (he’d done a podcast on this some time ago) who took the Book of Mormon and suggested that the word iniquity should be interchanged with the word inequity; the implication is that only inequity is a sin, and all else who could do wrong doesn't matter. Matson says, “I just want to pull my hair out, that this is being taught to these 18-22-year-old students.” Parents do not spend their savings to send their kids to the Church’s flagship school to have them indoctrinated into the Marxist covenant path. That absolutely must not happen.

Three years ago, Jeffrey R. Holland talked to the BYU faculty about the need to teach clearly the prophetic truths in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” I heard his words and recognized truth and love. But he got way too much pushback from those who have entered that Marxist covenant path and probably don’t even recognize that they have been seduced by lies.

If you think that socialism, communism, Marxism, Critical Race Theory, the LGBTQ agenda, DEI, abortion, feminism, or any other branch of this Great and Abominable Church is too political for you to deign to discuss, you may want to rethink that. Politics is just one place where it plays out. But it is the War in Heaven continued right here. And you really don’t want to be on the wrong side of that war; we know Christ wins, and we want to be on His side. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option; you must declare your team, and be a player on that team. At the very least speak up and cheer for the winning side.

Another Counterfeit

It would have been more insightful for me to have divided Monday’s post, Counterfeits, into two parts, with this being added as a third part. That would have made a neatly planned week of posts. Unfortunately, I don’t always organize that far ahead what I will say. So, less neatly, here is another example of a tyranny/southern-hemisphere counterfeit.

Equality

As Americans, we have practically born in us a sense of fairness and equality. We don’t have an aristocracy—a class of people who receive special privileges and immunity from various laws based on their parental heritage. We honor our government leader, our President (even the current one) based on the position. But we expect that person to be subject to the same laws as the rest of us. If he robs a bank, he goes to jail. If he murders his secretary, he suffers the weight of the law. If he lies before Congress, he is prosecuted for perjury.

That is what we mean by Blind Justice. The law doesn’t look to see who the accused is—what their wealth, position, race, religion, gender, ethnic heritage, or other special interest category may be—before weighing the evidence. We are equal before the law.

Blind Justice, Alabama
photo by Scott

We don’t have a class system—a stratified society based on arbitrary, permanent conditions. The concept of avoiding people who are beneath us seems unpleasantly foreign. We don’t call one another “uppity” for “trying to rise above our station.” Rather, we have the American Dream, where hard work and brains put to good use in a free marketplace offer the opportunity for rising above current conditions for anyone.

The southern hemisphere counterfeit for equality is something else altogether—equal outcome. “Leveling the playing field” is the lie. It is the claim that, if someone else has more than you do, it is because they had some unfair advantage, that their level of work and yours are irrelevant. There’s an unspoken claim that, just one time if we redistributed the wealth and started fresh from the same starting line, then everything would be fair.

But outcomes will always be different—because individuals are different. I used to see this clearly in relation to my children’s education. When we moved to our current school district, and I attempted to continue their gifted education, there was a lot of resistance from the teachers. They seemed to believe that every child deserved the same input from them. But if the goal of education is to help each child gain the education that will help them reach their potential, then every child’s education is different—customized. Some teachers seemed to think, if a child was already reading well and doing the required level of math, then the teachers' duty was done, and they could turn their attention to students still struggling.

That meant that bright students spent hours every day sitting around waiting, often bored, rather than engaged in learning. “Fairness” in this common classroom setting means paying attention to some students while ignoring others—in an effort to make the outcome of the education the same: the limit of the slowest learner.

The elementary school report card actually said, “performing at grade level” or “not performing at grade level.” When my daughter showed up there a couple of grade levels above her age in several subjects, the report card practically implied she was getting stupider by sitting in that classroom—and that was OK as long as she wasn’t slipping behind the slower learners. As a mama bear, I never said, “Oh well, I’m sure the professionals know best”; I got her the heck out of that non-learning environment and saw to her education myself. Some might say I unfairly unleveled the playing field.

Fairness in economics is likewise not holding some people back to keep anyone from getting ahead. Even if you could start everyone at the same level, some people work hard, use their creativity, save up resources to invest in capital improvements, and come out ahead before long.

You can see this historically in frontier America. Homesteaders would start out with a few tools and basic belongings. They would clear the land, build shelter, plant crops, raise animals, and move ahead, if they could, from subsistence to prosperity. Sometimes misfortune got in the way—a hailstorm, a fire, an accident, a drought. Sometimes a family would have to move on and start over multiple times. But eventually some people prospered. Was it because they were given an unfair slice of the overall economic pie, thus depriving otherwise deserving individuals? No. It was a combination of hard work, mental and physical, along with some good timing.

Equalizing outcomes isn’t about fairness; it’s about coveting, that last of the Ten Commandments that tells us it’s wrong to be jealous of our neighbor’s good fortune.

The southern hemisphere counterfeit of “equality” is about using the covetousness we’re trying to rid ourselves of, nurturing it, and using it to persuade us to give power to some entity that promises to take from someone we’re envious of. Maybe to give to us, maybe not—it’s often enough for them just to stick it to the person with more. And for doing so, they get an unequal portion of power/control over the people.

Which is better?

·         Subjecting ourselves to a controlling force that takes from the prosperous and uses the spoils as it chooses? (southern hemisphere controlled economy)

·         Allowing individuals to prosper from their hard work, ingenuity, and frugality, with the possibility that any of us, even all of us, can prosper? (northern hemisphere free enterprise)

Next time someone says it has to be equal or it isn’t fair, ask whether equal relates to equality before the law or equality of outcome. There’s a hemisphere of difference between the two.

Counterfeits

I propose that, for every principle that leads to Spherical Model northern hemisphere freedom, prosperity, and thriving civilization, there is a counterfeit southern hemisphere claim. Here are just a couple of examples.

Rights

Our Constitution does a good job of spelling out many of our God-given natural rights relating to life, liberty, and property: freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to defend self and others with arms, freedom to feel secure in our persons and papers, and more. The counterfeit was put forward by FDR, using the word rights that we were used to recognizing as a positive part of our free country. But he skewed it.

In our day certain economic proofs have become accepted as self-evident: a second bill of rights, under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all, regardless of station or race or creed. Among these are:

·         the right to a useful and remunerative job, the right to earn enough to provide food and clothing and recreation;

·         the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return that will give him and his family a decent living;

·         the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom—freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

·         the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care, and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

·         the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age—sickness, medicine, and unemployment;

·         the right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won, we must be prepared to move forward in the implementation of these rights to new goals of happiness and well being. For unless there is security here and home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

 

What is a right? Something you are entitled to just by virtue of being born a human. God has granted it to you. Others are required to respect your rights, but not to provide them out of thin air. So when Roosevelt uses the term, what does he mean? Something that we’d all like to have. And if you assume these things are rights—must be given to everyone—then government takes the place of God as the provider of rights. Government gets its power—and its money—from the governed. So, what FDR is saying is, you are required to give up whatever portion of your life’s work the government confiscates so that the government can grant that as a gift to someone else, in order to claim it is a better provider than God.

You do have the right to seek a good job; but if you have a right to a good job, regardless of your efforts or abilities, that means someone is required to hire you regardless of your efforts or abilities. That doesn’t square with the business freedom “right” he lists just below. You have the right to purchase a good home or a good education, but if you must be given those purchasable things, someone must be enslaved to pay for them.

Family

Family is the basic unit of society. It is the way we get a new generation, and pass along the values and principles required for civilization to that new generation. It is based on, and bound by, love for one another.

If there’s going to be a southern hemisphere counterfeit, it is going to appeal to the sense of belonging we crave. But instead of feeling the sense of belonging to parents, ancestors, siblings, and posterity, the counterfeit version is belonging to the collective—the state in the southeast quadrant, or the gang, mob, mafia, or other cabal in the southwest quadrant. The principle is the same: the collective wants/needs override the individual wants/needs.

I saw the latest Star Trek movie this past weekend, always fun. They re-enacted in a different way a scene from an earlier movie (that is set in a later time), where Spock had sacrificed himself by entering the hot nuclear reactor. He had said, “It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.” But what has happened here? An individual sacrifices himself, because his love for the many he can save is greater than his love for his own life. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends,” John 15:13 (King James Bible). That is the northern hemisphere version. Our soldiers do this for us. Our police take this risk. Last week we tragically lost four Houston firefighters who were acting on this honorable premise.

 

The southern hemisphere counterfeit takes the choice of sacrifice away from the individual, and replaces it with, “Because the collective is more important than the few or the one, the rights/wants/needs of the few or the one can be overridden at the will of those in control for the benefit of the collective.” This shows up in health care. If the collective is paying for health care, a costly and limited resource, then it is to the benefit of the collective to refuse care to whomever it deems less likely to benefit the collective: the elderly, the handicapped, the mentally impaired, the seriously ill. Everywhere in the world there has been state-run health care, there has been rationing, poorer service, loss of service to the elderly and seriously ill, and enforced euthanasia. There is no sacrifice involved; there is imposed punishment for being ill or elderly.

I’m in the middle of yet another youth novel, with the enemy being some entity trying to take over the world, ostensibly to “help” mankind (while incidentally giving unlimited power to the controlling bad guys). This one is Michael Vey, by Richard Paul Evans. The bad guy says things like, “Want is a thing of the past…. It’s a brave new world… with endless opportunities.” There’s a collection of young people with special electrical powers. They’ve been kidnapped and manipulated, and are essentially imprisoned. But the collection of them is called the family. If they don’t use their powers as required, to harm people and even murder, then the young person is punished and imprisoned. Most of them have succumbed, and the ones found at earlier ages were more easily manipulated. They’re made to feel “special,” told that they are eagles, among the chickens, and shouldn’t choose to act like chickens, or even worry about the chickens—because eagles eat chickens, after all.

When confronted with the discomfort of being asked to do something harmful, one who had been there from a young age said, “You get over it. At first you might hate it but before you know it, you’ll volunteer to do it…. Why do you care? We’re better than them.”

Ah, the old “we’re the important people and the others are subhuman” ploy, found in all savage tyrannies, wherever there is mass murder, genocide, or halocaust.

Belonging to a real family is something we’re designed by our Creator to respect and enjoy—where we can develop loving relationships that will help us in everything we do. The counterfeit is belonging to some replacement collective, with controllers that either tell us why we can disregard the rights of those supposedly beneath us, or why we are too insignificant to have our rights respected. There may be an inculcation of adoration for the collective. But real love—giving and receiving love—is missing.

Find something good in a society of freedom, free enterprise, and civilization, and there will be a correlative counterfeit in a society of controlled behavior, controlled economy, and savage disregard of the value of human life.