Is it me or does the title of this post sound like a sitcom?
Blake seems to express his opinion of the Moravian church (and seemingly the whole of Christianity) in the scene where he reveals to the angel ‘his lot.’ Blake takes the angel into the pit that appears in the bible and reveals very Moravian imagery–such that he is particularly familiar with due to his Moravian upbringing from his mother. He depicts the grotesque and erotic imagery of bodies being devoured, engulfed, kissed, gross stuff. However, Blake and the angel are soon overwhelmed by the smell of the corpses and must leave: “the stench terribly annoyd us both.”
Here I feel Blake expresses his disinterest with the Moravian church–highly associated with Christ’s body and his blood. The sacramental imagery displayed ties heavily into Moravian teachings, however the rotting corpse of the church becomes too overwhelming. It seems that Blake believes that Christ’s body–that which the Moravians wish to dwell in–is rotting (as are other Christian teachings exemplified by their presence in the mill and Blake’s comparison of them to Analytics). The angel is shocked at the imagery that Blake reveals to him and feels that he is uttering blasphemies as Blake demonstrates through the image of the skeleton that his religion is built upon Reason–seemingly blending with the teachings of the Devil: “Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.” Blake replies to the Angels statements that “We impose on one another” revealing that they are, in a sense, contraries.
Blake feels that it is a waste to converse with an angel as they only follow “analytics”–but who’s side is Blake actually on? Blake sees the angel consumed in flames and emerges in the form of a devil–as the angel has seen the truth and embraces the contrary–that virtue is energy. Blake seems to side with both actually (seriously?). Although he sees the church of the Moravians as a rotting corpse (gross stuff), he seems to revel in the Energy of it, the virtue and desire. He does not fully side with the devil either, but merely listens to his teachings and takes from them what he will. He does not wish to be over imposed on by either followers.
It is demonstrated in one of the final scenes of the Marriage that he and the Angel “who is now become a Devil, is [his] particular friend: [they] often read the Bible together in its infernal or diabolical sense” but they also have “The Bible of Hell”–its contrary. Blake seems to be an ‘extreme average’ (that’s like a baby contrary–rather the offspring of two contraries)–he is the product of two extreme teachings: those of Heaven and those of Hell–continually oscillating between the two, gleaning from both sides the fruits which he deems ‘fruitful.’
William Blake and Enlightenment Media 
Dear frightenedinmate2,
I have to bring up your question “who’s side is Blake actually on?” Does Blake actually make a decision? Something that annoys me with Blake is that he relies so much on contraries that it seems he cannot ever make up his mind. I would have liked to see more of what side YOU think Blake takes.
I applaud you for taking such a strong stance on Blake’s opinion of Moravian doctrine–calling it “gross stuff” that the poet believes to be rotting and outdated. Although I would argue tenets of Moravian doctrine still make their way into his worldview (like his use of sensual imagery in the prints), I agree he does vilify the physicality of such barbaric behavior like that of the animals in the fourth Memorable Fancy. I like your final image of Blake oscillating between Heaven and Hell but would pose the question: does Blake even conceive of Heaven and Hell as separate entities entirely or are qualities of both omnipresent in the world?
This post does an excellent job of showing exactly how Blake satarizes Moravian sexual theology, but it also begs the question about the genre of satire. Satire’s aim is to poke fun of certain ideas and doctrines in order to reform them. In the Marriage of Heaven and Hell, Blake continously pokes fun at Swedenborgian and even Moravian ideas, among many others, but we never get a strong sense of what needs to be reformed. I imagine that, for Blake, what needs to be reformed is the way we perceive the world through contraries; thus, the real question here is NOT what Blake thinks is “fruitful,” but what we as readers take to be most fruitful of the Blake-speakers encounter with oscillating contraries.