Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the "Gates of Hell"

[mfbukowski]

Since you keep bringing it up, I’ll ask again, please provide the scriptures that reference keys to hell.

See this is the way it works: If the church was apostate, the scriptures were at least partially apostate. That is why we believe the bible is true “insofar as it is translated correctly”. I have shown a couple of biblical fragments which prove that Jesus taught that the gospel was preached to the dead, and another fragment which refers to a practice, baptism for the dead.

And no one has answered me on those issues.

The scripture that mentions the “keys to hell” is the scripture this thread is about.

No it does not SAY the KEYS to HELL but it says that the GATES will not prevail because the church has the ability to crash those gates with its “KEYS”

Got that?

Have you not read the thread?

I am saying that the keys of hell were given to the church (Peter) so that the GATES OF HELL WOULD NOT PREVAIL AGAINST THE CHURCH’S KEYS TO THE GATES.

Dang. Are you not listening or what??? It seems like you just go on posting regardless of whether or not your comments are relevant to the discussion.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Here, try this link. It explains the whole thing!

answers.org/bible/gatesofhell.html

 

[mfbukowski]

To base your whole practice of baptism of the dead on one passage of Paul, is a little kooky to me.

Well the practice is not based on that at all. It is based on revelations to Joseph Smith. But that passage is ONE evidence of the practice in early christianity, and there are others.

There are a few other citations that show this, but I will supply you with the easiest obtainable internet evidence, but here is the quote from St. John
Chrysostom:
Homily XL.
1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 29Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead? if the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for the dead?

HE takes in hand again another topic, establishing what he said at one time from what God doeth, and at another from the very things which they practice. And this also is no small plea for the defence of any cause when a man brings forward the gainsayers themselves as witnessing by their own actions what he affirms. What then is that which he means? Or will ye that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage. So great power hath the devil over the souls of careless sinners. Then being called to account, they allege this expression, saying that even the Apostle hath said, “They who are baptized for the dead.”

haywardfamily.org/ccel/fa…#P2004_1215726

The Marcionite heresy included this practice which Chrysostom obviously condemns.

I know you are not used to thinking this way, but the existence of a heresy indicates that some concept is currently believed at that time in the early church. The way that the Marcionites did it is obviously wrong, but they GOT THE IDEA FROM A TRADITION WHICH WAS ALREADY LOST and passed down incorrectly.

I don’t claim to be a scholar on this issue. But that is not the point of the thread anyway.

I think I have demonstrated that there is at least one other way in which the “gates of hell” prophecy can reasonably be interpreted.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well the practice is not based on that at all. It is based on revelations to Joseph Smith. But that passage is ONE evidence of the practice in early christianity, and there are others.

There are a few other citations that show this, but I will supply you with the easiest obtainable internet evidence, but here is the quote from St. John
Chrysostom:
Homily XL.
1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 29Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead? if the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for the dead?

HE takes in hand again another topic, establishing what he said at one time from what God doeth, and at another from the very things which they practice. And this also is no small plea for the defence of any cause when a man brings forward the gainsayers themselves as witnessing by their own actions what he affirms. What then is that which he means? Or will ye that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage. So great power hath the devil over the souls of careless sinners. Then being called to account, they allege this expression, saying that even the Apostle hath said, “They who are baptized for the dead.”

haywardfamily.org/ccel/fa…#P2004_1215726

The Marcionite heresy included this practice which Chrysostom obviously condemns.

I know you are not used to thinking this way, but the existence of a heresy indicates that some concept is currently believed at that time in the early church. The way that the Marcionites did it is obviously wrong, but they GOT THE IDEA FROM A TRADITION WHICH WAS ALREADY LOST and passed down incorrectly.

I don’t claim to be a scholar on this issue. But that is not the point of the thread anyway.

I think I have demonstrated that there is at least one other way in which the “gates of hell” prophecy can reasonably be interpreted.

If it wasn’t for the Catholic Church there wouldn’t be a LDS church, nor all the other protestant churches. Who do you think kept Christianity alive for all the centuries before these renegade churches came into existence? True there have been bad people in the Catholic church’s heirarchy in the past, but for the most part, very good, intelligent, worthy popes and priests ran the Church and the gates of Hell could not and will not prevail against it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I know you are not used to thinking this way, but the existence of a heresy indicates that some concept is currently believed at that time in the early church. The way that the Marcionites did it is obviously wrong, but they GOT THE IDEA FROM A TRADITION WHICH WAS ALREADY LOST and passed down incorrectly.

Perhaps we can start with LDS schisms and tell you how the SLC version of Mormonism is in apostasy. I think those who practice polygamy believe SLC lost it’s authority. Those who didn’t follow Brigham Young, they don’t believe SLC has any authority.

Yet, you believe SLC is it. This is how it is with Catholicism. No one who is a Catholic believes that a heresy practiced is any indication the heretics were anything but heretical.

Perhaps you aren’t used to thinking that way…you know, that the Catholic church never fell into apostasy. Scary proposition for anyone who holds to restorationist ideas. Makes your religion irrelevant.

 

[mfbukowski]

Here, try this link. It explains the whole thing!

answers.org/bible/gatesofhell.html

I am really really really glad you posted this because it represents the protestant point of view.

answers.org/bible/gatesofhell.html

Notice that it is basically what I posted originally, about the gates being defensive.:

**" To focus on the stability of the church at the expense of ignoring the fragile and transitory power of evil (symbolized here by Hades, the kingdom of death) is to miss a bold promise from our Lord. Let’s think about this for a minute. There are many items one might use in battle: swords, catapults, missiles, gates, tanks, moats, etc. Some are offensive weapons: used primarily to attack one’s enemy. Some are defensive weapons: used to defend oneself from an enemy’s attack. Swords are examples of offensive weapons. Moats are examples of defensive weapons. Now, what kind of weapon is a gate? As a part of a wall, it is primarily a defensive weapon (even though it can be opened to let out offensive forces). A gate keeps attackers out of one’s fortress. So, if the gates of Hades or hell cannot prevail against the church, that must mean that the church will mount a successful offense against the powers of evil. J. P. Lange notes that the commentator Meyer understands this sense, “the superiority of the Church over hades, without any allusion to an attack on the part of hades” (The Gospel According to Matthew, 298). In other words, when the gates “will not prevail,” that means that the church, in effect, knocks down the gates.

      There are at least two senses in which the church overcomes evil: the resurrection of Christ from the dead (hades), and the promulgation of the gospel in the world, converting men from the kingdom of the devil to the kingdom of God."**

This is pretty close to my point-- I would argue a third way that the church overcomes hades- work for the dead.

So I guess the Mormon position is related to the protestant position in point of view – but we add to the interpretation the work for the dead.

The article goes on to say:

**"Now let’s take a fresh look at Matthew 16:18: “and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” We can go confidently into the world with the message of the gospel, knowing that the power of the resurrected Christ goes with us – and that there is no one who is so trapped by the power of the devil that the power of the gospel cannot reach that person with God’s grace and mercy. To the contrary, everywhere the gospel is preached the church triumphs over evil, the kingdom expands and evil retreats. We can join with the apostle John in rejoicing over the final fulfillment revealed to him:

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev. 21:2-4)."**

]

I think this is an excellent point, thanks very much.

Of course it does not support the Catholic interpetation of the “gates of hell” prophecy supporting apostolic succession.

Which of course supports the protestant pov nicely.

Which answers THAT question.

 

[mfbukowski]

If it wasn’t for the Catholic Church there wouldn’t be a LDS church, nor all the other protestant churches.

True. If there had not been an apostasy, there would be no need for a restoration.

 

[RebeccaJ]

True. If there had not been an apostasy, there would be no need for a restoration.

You’re roaming into intellectual dishonesty.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I am really really really glad you posted this because it represents the protestant point of view.

answers.org/bible/gatesofhell.html

Notice that it is basically what I posted originally, about the gates being defensive.:

This is pretty close to my point-- I would argue a third way that the church overcomes hades- work for the dead.

So I guess the Mormon position is related to the protestant position in point of view – but we add to the interpretation the work for the dead.

The article goes on to say:

]

I think this is an excellent point, thanks very much.

Of course it does not support the Catholic interpetation of the “gates of hell” prophecy supporting apostolic succession.

Which of course supports the protestant pov nicely.

Which answers THAT question.

Glad I could help you out!

To tell you the truth, I don’t think there is that much difference, philosophically speaking between Christian religions. You focus too much on the succession aspect. The Catholic church is very much like the Lutheran church except for belief in the Pope and transubstantiation of the eucharist. We even use the same liturgy, and other Protestant churches do too, such as Anglicans. Catholics believe that faith in Jesus saves and that by his grace alone we are saved. Just remember where the whole thing started, and if there wasn’t a Catholic Church there would not be any other Christian churches today.

 

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps we can start with LDS schisms and tell you how the SLC version of Mormonism is in apostasy. I think those who practice polygamy believe SLC lost it’s authority. Those who didn’t follow Brigham Young, they don’t believe SLC has any authority.

Yet, you believe SLC is it. This is how it is with Catholicism. No one who is a Catholic believes that a heresy practiced is any indication the heretics were anything but heretical.

Perhaps you aren’t used to thinking that way…you know, that the Catholic church never fell into apostasy. Scary proposition for anyone who holds to restorationist ideas. Makes your religion irrelevant.

First of all, that FOCA thing is scary. Thanks for pointing it out. Another thing we can agree on and work toward, now that the prop 8 thing is at least on the back burner until the judges decide they are legislators again.

Interesting post, and yes, I haven’t thought of it that way.

But the historical analogy doesn’t fit. If I were to say that Mormons never practiced polygamy and you showed me a historical apostate group that did, THEN the analogy would have relevance.

The fact that we have apostates doesn’t prove that you don’t!

I think the polygamist angle is more like your “traditional catholics” schism. It’s happening now, and both groups believe they have valid priesthood.

 

[mfbukowski]

Glad I could help you out!

To tell you the truth, I don’t think there is that much difference, philosophically speaking between Christian religions. You focus too much on the succession aspect. The Catholic church is very much like the Lutheran church except for belief in the Pope and transubstantiation of the eucharist. We even use the same liturgy, and other Protestant churches do too, such as Anglicans. Catholics believe that faith in Jesus saves and that by his grace alone we are saved. Just remember where the whole thing started, and if there wasn’t a Catholic Church there would not be any other Christian churches today.

Well I would tend to agree with you especially when it comes to worship and the experience of it all. All I guess I would change in your comment is to make it “christian church” instead of “catholic”. Believe it or not, Mormons also believe that we are saved by grace-- we could never do it on our own. The spirit of Christ I am convinced is with us all. Noticed from your profile you a financial person and so am I so we probably tend more toward the pragmatic side of the fence than others. If it works, it works!

 

[RebeccaJ]

First of all, that FOCA thing is scary. Thanks for pointing it out. Another thing we can agree on and work toward, now that the prop 8 thing is at least on the back burner until the judges decide they are legislators again.

no problemo

Interesting post, and yes, I haven’t thought of it that way.

But the historical analogy doesn’t fit. If I were to say that Mormons never practiced polygamy and you showed me a historical apostate group that did, THEN the analogy would have relevance.

Let’s make a list of all the things that Mormons believed or practiced that “were never doctrine”. Or, they only believe/do that in Utah.

The fact that we have apostates doesn’t prove that you don’t!

hi, you’re a Catholic apostate. I’m a mormon apostate. I suppose we’ll meet in hell, or outerdarkness.

I think the polygamist angle is more like your “traditional catholics” schism. It’s happening now, and both groups believe they have valid priesthood.

Yes, it is a good example of schism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think I have demonstrated that there is at least one other way in which the “gates of hell” prophecy can reasonably be interpreted.

And any Catholic would agree. The Bishop of Rome is given a charism, a gift of the Holy Spirit, that only he has. While Mormons teach and believe that the Catholic church has no revelation, we do. How do you think the Pope is guided?

Where we differ is that we don’t believe any Revelation can contradict, remove, or add to the Perfect Revelation, which is Jesus Christ Himself.

Baptism for the dead is an addition, that arose, it was never taught. It was never given to the Church by Christ, who is our prophet, priest and king.

 

[mfbukowski]

And any Catholic would agree. The Bishop of Rome is given a charism, a gift of the Holy Spirit, that only he has. While Mormons teach and believe that the Catholic church has no revelation, we do. How do you think the Pope is guided?

Where we differ is that we don’t believe any Revelation can contradict, remove, or add to the Perfect Revelation, which is Jesus Christ Himself.

Baptism for the dead is an addition, that arose, it was never taught. It was never given to the Church by Christ, who is our prophet, priest and king.

If you stick an “IMO” in there someplace, I would totally agree.

I still wonder how you interpret that one verse in 1Peter 4

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca Rebecca. I know you are a sincere seeker of truth because I have felt your spirit. But if I had not known that at this point I would think you have gone for the dark side. It seems like you are deliberately distorting here.

Well bukowski I am just a person who has spent too much time on dark things. Which includes Mormonism. I can fall into darkness of nothing on a whim, but I have made the choice to not be there.

If you feel a spirit of truth it comes from God, not me.

First, I cited two verses. Maybe that was not clear from the way the citation was made. Your point about baptism is a distortion of the verse. YES it is talking about those who were saved in Noah’s time. But the line about baptism is totally about something else.

I’ll even use your translation:

“20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. 21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”

WHAT is the “THIS” which prefigured baptism?

The ark, in which people were saved BY WATER

This has nothing to do with work for the dead, but it is about baptism

Yes, I agree. There are other examples that prefigure baptism. Does not change what I said.

I cited the scripture to show that the gospel was preached to the dead. You have correctly pointed out that the scripture is about those who died in old testament times. BUT IT STILL SHOWS THAT THE GOSPEL WAS PREACHED TO THE DEAD and your emphasis of the baptism part has nothing to do with that.

Yes, I think all Christians agree that Jesus descended into hell. Which, was part of His ministry. Again, never did Christ teach, in any of the NT or in anywhere found in the writings of early Christians, that people needed to be baptized for the souls of the dead.

Secondly, I posted another reference, which is in the chapter following this one, 1 Peter 4.

I will use your translation, which I think is clearer than the KJV:

**1 Peter
Chapter 4
1
1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same attitude (for whoever suffers in the flesh has broken with sin),
2
so as not to spend what remains of one’s life in the flesh on human desires, but on the will of God.
3
For the time that has passed is sufficient for doing what the Gentiles like to do: living in debauchery, evil desires, drunkenness, orgies, carousing, and wanton idolatry.
4
They are surprised that you do not plunge into the same swamp of profligacy, and they vilify you;
5
but they will give an account to him who stands ready to judge the living and the dead.
6
For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead 2 that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit in the estimation of God. **

You need to understand the meaning of the fall. Mormons don’t.

Without the sacrifice of Jesus we were condemned. Now, we are not.

Note verse 6: For this is why the gospel was PREACHED TO THE DEAD 2

See that foot note 2?

If you go to that footnote IN YOUR BIBLE it says the following:

2 [6] The dead: these may be the sinners of the flood generation who are possibly referred to in 1 Peter 3:19. But many scholars think that there is no connection between these two verses, and that the dead here are Christians who have died since hearing the preaching of the gospel.

usccb.org/nab/bible/1peter/1peter4.htm#foot2

The gospel was preached to the dead, despite the gates of hades, which did not prevail against the church preaching the gospel there. Even though much has been lost from the bible there are still hints of the truth that did not get removed.

Christ taught the dead. He broke the chains of death. He did not give this power, or as Mormons call it authority, to St. Peter.

Even though, as you point out incessantly, it is a “Catholic Book”

Another fragment is 1 Corinthians 15:29:

29
13 14 Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?

I like your translation better than ours. Go ahead and look at your own foot notes too. It says that Paul is listing “logical inconsistencies” in #13, but I don’t see any in the text.

This of course is a fragment of a fractured bible which shows that there were ordinances performed for the dead as well.

The gospel was preached to the dead, and the gates of hades did not prevail against the church doing so.

This is all just opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

See this is the way it works: If the church was apostate, the scriptures were at least partially apostate. That is why we believe the bible is true “insofar as it is translated correctly”. I have shown a couple of biblical fragments which prove that Jesus taught that the gospel was preached to the dead, and another fragment which refers to a practice, baptism for the dead.

And no one has answered me on those issues.

The scripture that mentions the “keys to hell” is the scripture this thread is about.

No it does not SAY the KEYS to HELL but it says that the GATES will not prevail because the church has the ability to crash those gates with its “KEYS”

Got that?

Have you not read the thread?

I am saying that the keys of hell were given to the church (Peter) so that the GATES OF HELL WOULD NOT PREVAIL AGAINST THE CHURCH’S KEYS TO THE GATES.

Dang. Are you not listening or what??? It seems like you just go on posting regardless of whether or not your comments are relevant to the discussion.

Why do you do this? When you bring up something someone has never heard of and if they persist on trying to understand what you’re saying, you become condescending and start a personal attack. This is the main reason everyone does not believe you don’t have an agenda to seek converts. What other reason would there be to continue these type arguments and strategies in discussions?

I’ve never heard of anyone believing there were “keys to hell/hades”. You kept bringing it up with your simplistic accusation of “no keys, no Church”. Now you explain that if the Church was apostate, the scriptures are partially apostate. Are you suggesting scriptures about the keys to hell/hades was removed? If so, please explain how someone 1800 years later knew it had been removed.

As for your private interpretations of “fragments” of scriptures, as you call them, it appears now it’s more than out of context but stretched to the limits to support your position. In other words, you read gates of hell and assume there must of been keys. Christ specifically said the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. In my opinion, Christ knowing all things, would have certainly said keys to heaven and hell, had He meant it to be so.

Now you have specifically stated it shows, without providing the scriptures. Provide the scriptures where it says, "…but it says that the GATES will not prevail because the church has the ability to crash those gates with its “KEYS”.

I am reposting the scriptures, which I have underlined for emphasis. Christ says He will built His Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Then He goes on to say, “AND I will give to thee the keys to the kingdom of Heaven”.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Again, I address your condescending attitude. Yes, I’ve read the thread and no I don’t “GOT IT” yet. I’ve never heard of this stuff you’re talking about and only asked a question. Since you ignored my question, I repeated it…three times before you responded with your attitude.

In fact, you ignore many positions presented and keep throwing out the same accusations, without any supporting sources other than you have the ability to keep repeating it.

I have tried to address every issue you bring up, but you seem to be above returning the same courtesy. Instead you change the subject at your leisure and have pushed more than one poster in this thread to stay on the topic of gates of hell. Now you demand we address whatever subject you want to change too.

 

[Snow]

If the church fell into apostacy almost immediately, why is that so many mormons like to use quotes from theological texts by the early CHURCH fathers to prove their cases?

I suppose they think that it helps to demonstrate the similarities between their beliefs and ancient beliefs. Have you asked them yourself? That way you wouldn’t have to guess.

What was the purpose of even having apostles, or appointing ANY authority, if pretty much the minute Jesus left everything was shot to the netherworld er… I mean not shot to the netherworld but 'waiting for restoration" ?

Just because authority wouldn’t long endure doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be authority, does it? You confess your sins, I assume, and seek forgiveness, but then you turn around and sin again. That your state of forgiveness is not permanent doesn’t change the need to repent. Same think I think. Christ appointed apostles because he had a work for them. That there work was going to be interrupted doesn’t change that they still had work to do.

And why would He bother instituting an authority on Peter, the Rock… knowing it wouldn’t last more than a year without giving the church prophets until after 1800???

Of course I don’t believe that Christ founded his Church upon the “rock” of Peter. He founded it, I believe, upon the rock of revelation. That rock still exists today.

Why bother asking peter and the apostles to “feed my sheep” if He really knew they would just let the sheep starve?

The message was timeless and applies to us today, just as it did then. You appear to believe that unless something is permanent, God wouldn’t do it. I disagree.

Why would God ever let the church fall into apostacy? Was the early church so corrupt, so close to Christ’s time? If we could not even tend to the sheep when the good shepherd was still so near, why would everything suddenly be so “clear” 1830 years later?

1. You seem angry. Are you?
2. You keep asking the same question over and over again. Why?

And if the church was truly “restored” and you like to use the “earch church fathers” as examples of the basis for your restoration, why does NOTHING in the LDS church resemble what the ECF believed?

I can’t help you there. The question is based upon a false premise. Try again.

 

[Snow]

your entire religion is based on this “nothing argument”

Hi Rebecca,

Still working those insults. Bully for you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

Still working those insults. Bully for you.

hi snow still being an arrogant ***? bully for you.

 

[mfbukowski]

Why do you do this? When you bring up something someone has never heard of and if they persist on trying to understand what you’re saying, you become condescending and start a personal attack. This is the main reason everyone does not believe you don’t have an agenda to seek converts. What other reason would there be to continue these type arguments and strategies in discussions?:

My presumption is that you (plural) are aquainted with Mormon Doctrine. Why would you attack something that you “have never heard of”?

It would be like me going on a Hindu website and saying – “ha ha you guys are all dummies because you’re polytheists” when I have no clue what the discussion is all about. Why would you attack something you don’t understand?

I’ve never heard of anyone believing there were “keys to hell/hades”. You kept bringing it up with your simplistic accusation of “no keys, no Church”. Now you explain that if the Church was apostate, the scriptures are partially apostate. Are you suggesting scriptures about the keys to hell/hades was removed? If so, please explain how someone 1800 years later knew it had been removed.

There are some fragments which remain which I have quoted. Yes the rest was “removed” or lost.

Were you aware that Mormons believe that the church was restored and that we have a prophet? That is how someone 1800 years later knew what had been removed. I had thought you would be aware of this principle.

As for your private interpretations of “fragments” of scriptures, as you call them, it appears now it’s more than out of context but stretched to the limits to support your position. In other words, you read gates of hell and assume there must of been keys. Christ specifically said the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. In my opinion, Christ knowing all things, would have certainly said keys to heaven and hell, had He meant it to be so.

My interpretation is not “private”. It comes from the doctrine of the true church of Jesus Christ on the earth today. Christ did talk about the keys to hell when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church’s work.

Now you have specifically stated it shows, without providing the scriptures. Provide the scriptures where it says, "…but it says that the GATES will not prevail because the church has the ability to crash those gates with its “KEYS”.

It says that the gates would not prevail against the church. That is because the church has the keys.

Again, I address your condescending attitude. Yes, I’ve read the thread and no I don’t “GOT IT” yet. I’ve never heard of this stuff you’re talking about and only asked a question. Since you ignored my question, I repeated it…three times before you responded with your attitude.

In fact, you ignore many positions presented and keep throwing out the same accusations, without any supporting sources other than you have the ability to keep repeating it.

Again, my presumption is that you understand Mormon doctrine. Perhaps you should take the missionary discussions so that you do? I am sorry that you see my attitude as “condescending”.

I have tried to address every issue you bring up, but you seem to be above returning the same courtesy. Instead you change the subject at your leisure and have pushed more than one poster in this thread to stay on the topic of gates of hell. Now you demand we address whatever subject you want to change too.

The subject of the thread is the “gates of hell” prophecy. You seem to keep bringing up other subjects which I ignore. If you are not up to speed on the topic, don’t post.