"Gates of hell prevail" over EDS (Early Day Saints)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven_Merten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the Official Declaration #1 (concerning the abandonment of polygamy, in the explanitory notes):

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)” You can read it for yourself here.

It is interesting how this parallels, but is so profoundly different from, the concept of Papal Infallibility.
 
Hmm, from reading your post, CD, it has just occured to me that there is another aspect of the Great Apostacy Theory that I never approached before; the point of Repentance.

According to the GAT, there is no hope, as even in the OT there always was, that if the sinners (the Church) repent, God will return. The LDS do not assert a spiritual repentance during JS’s time, only that the political climate was ameniable to sustaining the restored church.

However, we have seen in history how the RCC has repented of its various sins; and so if it was the corruption of the church that led to the GA, then should not God have returned to the repentant church, rather than start a new one from scratch? But under the GAT, that is not even a possibility. Yet, God assures us His grace when we are repentant.

Now, as to the LDS going apostate; I think it is already being done. Already, the church is relying on apologists and scholars to redefine its clear teachings to make them more ameniable to potential converts, rather than censuring its members who are teaching for doctrine the philosophy of man, which is what they used to say caused the GA to begin with.

For example: according to the church website
“There are three separate persons in the Godhead: God, the Eternal Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost. We believe in each of them (A of F 1: 1). From latter-day revelation we learn that the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone and that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, without flesh and bone (D&C 130: 22-23). These three persons are one in perfect unity and harmony of purpose and doctrine (John 17: 21-23; 2 Ne. 31: 21; 3 Ne. 11: 27, 36).”

However, certain apologists, such as Brant Gardner (correct me if I am wrong in this, TOm) within the church are attempting to redefine this plain polytheism for a form of monotheism, and thereby circumvent the “plain and precious truths” of the Restored Gospel through the very same philosophical reasoning/wrangling that the ECF’s used in causing the GA to begin with. Of course, they certainly don’t see it as such, but are following their own inspiration and belief to try and enlighten the ‘lesser’ or erroneous teachings of the church…

So, either these apologists are leading the new church into the same apostacy that the ECFs did with the RCC, utilizing the exact same methods; or the inspired guidance method of the ECF’s was not as faulty as proclaimed,and the apostacy not so certain. Either way, the apologists lose; though the church itself can survive under option one.
 
However, we have seen in history how the RCC has repented of its various sins; and so if it was the corruption of the church that led to the GA, then should not God have returned to the repentant church, rather than start a new one from scratch? But under the GAT, that is not even a possibility. Yet, God assures us His grace when we are repentant.
Click to expand...
The RCC has gone off-course many times in its history. However, there have always remained people in the church who have had the courage, through the Holy Spirit, to speak up and help the Church make a course correction. God’s grace has continued throughout the Church’s history-- the course corrections are a VALIDATION of the church.

I am of the belief that LDS is too divergent from Christianity, has too many problems at the core of its existance, and has not addressed these problems for too long, for it to have any hope of surviving. I refuse to put that judgment on the Communities of Christ (RLDS). There is some hope there, I think.

My opinion is that the lack of communication with, and rejection of other denominations has been primarily responsible for the massive divergence from Christian beliefs.
 
Now, as to the LDS going apostate; I think it is already being done. Already, the church is relying on apologists and scholars to redefine its clear teachings to make them more ameniable to potential converts, rather than censuring its members who are teaching for doctrine the philosophy of man, which is what they used to say caused the GA to begin with.
Click to expand...
If LDS goes apostate to itself (peculiar idea), then let it. There are too many people there who are too dedicated to the social structure of the church for people to leave in massive numbers. I can see individual wards and stakes changing hierarchial allegance-- for example.
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
The more I think about Matthew 16:18 the more I see it as a pro-LDS scripture. Here are the words of a Catholic Scholar.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Hi Tom,

In Matthew 16 the Greek ‘Hades’ not ‘Thanatos’ is used. Clearly by using Hades the Gospel is referring to the Devil and his realm. It is saying that the Devil will not overcome the Church. We see this amplified in 1st Tim 3:15 “the Church is the House of the Living God, “the pillar and ground of the truth”. Mar 3:27 tells us “No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.” Who is stronger the devil or God?

This understanding that Mathew 16 “The gates of Hell (Gr Hades)” is the realm of the Devil, is clearly the view of the Mormon Church

David B. Haight of the Council of the Twelve “He is the Son of God” Ensign May 1976 20 (Matt 16-19),
"That Christ promised the Church would be unconquered by all powers of hell
The relevant words here are “unconquered by all powers of hell.” The Mormon Church teaches that the word hell is used to refer to outer darkness, which is the dwelling place of the devil, his angels, and the sons of perdition (see D&C 29:36-38 D&C 76:28-33).

In regards your position that Matthew 16-19 can be interpretated as the Church apostatised for 1700 years but God triumphed when it was restored. Accepting your argument of a total apostasy it cannot be denied for 1700 evil did overcome the Church, which clearly negates Christ promises to His Church

James A Carver, instructor at the University of Washington Institute of religion Questions and Answers Tambuli Oct.-Nov 1986 24 (Matt 16-19), (quoting McConkie, commentary 1:389) “The Church itself will remain pure and undefiled and secure against all evils” Plainly if one was to accept the Mormon position of a total apostacy for 1700 it was defiled.

Also the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus will be always with the church even until the end of the world, and not until an end of a dispensation, (as some in the Mormon Church claim).

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt 28:19-20).Thomas S. Monson, “Tears, Trials, Trust, Testimony,” *Ensign, *May 1987, 42

‘Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matt 28:18-20.)Spencer W. Kimball, “When the World Will Be Converted,” Ensign, Oct. 1974, 3

Elder Robert L. Backman*, **Of the Presidency of the Seventy *“As the resurrected Saviour met on a mountain near Galilee with his apostles for the last time before ascending into heaven, he assured them that although he would return, through his Spirit he would never leave them. He said, “Lo, I am with you alway; even unto the end of the world.” (Matt 28:20) Ensign, Nov. 1991,

If Christ is always with His Church then how could there be a total apostasy?

Pax

Brian
 
Steven Merten:
I have an LDS friend who told me how Jews, Marooni or some name like that, came to the Americas in 200 BC. According to my friend, they believe that Jesus came and started the Mormon church in this Jewish community in America soon after His death and ressurection. Then the EDS (Early Day Saints) Mormons all became evil and the church, they claim to be Christ’s church, died out for 1800 years until Joseph Smith.

Jesus assures us that the “gates of hell” will not prevail over His Church. Do the Mormon’s agree that their church is not Christ’s Church otherwise the gates of hell would not have prevailed over it for 1800 years? Why do they refer to their church as “of Jesus Christ”?
Click to expand...
There are additional difficulties for Mormons (from an article by Tim Staples):

…But maybe the most important passage for us in Ephesians is 3:20-21:

‘Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.’

“This Church that St. Paul is describing in Ephesians will be here to all generations (pasas tas geneas, ‘all the generations’) forever and ever. This eliminates the possibility of a total apostasy for even one generation!”

At this point, Elder Smith says it’s time for them to get going, but that they’d like to come back with someone who would be better able to respond to what you’re saying. You realize you may well be making progress, so you agree and you give them one last thing to think about. As you all say your good-byes, you ask them this question:

“According to Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus gives us a commandment. He says if we have a difficulty with a brother, we try and settle the difficulty with him personally. If we can’t settle it, we take two or three with us and try to work it out then. Let’s say the difficulty we have with our brother is over the nature of God. The question is whether or not God is a Trinity. If we still cannot settle the difficulty, we ‘tell it to the Church.’ If he fails to listen to the Church, he is to be excommunicated. The question is, what Church is being referred to here?”

Elder Smith responds without pause, “Jesus is talking about the true Church, which I testify to you is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

You answer, “But what if you’re living in 1785, and you have this same difficulty? In obedience to Jesus, where do you go then? Your church doesn’t exist yet.”…

source: geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplesnogreatapostasy.html
 
And where is there any archaeological evidence for these civilizations? Appearently with swords and shields and technology not held by the Indians we’ve found so far? Or, for that matter, any archeological evidence for anything resembling Jewish or Christian religion amongst the peoples of this land before the Europeans came. 🤷
 
Matariel said:
And where is there any archaeological evidence for these civilizations? Appearently with swords and shields and technology not held by the Indians we’ve found so far? Or, for that matter, any archeological evidence for anything resembling Jewish or Christian religion amongst the peoples of this land before the Europeans came. 🤷
Click to expand...
Hi Matariel,

The evidence may not be enough for you, but if you want to know what kinds of physical and documentary evidence the LDS point to in support of the Book of Mormon, this website is a pretty good summary. Make sure to follow the links to his “Book of Mormon Evidences” and “Objections to the Book of Mormon” pages.
 
BDawg said:
Hi Matariel,

The evidence may not be enough for you, but if you want to know what kinds of physical and documentary evidence the LDS point to in support of the Book of Mormon, this website is a pretty good summary. Make sure to follow the links to his “Book of Mormon Evidences” and “Objections to the Book of Mormon” pages.
Click to expand...
Interesting… but is this archeological research accepted in mainstream archeology and non-Mormon research?
 
Matariel said:
Interesting… but is this archeological research accepted in mainstream archeology and non-Mormon research?
Click to expand...
Why don’t you read it and make your own decisions about how credible it is? The thrust is not that non-Mormon archaeologists have come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon civilizations existed and are now converting by the dozens. Rather, it is a collection of credible facts, etc., mainly from non-Mormon sources, that are increasingly harder to explain away. Will it be enough for you? Maybe not. And the site isn’t written from the POV that the author is trying to “prove” the Book of Mormon absolutely, so you don’t need to be uncomfortable about that. He readily admits that some aspects of the Book of Mormon narrative have been confirmed, while others have not.

The idea that we should expect a bunch of non-Mormon archaeologists to come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon civilizations were real is ridiculous, even if the civilizations did exist. Some Christian scientists write books about how science supports their religious beliefs in some respects. They use the work of non-Christian (even atheist) scientists to support their argument, and yet, those atheist scientists naturally don’t agree with the conclusions of these Christians who use their work. Should people who are interested in science-religion issues wait until all the “experts” agree on the ultimate meaning of their work to make any decisions?
 
TOmNossor said:
I do not see were anyone has suggested that Christ lied. I suggest that the Magisterium and the post 400AD Catholics who use Matthew 16:18 to show that the Catholic Church will continue are mistaken (I would not suggest they lie). When one leans upon an apostate authority to understand God’s word, one may be exposed to error. But, I think it is silly to suggest that LDS claim Christ lied.

Interestingly enough I present a Catholic scholar who agrees with me.

Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Thank God the Catholic Church does not consider any “scholar”, Catholic or otherwise, infallible.
 
BJ_Colbert said:
Actually, God was not repeating to Joseph Smith,(Joseph only translated it) God was telling the people in the New World at the same time as He was telling the people of the Old World what he wanted them to know. He wants all of his people to follow the same rules and since they don’t always obey, he reminds them over and over again. See how often he repeats things in the Bible? The people on the American Continent needed to hear from God, just as the people on the European Continent heard from him.
Did you read where they are excavating a village from around 600 BC near Merida, Yucatan, Mexico? Interesting…Huh.
Not nice to say the things you said above about Joseph, what anti-mormon site did you find those things on. I have not said anything near to maligning your faith as you have mine. I have read every word to my husband and he is appalled at your words and can not see what you are so outraged about. You are starting to make him question the Catholic faith, and that is really something because he is the most devout Catholic I know. What is your purpose with the hateful posting?
:confused: BJ
Click to expand...
The only thing “untruthful” about the charges about Joseph Smith jr was the sequence of events. That’s not hate (at most, one shouldnt acertain deep motives that are hidden from us) that’s history. JSjr WAS a “fortune-seeker”, a varient of divination conman, who claimed that Moroni gave him some gold plates, which he translated by peering at a stone stuck in his hat, etc, etc…
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
The only thing “untruthful” about the charges about Joseph Smith jr was the sequence of events. That’s not hate (at most, one shouldnt acertain deep motives that are hidden from us) that’s history. JSjr WAS a “fortune-seeker”, a varient of divination conman, who claimed that Moroni gave him some gold plates, which he translated by peering at a stone stuck in his hat, etc, etc…
Click to expand...
It should be noted that this thread is about 3 years old, so if you are responding to old posts on the thread, the posters might be long gone.
 
BDawg said:
Why don’t you read it and make your own decisions about how credible it is? The thrust is not that non-Mormon archaeologists have come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon civilizations existed and are now converting by the dozens. Rather, it is a collection of credible facts, etc., mainly from non-Mormon sources, that are increasingly harder to explain away. Will it be enough for you? Maybe not. And the site isn’t written from the POV that the author is trying to “prove” the Book of Mormon absolutely, so you don’t need to be uncomfortable about that. He readily admits that some aspects of the Book of Mormon narrative have been confirmed, while others have not.

The idea that we should expect a bunch of non-Mormon archaeologists to come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon civilizations were real is ridiculous, even if the civilizations did exist. Some Christian scientists write books about how science supports their religious beliefs in some respects. They use the work of non-Christian (even atheist) scientists to support their argument, and yet, those atheist scientists naturally don’t agree with the conclusions of these Christians who use their work. Should people who are interested in science-religion issues wait until all the “experts” agree on the ultimate meaning of their work to make any decisions?
Click to expand...
No, I keep an open mind. I am actually very intrigued by it. I shall look into it further.
 
BJ_Colbert said:
. Jesus did appear soon after his death to the people on this hemisphere. When he returned to the apostles and they asked him where he had been. He said"know ye not that I have other sheep?" 🙂 BJ
Click to expand...
Heh. A Deity that cant manifest in two places at the same time!
 
Matariel said:
Interesting… but is this archeological research accepted in mainstream archeology and non-Mormon research?
Click to expand...
In short, no.

There are Mormon archeologists–in fact, back when I was a lad in 1969, the first Mormon I met was the son of one such.

They tend to publish their pro-Mormon pieces in “friendly” journals–like FARMS, etc…

But explicit papers supporting the BoM’s claims, read before non-Mormon collegues, try to publish in non LDS journals?–nope, they don’t even try.

They know they cant stand peer review of JSjr’s ludicrous claims
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top