Mormons: Doesn't the Great Apostasy theory teach that the gates of Hell did prevail?

[Holly3278]

Hi Mormons. Doesn’t the Great Apostasy theory teach that the gates of Hell did prevail against the Church?

(Matthew 16:18 DRB) 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.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Mormons. Doesn’t the Great Apostasy theory teach that the gates of Hell did prevail against the Church?

(Matthew 16:18 DRB) 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.

Holly3278,
The final “it” in that sentence may seem to logically refer back to the word “church” which means “congregation of followers”, but it may also refer back to the word “rock” which means Christ as Peter taught in his epistle. The intent seems clearly to be describing a quality of the foundation of the church, which foundation has always been seen from the Old Testament and the New Testament to be Jesus Christ–He is the foundation. The powers of darkness have never and will never prevail against the sure foundation, who is and will always be Jesus Christ.

 

[BrianH]

Ok.
I can see that Parker.
On another note, what does the “gates of hell” mean? Its so open to interpretation.

 

[Holly3278]

Holly3278,
The final “it” in that sentence may seem to logically refer back to the word “church” which means “congregation of followers”, but it may also refer back to the word “rock” which means Christ as Peter taught in his epistle. The intent seems clearly to be describing a quality of the foundation of the church, which foundation has always been seen from the Old Testament and the New Testament to be Jesus Christ–He is the foundation. The powers of darkness have never and will never prevail against the sure foundation, who is and will always be Jesus Christ.

Interesting interpretation ParkerD. Thank you.

 

[ParkerD]

Ok.
I can see that Parker.
On another note, what does the “gates of hell” mean? Its so open to interpretation.

BrianH,
If one looks at Revelation 1:17-18 and Revelation 3:7 and also Isaiah 22:22, then one can see a parallel between keys and a gate that would have the possibility of being opened or shut, and only the key of David will open that gate; Christ is the One who “hath the key of David,” so He and He alone is the One who prevails in opening or shutting the gates of hell, as the case may be–because He suffered the pains of death and of hell, and was conqueror. He will let the prisoners out of their “prison” by opening the gates of the “prison” as Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 61:1 and as Christ declared in the Jewish synagogue when He began His ministry. This happens both spiritually on earth for those who repent of their sins, and with other means of rescue that He will accomplish before the end of the Millenium for those who need rescue from hell and are willing to be rescued through their repentance and asking for forgiveness after they have suffered for a very long time (much better to be rescued here on earth, through the power of our Redeemer). (See also Revelation 20.)

All the best to you, Brian.

 

[TheosisM]

Ok.
I can see that Parker.
On another note, what does the “gates of hell” mean? Its so open to interpretation.

remembering that “hell” is actually “hades”, and not the eternal Hell (Gehenna) in this case. The New American Bible (Catholic) says “gates of the netherworld”, the NIV says “gates of hades”, the KJV says “gates of Hell”, etc.

 

[Answersplease]

(Matthew 16:18 DRB) 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.

Holly3278,
The final “it” in that sentence may seem to logically refer back to the word “church” which means “congregation of followers”, but it may also refer back to the word “rock” which means Christ as Peter taught in his epistle. The intent seems clearly to be describing a quality of the foundation of the church, which foundation has always been seen from the Old Testament and the New Testament to be Jesus Christ–He is the foundation. The powers of darkness have never and will never prevail against the sure foundation, who is and will always be Jesus Christ.

Use a little grammar and a little unbiased analysis. Find the subject of the sentence.

Is the subject rock OR church?

upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

We have two contenders for the subject as posed by ParkerD.

To find the correct subject, lets remove one of the contenders and then see if the sentence still makes sense.

I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Yay!!! The sentence still makes sense when you remove “rock” and keep “church”!

Lets try it the other way and remove “church” and keep “rock”.

upon this rock , and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Awww!!! The sentence doesn’t make sense anymore!!! ← (see my sad face, Awww)

Obviously the word “it” refers to the “church” and not the “rock”.

See what a little unbiased analysis can do ParkerD.

Now on to a different topic, lets see who the “rock” is.

Is the “rock” being referred to Peter OR Jesus Christ.

This time we have to look at the whole verse, instead of just one sentence in it.

(Matthew 16:18 DRB) 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.

But again we have two contenders according to some apologists for who the “rock” is, Peter or Jesus Christ.

Again lets remove one of the contenders and then see if the entire verse still makes sense.

thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Yay!!! The verse still makes sense!

Now lets try it the other way and remove the other contender instead.

And I say to thee: That ; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Awww!!! The verse doesn’t make sense anymore! <-(sad face again, Awww)

Obviously the “rock” refers to Peter.

But you say: isn’t Jesus supposed to be the Rock? How can Peter be the rock if Jesus is supposed to be the Rock?

Well I say: why can’t there be two rocks, a big Rock and a small rock?

After all Peter’s original name was Simon and Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Peter”, and “Peter” means “rock”.

 

[Nine_Two]

Holly3278,
The final “it” in that sentence may seem to logically refer back to the word “church” which means “congregation of followers”, but it may also refer back to the word “rock” which means Christ as Peter taught in his epistle. The intent seems clearly to be describing a quality of the foundation of the church, which foundation has always been seen from the Old Testament and the New Testament to be Jesus Christ–He is the foundation. The powers of darkness have never and will never prevail against the sure foundation, who is and will always be Jesus Christ.

You are correct, the Greek is quite clear that “it” means the rock. “It” is in the feminine, while the only other noun in the sentence which is feminine is petra, meaning that they have to go together.

However even with that interpretation it begs the question, did the Gates of Hell prevail for a time if the Light of Christ could disappear for houndreds of years?

 

[ParkerD]

Interesting interpretation ParkerD. Thank you.

Holly3278,
I want to thank you for your kindness here, even the smile which I appreciated more than you know. I hope you won’t mind if I go ahead and respond to Answersplease who certainly hasn’t followed your kind example but I suppose maybe someone can glean a meaning from looking at the questions brought up and the answers to those questions.

 

[ParkerD]

Answersplease,
Here we go with looking at what you brought up:

Use a little grammar and a little unbiased analysis. Find the subject of the sentence.

Is the subject rock OR church?
Quote:
upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
We have two contenders for the subject as posed by ParkerD.

To find the correct subject, lets remove one of the contenders and then see if the sentence still makes sense.
Quote:
I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Yay!!! The sentence still makes sense when you remove “rock” and keep “church”!

Lets try it the other way and remove “church” and keep “rock”.
Quote:
upon this rock , and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Awww!!! The sentence doesn’t make sense anymore!!! ← (see my sad face, Awww)

Obviously the word “it” refers to the “church” and not the “rock”.

See what a little unbiased analysis can do ParkerD.

Now on to a different topic, lets see who the “rock” is.

Is the “rock” being referred to Peter OR Jesus Christ.

This time we have to look at the whole verse, instead of just one sentence in it.
Quote:
(Matthew 16:18 DRB) 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.
But again we have two contenders according to some apologists for who the “rock” is, Peter or Jesus Christ.

Again lets remove one of the contenders and then see if the entire verse still makes sense.
Quote:
thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Yay!!! The verse still makes sense!

Now lets try it the other way and remove the other contender instead.
Quote:
And I say to thee: That upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Awww!!! The verse doesn’t make sense anymore! <-(sad face again, Awww)

Obviously the “rock” refers to Peter.

But you say: isn’t Jesus supposed to be the Rock? How can Peter be the rock if Jesus is supposed to be the Rock?

Well I say: why can’t there be two rocks, a big Rock and a small rock?

After all Peter’s original name was Simon and Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Peter”, and “Peter” means “rock”.

(1) Using English grammar, one needs to deal with the prepositions before one deals with figuring out the subject and the objects of prepositions. One does this be identifying the prepositions, which are “upon” and “of” and “against”.

Christ could have said, “I will build my church upon this rock” and that clarifies the subject without getting mixed up by the object of the preposition.

What is the subject of this sentence? The subject is “I”. Where is Christ going to “build [His] church”? We look at the prepositional phrase, and learn where He is going to build–“upon this rock”. What is Peter seeing in his mind’s eye at this point? He is seeing a rock that forms the foundation of Christ’s church on earth.

What does Peter later write about the foundation of Christ’s church on earth? Why, we find the answer to this in 1 Peter 2:6. The “chief corner stone” is Christ, “and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.” He does not say, “Christ made me the foundation of the church and he that believeth on me shall not be confounded.” He didn’t do that at all, nor ever implied that at all. He knew by revelation who was the foundation, and knew exactly what that meant.

“The gates of hell will not prevail against it” is a separate sentence that is added to the other sentence by a conjunction. The word “it” can be used because the hearer has formed a picture in their mind’s eye such that they can see (in their mind) a picture to which the word “it” refers. The picture is of a rock, with a congregation of believers built up “upon the rock”. The reason the congregation of believers are able to withstand the “gates of hell” is because they are built upon the rock, the foundation, who is Jesus Christ. If they were built on any other foundation, they would not have the same promise. The “gates of hell” will not prevail against anyone who builds their own foundation on the rock, Jesus Christ; and the rock itself will indeed prevail against the gates of hell because Jesus is the holder of the keys to the gates of hell–He and only He. (See Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 1:17-18 and Revelation 3:7). No man is the holder of the keys to the gates of hell. Peter is not the holder to those particular keys.

Peter had a rock-solid testimony of Christ because the Father had revealed knowledge to Peter about Whom Christ is. I have no problem with Peter being a “rock”, but he was not “the Rock”, and he knew it. His name was not “changed” to Peter, it was an added designation, thusly: “Simon Peter”.

 

[Answersplease]

Your analysis is very biased and you have not given any compelling reasons to support your position, ParkerD.

I clearly showed that the verse only makes sense a certain way, and it disproves your analysis.

Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, and the Apostles are the foundation.

All the stones in the foundation must line up with the Cheif Cornerstone.

Ephesians 2:19

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household,

Ephesians 2:20
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Revelation 21:14
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

The following sentence is a compound sentence:
“I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

In the first part: “I will build my church”, here the subject is " I ".

In the second part: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, here the subject is " gates".

Now lets talk about your claim, you say the word “it” refers to “rock”, so lets put more of the verse together and look at it:
“upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

In the above the " I " = Jesus Christ, since He is the person speaking.
Parker, you claim that the word “rock” = Jesus Christ also.
Therefore, according to you, " I " = “rock”.

So now lets look at the original verse, followed a different version of the verse that shows Parker’s claim of the “rock” being Jesus Christ.

Here is the original verse:

(Matthew 16:18 DRB)
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.

Here is a version of the verse that shows Parker’s claim: “rock” = Jesus Christ, so “rock” will be replaced with the word “myself”.
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon myself I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

With all your talk about prepositions and such, you still don’t address the FACT that the sentence

(Matthew 16:18 DRB) 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.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

Your analysis is very biased, ParkerD.

I clearly showed that the verse only makes sense a certain way, and it disproves your analysis.

ALSO

Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, and the Apostles are the foundation.

All the stones in the foundation must line up with the Chief Cornerstone.

Ephesians 2:19

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household,

Ephesians 2:20
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Revelation 21:14
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

(Matthew 16:18 DRB)
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.

PS.

That subtle bash you made about me supposedly being rude to you, doesn’t surprise me.
The following quotes show how you talk to people debate who you:

Kathleen Gee,
If one such as yourself…

Peary,
A church doesn’t offer salvation, which one such as yourself should know if you have read the Bible.

Xavierlives,
…if you’re saying the Bible doesn’t talk about keys and authority, then I question how much you have really read the Bible…

Your tone is VERY condescending Parker, as though you were superior and that you know everything.

You should look at your own behaviour and “take the plank out of your own eye” before you start criticizing the way I post.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

Editing my above post:

“The following quotes show how you talk to people debate who you:”

Should be:

“The following quotes show how you talk to people who debate you:”

 

[ParkerD]

Answersplease,
I think you have a valid observation that my remarks are often “condescending”, and that I think I understand the Bible and have read it many times. I doubt that I have conveyed I think I know everything, however, since my major object has often been to point out that the Holy Spirit wants humankind to learn to listen to the hidden wisdom that is available through the outpouring of the Spirit, and that such wisdom cannot be obtained using the techniques of mankind’s wisdom. (See 1 Corinthians 2) This would be why one needs the Spirit when they read the Bible–so they can gain hidden wisdom while they are reading and pondering. I delight in learning from the Holy Spirit, and there is not the slightest question in my mind or heart that I have thousands of things to learn ahead of me both in this life and in eternity. This is not a selfish thing–anyone can do it. It is conditioned on obedience to the laws that govern obtaining hidden wisdom, and anyone can obey those heavenly laws.

Here is a passage also about the “foundation” of the gospel:

1 Cor. 3: 10-12
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

Here is an Old Testament passage from Isaiah that would have been very familiar to Paul, and to John, and to Peter, and to Christ Himself:

Isa. 28: 16
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Anyone who does not think both of these passages refer to Christ as being the foundation, cannot be helped by a teacher or a fellow student. Peter referred to the Isaiah passage in his own teaching, and certified that it referred to Jesus Christ.

Here also is further enlightenment from Revelation 21:
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

The twelve apostles are twelve judges of the tribes of Israel, but Christ is more (so much more), and He is the foundation according to Paul and Isaiah and Peter. I agree that the twelve apostles are seen as part of the foundation, but that would be because they testify of Christ and have keys given to them by Christ to be judges, but this does not make them the only foundation of the gospel–they do not do their work apart from or in exclusion of Christ. The objective of following Christ is to become a “son of God” and obtain an “inheritance” of “all things”. In order to do that, one must trust the foundation and be led by the Good Shepherd who is the foundation.

Have a peaceful day.

 

[Answersplease]

Originally posted by Answersplease

Well, I have to say that the verses I picked support my position better than your verses support your position.

You picked 1 Corinthians 3:10-12.

Nowhere in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 does Saint Paul say that Jesus Christ is the foundation specifically for the church. Saint Paul says Jesus is the foundation, but Saint Paul does not specify in that chapter exactly what the foundation is for.

But if you read the whole chapter, you can see that Saint Paul is talking about “teaching.”

Take a look at verse 6 in that chapter, then take a look at verses 10 and 11 (you used verses 10 and 11 to help support your position).

1 Corinthians 3:6

I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.

1 Corinthians 3:10-11
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.Saint paul is talking about “planting seed” which is teaching people about the new religion about Jesus Christ. So the “foundation” that Saint Paul laid, is really the teaching about Jesus Christ.

To emphasize this even more, look at 2 Corinthians 11:4, in which Saint Paul chastizes people for putting up with a different Jesus than the one Saint Paul preached.

2 Corinthians 11:4

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.Clearly the “foundation” being talked about is a foundation for instruction in the faith.

Now look at the verses that I picked to support my position.

Ephesians 2:19-20

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Revelation 21:14
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
The verses I picked are much more specific than yours.

"God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

“God’s household” = the Church.

“the foundation” = the apostles and prophets.

“chief cornerstone” = Christ Jesus.

Think about what a “chief cornerstone” is, Parker.

What is the point of having a chief cornerstone if there aren’t any other stones in the foundation? A chief cornerstone is used as the first stone and then you line up all the other stones to the it, that’s why it is called a chief CORNERSTONE. Do you not understand that?

 

[ParkerD]

Originally posted by Answersplease

Well, I have to say that the verses I picked support my position better than your verses support your position.

You picked 1 Corinthians 3:10-12.

Nowhere in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 does Saint Paul say that Jesus Christ is the foundation specifically for the church. Saint Paul says Jesus is the foundation, but Saint Paul does not specify in that chapter exactly what the foundation is for.

But if you read the whole chapter, you can see that Saint Paul is talking about “teaching.”

Take a look at verse 6 in that chapter, then take a look at verses 10 and 11 (you used verses 10 and 11 to help support your position).
Quote:
1 Corinthians 3:6
I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.

1 Corinthians 3:10-11
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Saint paul is talking about “planting seed” which is teaching people about the new religion about Jesus Christ. So the “foundation” that Saint Paul laid, is really the teaching about Jesus Christ.

To emphasize this even more, look at 2 Corinthians 11:4, in which Saint Paul chastizes people for putting up with a different Jesus than the one Saint Paul preached.
Quote:
2 Corinthians 11:4
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
Clearly the “foundation” being talked about is a foundation for instruction in the faith.

Now look at the verses that I picked to support my position.
Quote:
Ephesians 2:19-20
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Revelation 21:14
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

The verses I picked are much more specific than yours.

“God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.”

“God’s household” = the Church.

“the foundation” = the apostles and prophets.

“chief cornerstone” = Christ Jesus.

Think about what a “chief cornerstone” is, Parker.

What is the point of having a chief cornerstone if there aren’t any other stones in the foundation? A chief cornerstone is used as the first stone and then you line up all the other stones to the it, that’s why it is called a chief CORNERSTONE. Do you not understand that?

Answersplease,
OK–I will go with your logic to the point that the apostles and prophets are part of the foundation of “God’s household” wherein people can be “fellow-citizens” in that “household”, with Jesus Christ as the chief corner stone, who must be in place and who is First in place and without whom the rest of the foundation falls.

So we look at the foundation of the apostles and prophets and Jesus Christ, and that means we look at all the prophets’ words testifying of Christ and prophesying of Christ, and all of the apostles’ testimonies of Christ and teachings about Christ, and within that set of teachings and prophecies are all the teachings and prophecies relating to the principles of the gospel including its restoration in its fullness in the latter days by an angel “flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,” (Revelation 14:6).

We find out why that angel was necessary by reading Revelation 12 and 13 and seeing that the church is taken “into the wilderness” for a “time, and times, and half a time” just as Daniel also prophesied in Daniel 7:25 that a leader would speak “great words” against the most High" and “wear out the saints of the most High”.

We find out that basing religious teaching on traditions and the wisdom and learning of men is directly opposite of what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 2.

We find out that John held keys as did the other apostles, so neither Linus nor any other person than an apostle could possibly have been the principal leader of the church on earth after the death of Peter. We find that prophets are part of the foundation of “God’s household” and play an important on-going role.

If any other leader is believed to be the key leader by the people of the building that presumes itself to be “God’s household”, then we may know with complete assurance that the building they are in is not, after all, “God’s household” and that the prophecies of John and Daniel have indeed been fulfilled and thus look for the fulfillment of Revelation 14:6-7.

That fulfillment has happened, and prophets are again on the earth as prophesied by the ancient prophets.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

I won my position.

But now you have moved the goal poast and are now using my position to justify Mormonism’s belief in “the Great Apostasy”.

The “Great Apostasy” has been refuted by many other posters here on this forum.

And I think I can refute the “Great Apostasy” as well as they can, but I probably will choose not to do so. Maybe I will, I don’t know yet.

The reason being that recently four Catholics have verbally bashed me for my posts about Mormonism.

The former Mormon Catholics and a few others are perfectly able to refute the “Great Apostasy”.

 

[Stephen168]

I would also add that the foundation was built on THE Twelve Apostles by name (Revelation 21:14
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.) : Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias. Not just any apostle such as Judas, Paul or Barnabas.
The Apostasy Problem:

I. Mormonism claims the Apostasy means:
A. There were no more living prophets/apostles to continuously reveal the truth.
B. Plain and precious truths (true doctrine) became subverted by human ideas and was thus lost
C. The priesthood authority was gone from the earth.

II. The Problems with the Mormon claim:
A. No living Prophet

1. Christianity never claimed to have a prophet (single person receiving revelation for all Christendom)​

2. Mormon Prophets don’t prophesizes.​

B. Doctrine must not change

1. Define Doctrine – an article of faith revealed by God, which the Church presents to be believed. The most universal beliefs which reason would dictate can not change; beliefs of who God is and means of salvation for example.​

2. Mormon Doctrines has changes​

a) Blood Atonement​

b) Adam-God theory​

c) Mark of Cain​

3. Added Doctrine (not lost but never was Christian Doctrine)​

a) polygamy​

b) Melchisedech Priesthood​

C. Loss of Priesthood Authority

1. Every Mormon male has Priesthood authority​

2. Priesthood authority and leadership are not the same thing​

a) A sinful person does not lose his authority​

INDENT King Noah had priesthood authority to give to Alma to baptize at the Waters of Mormon​

[/INDENT]

3. To lose Priesthood authority:​

a) Every Priesthood holder would have to not pass on their authority​

b) At almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church.​

 

[ParkerD]

I would also add that the foundation was built on THE Twelve Apostles by name (Revelation 21:14
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.) : Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias. Not just any apostle such as Judas, Paul or Barnabas.

Indeed, true that the “wall of the city had twelve foundations, …”. Also, “the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones.” (Revelation 21:19) The foundations are not “the twelve apostles”, but the names of the twelve apostles are written on the walls, just like the names of the twelve tribes of Israel are written on the “twelve gates” to the city. (Revelation 21:12) The twelve gates to the city and the twelve apostles’ names being written on the walls of the city would seem to be a similar allusion of the promise Jesus gave to the original twelve apostles that they would “sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28) Thus the gates to the city will be gained entrance by the judgment done by the twelve apostles.

The LDS church does indeed believe that the twelve original apostles, less Judas Iscariot and replacing him with Matthias, will be those particular twelve judges.

But and what a problem there is for the RCC by saying that John the Beloved was no longer the leader of the church on earth, though an apostle and thus a rightful judge of Israel, after Peter had been killed and after John was the ranking apostle and particularly at the point in time that he was the only apostle living on the earth at the end of the mortal period of his life. No wonder this entire vision described in the book of Revelation would be particularly poignant and meaningful to him.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But and what a problem there is for the RCC by saying that John the Beloved was no longer the leader of the church on earth, though an apostle and thus a rightful judge of Israel, after Peter had been killed and after John was the ranking apostle and particularly at the point in time that he was the only apostle living on the earth at the end of the mortal period of his life. No wonder this entire vision described in the book of Revelation would be particularly poignant and meaningful to him.

This is you placing your idea of LDS hierarchy over the early Church. It is an idea that has no scriptural, historical, or traditional support. In other words, just because LDS leaders say it so, doesn’t mean it is.