To Mormons: Did the gates of Hell prevail against the 'Church' when your president taught false doctrine?

[Nanotwerp]

What really convinced me that the BoM is a fraud was not the obvious and silly anachronisms (horses, steel, sheep, wheat, linen, silk, elephants, etc.) but the things that are not mentioned in the BoM:

Things like maize, beans and squash (the “3 sisters” of native American culture), amaranth and all the other things that native Americans really ate, and the milpa technique of growing all these companion plants together that was the single greatest agricultural innovation of the ancient world, invented at least as early as 3,000 years ago. Any record written by real native Americans would have included mention of these foods that they actually did eat and the farming activities that were the life’s blood of these great civilizations and the center around which their cultures revolved.

Yes, I know that corn is mentioned in the BoM, but not in the proper context. Citing corn along with wheat, barley and sheep make it as anachronistic as the horses and elephants.

You’d almost think the BoM was written by a 19th century guy from New York.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

P.S.: The BoM tells about silk, but never mentions cotton, which was a major industry during BoM times. I know, I know, the FAIR and FARMS apologists are now saying that when it says silk, it really meant cotton. What, the Mormon god doesn’t know the English word for cotton?

Pssshhhh… no… the BOM couldn’t be!

 

[lynnettejane]

I have found there are some topics that I cannot discuss with people of certain faiths. For example, don’t talk about the Sabbath day with Seventh Day Adventists. Likewise don’t talk about the ‘rock’ with Catholics. But against my better judgement I will simply answer the first question and then beg leave to bow out of this discussion.

In verse 15 Jesus asks them, “But whom say ye that I am?”. When Peter answers, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” Jesus confirms that, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” Who has revealed that Jesus is the anointed one? God. How did he reveal it? Revelation. So when Jesus says, “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” He is not saying he will build the church on Peter but on something much more secure, revelation from God.

You are almost there, but have missed out the crucial bit which is what God had revealed to Peter, which is that Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God. It is upon that rock of faith that Jesus has built his Church with Peter, whose name he changed to Rock as its first leader or Pope with all the keys of authority given to him and passed down through the bishops of the Catholic church. And the gates of hell have not prevailed, nor will prevail because Jesus said that He will build it. He is in control, he is the Cornerstone, the stone that knits the building together, with the solid bedrock of authority passed down from Peter to Pope Francis. We have not been left orphans, He is with us till the end, so, no need for restoration. You cannot restore what has not been lost.

 

[Stephen168]

As to the exact date and time of the apostasy, I don’t think there is a definitive time. I think that the process was gradual. Here is a good LDS topic page if you want to dig further:
lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng
I don’t believe that the doctrine of the church changes because we believe that truth (doctrine) is eternal. Certainly the practices, emphasis, organization, etc of the church have evolved over time.

The website you linked said this about the apostasy

After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances.

And by your own admission the Mormon Church has changed its practices.
Which brings us back to the OP’s question, “Did the gates of Hell prevail against the ‘Church’ when your president taught false doctrine?”
Was polygamy a false doctrine?
Was Adam being God a false doctrine?
Was the priesthood banned a false doctrine?
Was Christ’s atonement being insufficient requiring blood atonement a false doctrine?
How do Mormons justify these changes without believing the Mormon Church went into apostasy again like the former-day-saint church did?

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Latter-day Saints believe that the rock here is revelation, and that even though the church fell away into apostasy, revelation is the key to having the true church upon the earth, as shown in the previous three verses.

So do many Protestants and Orthodox.

Happily, most Protestant and some Orthodox **scholars **today acknowledge that Peter, not Peter’s confession or revelation, is the rock in Matthew 16:18-19.

This argument will end once the word filters down to the average folks in the pews.

 

[TexanKnight]

The website you linked said this about the apostasy

And by your own admission the Mormon Church has changed its practices.
Which brings us back to the OP’s question, “Did the gates of Hell prevail against the ‘Church’ when your president taught false doctrine?”
Was polygamy a false doctrine?
Was Adam being God a false doctrine?
Was the priesthood banned a false doctrine?
Was Christ’s atonement being insufficient requiring blood atonement a false doctrine?
How do Mormons justify these changes without believing the Mormon Church went into apostasy again like the former-day-saint church did?

Therein lies the argument I have made for years. Mormonisms reason for existing was never needed, but, if it was needed, then it falls for the same reason it claims Catholicism fell during the alleged “apostasy”

 

[KathleenGee]

Randy, not so sure…

I took a seminar on the Scriptural roots of the papacy. Three Protestant theologians he quoted state the Catholic Church is correct that the Church is based on Peter the rock, not a Declaration of Faith. He also brought up a most highly esteemed dictionary author who also stated the Catholic Church correct on Peter as rock of the Church.

Someone then asked if any of them became Catholic, and the instructor said no.

So if these scholars would assent to the truth the rock of the Church is Peter but still not believe in the Catholic Church instituted by Christ, I don’t know who else would either…unless by the grace of faith.

 

[KathleenGee]

Mormonism is based on Joseph Smith, not Jesus Christ. And alot of rationalizing. I need to bring up a recent experience I just had yesterday and it did upset me.

I was leaving a hospice case yesterday am and was talking to my replacement that the individual needed more spiritual support from his church, and that he is probably the biggest donor.

I shared with her my experience of taking him to his Protestant church in the past, but I did not feel comfortable receiving communion with him, and then read in their bulletin to simply cross yourself to receive a blessing, which I did. In time, I got to know a number of this small congregation and enjoyed knowing them.

She then told me she had no qualm about why people should not receive as they are receiving the Body of Christ. She then told me she was a Mormon and in Illinois, she was in a Catholic Mass and told her little boy to go up and take a wafer. I told her people are not to receive communion not being Catholic. And I asked her what we would do if we were in her temple and she said we would have to get a temple recommend.

It disturbed me calling the Host a ‘wafer’ and I told her that the Eucharist is God and she just said, ‘peww…’ She also said some remarks like, ‘we believe in that, too.’

I did a search and read how a number of Mormons, many on missions, are attending Catholic churches and observing the Mass, but they have all said they do not go up to receive Communion.

I look at the teachings of Mormonism and do not see a cross over to Catholicism because of the teachings of Joseph Smith, as a former Mormon says here, it speaks of an environment that is American and not of the Holy Land. I have watched some Mormon programs and the emphasis is Joseph Smith, not Christ.

I am thankful there is a respect and appreciation shown the Mass and the culture of liturgy.

But it makes me concern of how others can come to communion and not have the belief or respect for the Eucharist. Pastors do recognize strangers coming in and where I live, I have seen them tell newcomers to not receive unless you hold the Catholic faith.

But it is very confusing to see Mormons say they are Christian, they believe the same, and yet not recognize such extreme differences.

I asked her if she knew of the Trinity, and said she has not heard of it, I sense it a response they are told to say to a Trinitarian Christian…but they are holding many same beliefs and practices of sacrament and communion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Golly gee, Jharek, I’m starting to get the feeling that you don’t like me very much. It certainly *appears *that you have decided to follow me around the forum and take issue with everything I post. In so doing, are YOU giving the best witness to our Catholic faith? Just askin’. (And ironically, it is your interjection of this personal comment that is ACTUALLY irrelevant to the thread. )

All that aside, you could not be more wrong in your assessment of my post.

My referencing of both Protestant and Orthodox scholars *was *relevant to the discussion in that neither Protestant scholars nor Orthodox scholars would normally be viewed as “friends” of the Catholic Church when it comes to many theological matters.

And yet, these scholars admit that Peter, and not Peter’s confession, is the rock in Matthew 16:18-19.

Thus, for the Mormon who also disagrees with Catholic interpretation of that passage, the favorable testimony of these “hostile” witnesses must be seen as credible given that they would otherwise rather not be seen as supporting Catholicism.

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

Until next time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good. We’ll move on.

:tiphat:

 

[Stephen168]

Therein lies the argument I have made for years. Mormonisms reason for existing was never needed, but, if it was needed, then it falls for the same reason it claims Catholicism fell during the alleged “apostasy”

I agree. Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet and made up a bunch of new ‘doctrines.’ Because the doctrines were not the same as the Catholic Church, there had to be an apostasy. But then later Mormon “prophets” changed Mormon Doctrine, so it does seem that Mormonism has created it own apostasy which is caused by having ‘prophets’ as leaders claiming to receive ‘revelation.’ Christianity has never claimed to be lead by a prophet; Christ is the revelation.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168 recently referred me to post #131, #132, and #135 in this thread.
I read them.

The Council of Nicea declared that the Father and the Son were not two hypostasis. This was then CHANGED. Everyone now knows that the Father and the Son are two hypostasis and one ousia. The LETTER of the council changed.
The intent of the council of Lyons and the Council of Florence was that unbaptized babies (those guilty of “original sin only”) would be in hell. Vatican II changed the INTENT of this council by saying that we can hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism.

So which is it, should I embrace the LETTER of the council or the original INTENT of the council?

Stephen168 recently referred me to post #131, #132, and #135 in this thread.

I am well aware of the shifting of meanings attributed to the word hypostasis (there are shifting meanings for homoousian also that are very interesting). Post 131,132, and 135 attempt to suggest that I should not read the LETTER of the council of Nicea and claim that doctrine CHANGED. Instead I should read the intent of the words used at Nicea and then no change happened. I have long been aware of this response. I know enough about the writings of this time to know that when the Council of Nicea said that the Father and Son were not two hypostasis, they did not mean the same thing as future councils meant when they said that the Father and Son were two hypostasis. So, if I take what the council intended based upon context and writings of the time, the problem disappears.

That is all good and well. But the Fathers at the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence (like the non-ecumenical Council of Carthage clearly stated - embraced by two popes as I remember) INTENDED to say that the unbaptized infant is unable to be in heaven. They state this almost without any wiggle room. All of the literature from around this time (indeed all literature until the 19th or 20th century except writings of Pelagians) make it clear that unbaptized babies are in hell (either hell proper or hell=limbo). So, a modern Catholic at Vatican II or TOm who weighs Catholic teaching, can creatively parse the language of Lyons II and Florence (though not Carthage) to remove the DOGMATIC declaration that unbaptized babies are in hell, but this was not the original INTENT of the councils.

So, should a Catholic believe God infallibly protects the LETTER of what is written and approved in an EC or the INTENT of what is written and approved in an EC. Or should I be a Catholic who thinks that when it is convenient we will look to the letter and when not the intent. I do not think this has been resolved.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I am well aware of the shifting of meanings attributed to the word hypostasis (there are shifting meanings for homoousian also that are very interesting). Post 131,132, and 135 attempt to suggest that I should not read the LETTER of the council of Nicea and claim that doctrine CHANGED. Instead I should read the intent of the words used at Nicea and then no change happened. I have long been aware of this response. I know enough about the writings of this time to know that when the Council of Nicea said that the Father and Son were not two hypostasis, they did not mean the same thing as future councils meant when they said that the Father and Son were two hypostasis. So, if I take what the council intended based upon context and writings of the time, the problem disappears.

True, there was no change. The text is consistent with Catholic teaching. Christianity has always taught God is a triune God. As did Joseph Smith did until about 1835.

That is all good and well. But the Fathers at the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence (like the non-ecumenical Council of Carthage clearly stated - embraced by two popes as I remember) INTENDED to say that the unbaptized infant is unable to be in heaven.

You don’t know what they intended. It is clear that you intend to define baptism for the Catholic Church in this case. I know that you know better.

 

[TOmNossor]

True, there was no change. The text is consistent with Catholic teaching. Christianity has always taught God is a triune God. As did Joseph Smith did until about 1835.

Your above statement is wrong (but I think I know what you INTENDED ) The “text” says one thing. The accepted TEXT now say something different. The ONLY argument you have (which you offered in an earlier post is that the INTENT of the Bishops based upon the surrounding TEXT and writings of the time is that God is one ousia and that hypostasis should be viewed as synonymous with “ousia” in the Nicene document. This bit of MIND reading is not too difficult IMO. In future writings and Councils the Capadocian Fathers began to use hypostatis similarly to the English “person” (because they wanted to avoid the Greek “persona” since it was modalist - the ardent Arians avoided Homoousian for the same reason as it had been condemned as modalist at the Council of Antioch).

You don’t know what they intended. It is clear that you intend to define baptism for the Catholic Church in this case. I know that you know better.

You may claim that if you want, but EVERY piece of writing from this timeframe makes the MOST clear read of the text obvious. Here is the text we are talking about. It is in both councils.

“** But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”**

What was the INTENT of these councils if it was not to say that the unbaptized pre-accountable human (infant or person before the age of accountability) will be in hell? What did they intend? How can anyone not believe they intended what I think they intended?

And all the writing before and until the 19th or 20th century intended the same thing and explicitly stated the same thing. Not to mention the Council of Carthage where the idea that the unbaptized baby would not be in hell was declared a Pelagian fable. And two popes approved of this declaration. (Council of Carthage is not an EC).

You may claim I do not know what they INTENDED, but I think that is a ridiculous suggestion.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The “text” says one thing. The accepted TEXT now say something different.

Provide the conflicting text.

" But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

Quote a EC that said the opposite of this.

 

[TOmNossor]

Provide the conflicting text.

We have been talking about this for a while. It is in this thread. Here RebeccaJ refers to it.

What I see, is that Nicaea usage of hypostasis was not clear to all the Bishops of the Church. Doctrine did not change when in 362, 37 years later, the wording was clarified so that there was no language controversy in what the council in 325, meant.

Which part are you questioning (the original TEXT or the changed TEXT).

Quote a EC that said the opposite of this.

Before I go here, what is meant by the term “ecclesiastical magisterium?”
Is not the teaching of the “ecclesiastical magisterium” the term used for the teaching of a group of Bishops gathered together in an Ecumenical Council? Is not this irreformable teaching?

I have long had trouble parsing the terms that are associated with “magisterium.” All I know for sure is that the teaching of an EC is irreformable.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

We have been talking about this for a while. It is in this thread. Here RebeccaJ refers to it.

Please provide the two text which you claim are in conflict.

Before I go here, what is meant by the term “ecclesiastical magisterium?”

I asked for a quote from an Ecumenical Council which conflicts with the quote you provided from an Ecumenical Council. Is there such a quote?

 

[TOmNossor]

Please provide the two text which you claim are in conflict.

This I think I can do. Do you believe it cannot be done. I am certain I can find the exact quite from Nicea that says that it is an anathema to say that Father and Son are not a single hypostasis. I am certain that Catholic Doctrine today (and a few decades after Nicea) is that Father and Son are two hypostasis. Do you doubt either? Why do you ask that I find it? Are you just being difficult?

Please provide the two text which you claim are in conflict.

I asked for a quote from an Ecumenical Council which conflicts with the quote you provided from an Ecumenical Council. Is there such a quote?
I do not believe there is any EC that denies that unbaptized infants are in hell. So, I am certain that Catholics are free to believe that unbaptized infants are in hell. I am responding to those who claim that they are Catholic and they reject the idea that unbaptized infants are in hell. So I cannot find this. Can you defend your view that Catholics can reject the teaching of Florence and Lyons on the fate of unbaptized infants?

Again, I encourage the CHANGE in doctrine, but if ECs are infallible in letter, the Catholic Church is false because ECs have contradicted eachother.
If ECs are infallible in INTENT, then the Vatican is putting out false doctrine (as my Ultra-Trad friends have been telling me for years.

Are you being difficult or is there a reason I need to re-hash stuff I thought everyone agreed upon? I am asking for you to navigate the facts in a faithful Catholic way and let me see what you present. I do not think this can be done. If my facts are off state that you believe they are off and where and I will pursue that. You will either be wrong or I will, but I am not sure you ask in good faith for me to go back to the sources I thought we had already agreed upon.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

This I think I can do.

Cool, I’ll be looking forward to you providing the conflicting text.

I do not believe there is any EC that denies that unbaptized infants are in hell. So, I am certain that Catholics are free to believe that unbaptized infants are in hell. I am responding to those who claim that they are Catholic and they reject the idea that unbaptized infants are in hell. So I cannot find this.

So while you claim a change in Catholic dogma you cannot find an Ecumenical Council that conflicts with your quote.

Again, I encourage the CHANGE in doctrine, but if ECs are infallible in letter, the Catholic Church is false because ECs have contradicted eachother.

There has not been a change. No, EC has contradicted each other. I have asked you to provide proof of this and you cannot. In fact, I’ve asked you to prove this years ago and you haven’t yet.

Are you being difficult or is there a reason I need to re-hash stuff I thought everyone agreed upon? I am asking for you to navigate the facts in a faithful Catholic way and let me see what you present. I do not think this can be done.

I think you are being difficult. You know enough about Catholic teaching that would allow a Catholic to have hope that a person not baptized in water would be in heaven. The reason I know you know is because, in fact, we have done this before.
Once again, you have NEVER shown that two EC have conflicted teaching; therefore, unlike Mormonism, there has never been a change in Catholic dogma.

 

[TOmNossor]

I think you are being difficult. You know enough about Catholic teaching that would allow a Catholic to have hope that a person not baptized in water would be in heaven. The reason I know you know is because, in fact, we have done this before.

Once again, you have NEVER shown that two EC have conflicted teaching; therefore, unlike Mormonism, there has never been a change in Catholic dogma.
I have explained why this “interim thread” makes my previous view that PERHAPs parsing the words of two EC could be done make the current teaching not contradict the LITERAL words of the pervious council. The reason I think this weak Catholic solution is weaker than I previously thought it was is because it is precisely the opposite of the solution offered by Catholics to the hypostasis problem.
Before I answer any of your questions, answer this:
Do you see what I am trying to say and understand what I think is here?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168:
There has not been a change. No, EC has contradicted each other. I have asked you to provide proof of this and you cannot. In fact, I’ve asked you to prove this years ago and you haven’t yet.
There is no change if you believe that unbaptized babies are in hell. If you do not believe this then your believe is DIFFERENT than that put forth in the quotes provided from Lyons and Florence.
Do you believe that unbaptized babies who die are in hell?
Charity, TOm