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

[Stephen168]

You are referencing the NEW doctrine. The OLD doctrine is that unbaptized babies are in hell. I am saying that there is a change. I am suggesting that the OLD doctrine is irreformable because it is in two Ecumenical Councils.
What have I left out?

This isn’t new doctrine. It is the same doctrine. You just don’t want to understand it or you haven’t read it.

Have you found the conflicting teaching at another EC, yet?

So you got nothing.

Your claim that two EC are in conflict is completely and totally false. You made it up as a false attack on the Catholic Church to avoid talking about the many changes in Mormon dogma.

The same changes that the Mormon Church uses to claim the apostasy of another church, which is the subject of this thread you have derailed.

Clearly the Mormon Church is in a state of hypocrisy

 

[TOmNossor]

So you got nothing.

Your claim that two EC are in conflict is completely and totally false. You made it up as a false attack on the Catholic Church to avoid talking about the many changes in Mormon dogma.

The same changes that the Mormon Church uses to claim the apostasy of another church, which is the subject of this thread you have derailed.

Clearly the Mormon Church is in a state of hypocrisy
To the readers of this thread:
LivingWaters has acknowledged what I call the change in the LITERAL WORDS (but not INTENT) associated with “hypostasis.”
I have posted the relevant passages from 2 ECs and one non-EC for the early teaching of the Catholic Church on “fate of the unbaptized.” Nanotwerp posted the NEW teaching. This is the change that I claim is a change in INTENT, but if one must they could use the LITERAL words to align the early teaching and the later teaching.

This is as clear as I hope to be. If it is not clear enough fine. I hope LivingWaters will respond to my last post to him, but I suspect he is busy.

Stephen168,
I do not know how you cannot see what I think has been clearly documented. I would think that if you wanted to respond you would respond rather than claim I have not documented my position. But I don’t think I have more to say here and now.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

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

LivingWaters has acknowledged what I call the change in the LITERAL WORDS (but not INTENT) associated with “hypostasis.”

You have not posted the text from two Ecumenical Council which conflict with each other. Therefore you have not shown a change in Catholic dogma.

I have posted the relevant passages from 2 ECs and one non-EC for the early teaching of the Catholic Church on “fate of the unbaptized.” Nanotwerp posted the NEW teaching. This is the change that I claim is a change in INTENT, but if one must they could use the LITERAL words to align the early teaching and the later teaching.

You have not posted the text from two Ecumenical Council which conflict with each other. Therefore you have not shown a change in Catholic dogma. What you claim to be new teaching is consistent with the Ecumenical Councils which are consistent with each other. So there is no change in Catholic dogma.

Stephen168,
I do not know how you cannot see what I think has been clearly documented. I would think that if you wanted to respond you would respond rather than claim I have not documented my position. But I don’t think I have more to say here and now.

You have not documented two Ecumenicals which contradict each other. You have show two that agree. And on a different subject you quoted one Council but not the one that you claim conflicted with it.
Therefore your claims are false. Ecumenical Councils have not conflicted with each other, and Catholic dogma has not changed.

 

[LivingWaters7]

To the readers of this thread:
LivingWaters has acknowledged what I call the change in the LITERAL WORDS (but not INTENT) associated with “hypostasis.”
I have posted the relevant passages from 2 ECs and one non-EC for the early teaching of the Catholic Church on “fate of the unbaptized.” Nanotwerp posted the NEW teaching. This is the change that I claim is a change in INTENT, but if one must they could use the LITERAL words to align the early teaching and the later teaching.

This is as clear as I hope to be. If it is not clear enough fine. I hope LivingWaters will respond to my last post to him, but I suspect he is busy.

To be clear, my only purpose in posting was to respond to the specific idea that there are two Ecumenical Councils that contradict each other on the nature of God. As I have already stated, there has been no doctrinal change or evolution in the Catholic view on persons and the Trinity, which is what scholars have stated for quite some time.

One wonders when you will discuss Mormonism.

 

[TOmNossor]

To be clear, my only purpose in posting was to respond to the specific idea that there are two Ecumenical Councils that contradict each other on the nature of God. As I have already stated, there has been no doctrinal change or evolution in the Catholic view on persons and the Trinity, which is what scholars have stated for quite some time.

One wonders when you will discuss Mormonism.
Your last sustentative response to me evidenced that you didn’t understand the argument I am making. Do you understand now?
I do not enjoy going over the same issues I have seen discussed concerning Mormonism time and time again. I do not agree with the ex-Mormon take on these issues or I would be an ex- Mormon. I almost NEVER see a new issue.
In addition to this, a Catholic board is POOR place to learn about the CoJCoLDS.
Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

I do not enjoy going over the same issues I have seen discussed concerning Mormonism time and time again. I do not agree with the ex-Mormon take on these issues or I would be an ex- Mormon. I almost NEVER see a new issue.
In addition to this, a Catholic board is POOR place to learn about the CoJCoLDS.

This is the Non-Catholic Religions sub-forum, where we discuss…non-Catholic religions. If you are not interested in that, and would rather discuss Catholicism, then please post in the relevant sections of this forum, which certainly would not be in a thread specifically about Mormonism.

 

[Stephen168]

To summarize:

-Mormons are OK with the truth claims of Joseph Smith being lies.
-Mormons demanding the Catholic Church be consistent with its truth claims would be the ramblings of a hypocrite

It is interesting how you summarize things.

This is what I am saying:
Catholics claim they do not have continuing revelation. They claim that they preserve tradition. They claim to not CHANGE. Evidence that they change is evidence that Catholicism is not what it claims to be. To weigh potential CHANGES in Catholic doctrine is to investigate if the Catholic authority is in any way what it claims to be.
LDS do not make these claims. They claim to have access to continuing revelation. Changes can and will happen and it will not mean the same thing for CHANGES in Catholic doctrine.

Do you understand what I am saying? Do you agree with the above statements?

"Mormon Church:

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?

1. Heretical teachings means apostasy.

How do you know?

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is what I am saying:

Catholics claim they do not have continuing revelation.
They claim that they preserve tradition.
They claim to not CHANGE.
Evidence that they change is evidence that Catholicism is not what it claims to be.
To weigh potential CHANGES in Catholic doctrine is to investigate if the Catholic authority is in any way what it claims to be.

LDS do not make these claims. They claim to have access to continuing revelation. Changes can and will happen and it will not mean the same thing for CHANGES in Catholic doctrine.

Do you understand what I am saying? Do you agree with the above statements?

Here is my reply:

**Catholics claim they do not have continuing revelation. **

Correct. Public revelation has ended.

**They claim that they preserve tradition. **

Correct provided that you mean Sacred Tradition (capital T). Some traditions (small t) can and do change.

**They claim to not CHANGE. **

This is vague and smells of straw.

Evidence that they change is evidence that Catholicism is not what it claims to be.

1. Not all change would prove your point. Some change is no big deal.
2. Sacred Tradition does not change and actually provides evidence that Catholicism is EXACTLY what it claims to be.

To weigh potential CHANGES in Catholic doctrine is to investigate if the Catholic authority is in any way what it claims to be.

Only if the changes in question concern dogma and doctrine. Disciplines and devotions can and do change without proving your point.

LDS do not make these claims. They claim to have access to continuing revelation. Changes can and will happen and it will not mean the same thing for CHANGES in Catholic doctrine.

Catholicism has never reversed a formal teaching because doctrine and dogma do not change.

Has CoJCoLDS ever completely reversed itself on a matter of doctrinal teaching?

I tried to offer an olive branch by agreeing with you that my research into Catholic thought suggests there is greater consistency than I can find in LDS thought.

A stunning admission worthy of pursuit.

Why do you suppose the Catholic Church has greater consistency if it has been subject to 2,000 of change (not to mention allegedly undergoing a Great Apostasy)?

Shouldn’t the changes increase in frequency and amplitude over time as the doctrine drifted further and further from the truth?

 

[RebeccaJ]

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

Maybe you are here to teach us patience.

We’ve discussed this before, and it has been shown that the chain of events is logical, reasonable, and indicates nothing of what you are trying to make of it. You make it impossible for me to take you seriously.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am taking a more detailed course on church history at its earliest beginnings.

Mormonism is based on another form of what is God, Who is Jesus.

I wish it would have created other personages.

The earliest times of the Church Fathers brought out their theological reflections, many quite accurate, others heretical. Their teachings, true or false, were literally ‘out there’ in the Church.

Who defines what is doctrine is the Church – the pope and all bishops in union with him, based on the teachings of Jesus Christ given us through His apostles in the Holy Spirit.
It is Church Councils, not even the Synods as one we are hearing about right now, that define truths of Christ.

We do not follow individual Church theologians or individual reflections of earliest Church Fathers, while the discipline of Christology, a science, was in its earliest stages of development. You have to also realize that the foundation of Christianity was already set up by 100 AD, although there were some books of the Bible that still had to be determined if they were suitable for public revelation or not. And you also have to understand as well the means and modes of communications in those days.

There aren’t any more doctrines…they all derive on the reality of the One True Lord. Instead, the focus is more on how we administrate and put into practice our beliefs in hte particular times we are living in.

It is most evident considering the consistency of faith in ancient times, that the Holy Spirit was in full force to assist the Church that brought about uniformity of faith and practice 60 years after the death and resurrection of Our Lord.

The Bible as we know it did not come into existence until the 300’s.

The key factor in determining what is authentic or not is in the power of the presence of the Lord Himself, His teachings and works, His conquering sin through His death, and His new life in the Resurrection, and the fact that He had 12 witnesses, not only representing the 12 tribes of Israel, but also the power of documented history.

St. Peter founded the Church of Antioch. Both he and Paul were led by the Holy Spirit to come to Babylon – Imperial Rome. But not for imperialism, but for the Church. There were other Jewish Christians already living in Rome, but when Peter came, then Paul, they were the witnesses to form and found the Church.

It is Pope Victor, 189-198, an African pope, who declared that Easter must be celebrated as they do in Rome, the week after the Jewish Passover, and the entire Christian world complied.

(It is noted that in prior times, the Liturgy was celebrated on Easter Sunday – every Sunday the feast of the Resurrection. Today in the liturgical documents, every Sunday is considered the most sacred feast day of the Church – Resurrection Sunday, not Easter or Christmas.)

Every time leadership in Rome declared a ruling, the rest of the Church would comply. This is the Holy Spirit, not church men denying people communion if they don’t comply. They all did in total acceptance.

Going back…what especially made Peter and Paul authentic in a most particular way was that they were martyrs, they died for Christ.

There is no life, no new message after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The idea of limbo was just that. It was never defined as doctrine. As a child growing up, I never could accept that. As John Paul II, stated, we must entrust the unborn who die without baptism into the mercy of the Lord, Who always said to bring the little children to Him.

The other point is that Catholicism is about context, context, context in the times particular rulings are made.

St. Ambrose got flack for melting chalices to help women and children. Well, these particular women and children were being taken by the barbarians. And now we know from looking at atrocities committed in the last century and today, particularly the Middle East, that captive women and children are subjected to the worst forms of abuse and death. St. Ambrose melted the chalices to gain funds to pay as ransom to free these most unfortunate human beings.

People cherry pick what they want to think about the Catholic Church, and it always ends up as the wrong perception.

There is also this movement within Mormonism to take ownership of Orthodox Theosis…becoming children of God, when the actual context is that we are adopted children of God, we are divinized by Christ in the Eucharist…but in following His Divine leadership, we share in His divinity by re-living His life in teaching, healing, living out goodness…in the form of being a lowly, hidden humble servant of God.

The ecclesiastics take the word, ‘Servium Deo’, the highest rank, as lowly servants of God. Corruption comes when they want to be like gods ruling and dominating everyone else.

We participate in the life of Christ through Word and Sacraments as His adopted children, but our life is fulfilled in service and God is always separate in His divinity from us.

‘Who is like unto God!’ exclaimed St. Michael. We never be come rulers and dominators but servants.

There is no other revelation after Our Lord Jesus Who lived and died for us, Who gave us new life.

Did any prophets after Christ die for us, give us new life? Rather it is anti-Catholic propaganda, disputes, and continually fragmenting divisions.

 

[Stephen168]

Again, I encourage the CHANGE in doctrine, but if ECs are infallible in letter, the Catholic Church is false because ECs have contradicted eachother.
Stephen168;12419852:

You have not documented two Ecumenicals which contradict each other. You have shown two that agree. And on a different subject you quoted one Council but not the one that you claim conflicted with it.
Therefore your claims are false. Ecumenical Councils have not conflicted with each other, and Catholic dogma has not changed.

Tom, by your inability to provide any proof, and your desire to talk about other things, as seen by you starting a new thread, we can conclude that there is no truth to your claim.

 

[dcana]

So maybe I’m stupid, but could anyone explain to me why Protestants and Mormons say when Jesus said “You are Peter” to Peter He really wasn’t referring to him whose name He just changed to Peter when in His next breath (not even) He then said “and upon this rock I will build my Church”, when the name “Peter” means “rock”? That makes absolutely no sense. Why did He call Peter, “Peter”, and then start referring to “revelation” or Peter’s “confession of faith?” Where is that in the text? Nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. You can’t just insert the word “revelation” in for “this rock” to make Jesus say what you want him to say. Even if He had said, “And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon revelation I will build my Church,” would that have made any sense? Why did He just call him “Peter”? His name is Simon!

If “this rock” refers to “revelation” then why did Jesus change his name to Peter? Why is he also called “Kephas” several times in the NT, which is Aramaic for “rock”? So, why the name change?

Sure, I guess you could say that “this rock” could also refer to Peter’s confession, but this is reading into the text.

Jesus did not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Nor did He say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, on revelation I will build my church, and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Nor did He say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, on the rock of your confession of faith in me I will build my church, and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it.”

He did say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it. "

What am I missing?

What kind of respect does that demonstrate for “God-breathed” Scripture? About as much respect as Dr. Luther had, with his “epistle of straw”, changing the words of Sacred Scripture to his liking and all that.

Well did Holy Scripture prophecy through Pope St. Peter when he wrote, “There are some things in them [in Paul] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the** error of lawless men** (like Joseph Smith) and lose your own stability.”

Well again did the Holy Spirit prophecy through St. Paul when he wrote, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths (like the claims involving a 19-century charlatan involving “golden plates”, “peering into hats”, and “seer’s stones”). Come on, seriously. Just think about it. Who do you believe, J.S. or J.C.? My faith is in the Son of God.

Please, Mormons and protestants, it’s time to take the Eternal Son of the Most High God’s - the WORD’s - words seriously, not change them into what you wish He had said, quit protesting, and come home to Jesus’ one Church that He said He would build on Peter. He said He would build it, He has built it, He continuous to build it, He will continue to build it until the Last Day, and He wants you in it, in order to give you the fullness of His grace and blessings, and eternal salvation. Time is running short.

God Bless you

 

[dcana]

Whoops - “continues”. My 20 minutes is up.

God Bless, everyone

 

[dcana]

And another thing…

The Mormons claim that they are the “true Church”. They claim that they are the “restored Church of God.” They claim they are headed by a “prophet” who receives revelation directly from God. They call themselves “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”.

And yet they NEVER pray to Jesus. They are taught NOT to pray to Jesus. They have refused even to have the sign of our salvation, the Holy Cross, through which the Savior saved the world, anywhere in or on their buildings.

Really?

Does that make any sense to anyone, and I’m referring most especially to the fact that they do not ever pray to Jesus?

Is that consistent with the “restoration of the Gospel?”: “From now on, we will never pray to Jesus (or the Holy Spirit, I assume - someone please correct me if I’m wrong), but only to ‘Heavenly Father’”?

Are nebulous and constantly shifting doctrines consistent with the “true Church of God” or with a church invented by some man in 19th-century America? Think about it. Please. If God talks directly, as one man talks to another man, to the head of the Mormon Church, then why the constant changes in doctrine? Can’t God tell him exactly what should be believed regarding anything whatsoever, so that the world may know what to believe and how one should live one’s life, morally speaking? So that the world may know exactly what the true teachings of Jesus Christ and His restored Gospel are, as opposed to the false and apostate teachings of the “church of the devil”? Where can I buy a Mormon Catechism?

Why are these things not consistent and why are there constant shifts in doctrine (if one can pin down what they actually believe) and why doesn’t the world know what to believe regarding faith and morals through the Mormon “prophets”? Because God does not really talk to the head of the Mormon Church.

The world does know, however, what God has desired to reveal to humanity regarding faith and morals. You’ll find it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, available at your local bookstore or at amazon.com for the bank-breaking price of $9.28. Or you can get a smaller version for $6.02 or a used copy for as little as $0.01 plus shipping! You can also find it online in many places. If you want to know what the Catholic Church believes regarding x, there it is, for the world to see, in black-and-white, without apologies or obfuscation. And the world does see and know very well what the Catholic Church believes, and she is despised and hated for it, as Jesus said she would be, especially for her teachings on sexuality in these days. What other church calls artificial contraception “intrinsically evil”? What other church says abortion is always morally evil, for any reason whatsoever? What other church teaches that it is adultery for someone to divorce his or her spouse and marry another? How popular are these opinions in today’s world? Not too. And yet the Church will not change her defined dogmas to fit the whims of the present world and will never stop proclaiming the Truth, until He, Her Lord, comes on the Last Day.

And another thing. What happened to the “The”? As in, “The Father” or “The Heavenly Father”? Why is it always, “Heavenly Father”? In my opinion, the reason it was removed is identical to the reason for the lack of crosses in or on their buildings.

My mom used to teach preschool at our parish. One semester, she had a little girl in her class who was Mormon. One of the other students was wearing a cross and the parents found out and demanded that that 3-year old no longer be permitted to wear the cross to class. Really? What did they expect? If I had children and lived in Utah and sent them to a Mormon preschool (God forbid) I’m pretty sure I would not allow my child to wear a cross or a Miraculous Medal to class. Just sayin…

So, to rephrase the OP, which church seems consistent with the Revelation of God to Man in Jesus Christ through the Gospel? Where is the evidence for the “Great Apostasy” or was that just invented to enable someone to make a claim in 19th century America of the re-founding of the “true Church”? There is no need to claim that there ever was a Great Apostasy in the Mormon Church. From the beginning, its leaders fought with each other, split over differences, and excommunicated each other. Just look at their history. It was apostate at its founding. It is a non-Christian heresy of a Christian heresy, namely Protestantism. Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s how I see it. I really don’t take kindly at all to all followers of the religion being charged 10% of their income to participate, just so they can send their “missionaries” to poor Catholic countries to proselytize people who maybe have a simple faith and aren’t familiar with apologetical argumentation, using specially-crafted scripts, “lying for the Lord” in violation of the 8th Commandment and Natural Law, and spreading a (very) false Gospel, in order to try to pull people out of Holy Mother Church, which is their source of salvation in Her teachings on the moral life and in the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist, which is itself the New Covenant and in which Jesus constantly renews that New Covenant with them whenever they receive Him, and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in which their sins are wiped clean in the Blood of the Lamb. To pull people away from the God of Life in this way is the work of the Devil, to be blunt and also to be the most clear about the matter.

God bless

 

[catholic-rcia]

The New Testament is the Catholic Diary and that is very comforting. Look to who authored it for truth. I would rather tell another, the details of what I wrote in my own diary rather than one who did not write it with alternative motives tell another. This gets lost in these discussions. It is the Catholic Church with all of its good and bad that is Christ’s Church. All of the answers good and bad about this life our found at the foot of the Cross looking up. I thank God we have the Cross front and center in our Churches, in our homes, in our hearts. The Tree of life, Confession of our sins and Holy Communion. All of it leading to resurrection directly connected to the Life of our Lord Jesus.
Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[KathleenGee]

I have watched their programs on T V, until I could not any more.

Their focus is Joseph Smith and their own future exaltation to the divine.

We are divinized in Christ through Word and Sacraments…and if we avoid mortal sin, we are united to Him, irregardless of our imperfections.

How we show we are divinized…is bringing His presence to others…many times simply by who we are…and following Jesus…by being a servant, not a god in formation.

 

[BrotherofJared]

And? That doesn’t negate what I was taught in early morning seminary, BYU religion classes and Gospel Doctrine classes. The LDS church also teaches that revelation for the LDS church and priesthood keys go hand in hand. So without proper priesthood keys, there are no LDS prophets and no revelation for the LDS church.

Everyone is entitled to revelation, it is not associated with the priesthood in anyway. The only difference is that revelation for the others is received through priesthood channels and that revelation is only for key that person holds responsibility for. It is true that revelation often comes for others, most of the time those revelations are simply information or clarity in understanding, such as Peter’s learning from revelation that Jesus is the Son of God. Mormons are taught that everything the prophet says was revealed to him they can find out themselves through revelation. Even today, we can question God directly and obtain revelation the same as he did on the same topics.

Revelation is not gender specific and does not require membership in the LDS church, thus in all missionary work, the missionaries teach a principle and then ask the person they are teaching to pray to know of that principle is true. Then building His church on this “rock” means that the members of his church will learn through revelation and the Gates of Hell will not dissuade or dispel or have any power over them.

 

[BrotherofJared]

And yet they NEVER pray to Jesus. They are taught NOT to pray to Jesus. They have refused even to have the sign of our salvation, the Holy Cross, through which the Savior saved the world, anywhere in or on their buildings.

Really?

Does that make any sense to anyone, and I’m referring most especially to the fact that they do not ever pray to Jesus?

Is that consistent with the “restoration of the Gospel?”: “From now on, we will never pray to Jesus (or the Holy Spirit, I assume - someone please correct me if I’m wrong), but only to ‘Heavenly Father’”?

Considering that in that restoration, the “restored” way of viewing the Godhead is “Eternal Godhead, three persons—God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Testator.” (Bruce R McConkie, BYU speech Mar 2, 1982). As Jesus taught, we are entitled to come directly to God the Father in prayer and we do so in the name of Jesus Christ. They are both included in every prayer. Do you suppose that if we prayed to Jesus that we’d get a different answer than if we prayed to The Father? If there is one God, then why pray to three or four different names? If, as I understand most other religious concepts of the Godhead, when you pray to Jesus you are praying to God and when you pray to the Holy Ghost, you are praying to the same God, then what does it matter that we pray to the Father… if they are all one God? Isn’t it the same?

Of course, Mormons don’t believe that. We believe that we should pray to the same God Jesus prayed too.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Did the gates of hell prevail against Mormonism when they changed the Book of Mormon to agree with the change Joseph Smith made who God is?

Editing the Book of Mormon is our prerogative. I have not seen one edit that changes the meaning of the passages or the doctrine. It is interesting that everyone really loves to point out the changes made in the Book of Mormon, but can you tell me how many different versions there are of the Bible? How many editing changes and readability changes there are? The problem with the Bible is we have no original manuscripts that we can go back to see what was actually written in the first instance, much less what was actually said. With the Book of Mormon we can go back and review much of the original content as written by the scribes and determine for ourselves the extent of the changes and if anything new was introduced or old was removed.

 

[BrotherofJared]

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?”

I haven’t really seen where the OP clarified his question.

Was polygamy a false doctrine?

no

Was Adam being God a false doctrine?

Never Mormon Doctrine

Was the priesthood banned a false doctrine?

No

Was Christ’s atonement being insufficient requiring blood atonement a false doctrine?

Never Mormon Doctrine

How do Mormons justify these changes without believing the Mormon Church went into apostasy again like the former-day-saint church did?

Changing practice doesn’t not imply changing doctrine. ie. Work for the dead must be done in temples, yet in the beginning they did baptismal work for the dead at the river just like they did regular baptisms. Change practice, but same doctrine. We still practice polygamy. Serial monogamy in a eternal marriage relationship is polygamy. It is only offensive to you when all the wives are alive. Fine, Different practice same doctrine. I’m not sure what doctrine was changed when the ban was lifted.

No Mormon is stating that the LDS church infallible and unchangeable. Rather it is a progressive forward looking church. We believe that revelation and knowledge is still forth coming. There is still much about God’s kingdom that we don’t know, but we do know this: The Bible is not the end or final word. God has plenty more to say.