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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nanotwerp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BrotherofJared said:
You are correct, but this is more out of history than doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church is the mother of all other Christian churches and if an apostasy took place, it had to have happened after the apostles were killed and before the council around 300 AD that established the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Which council would that have been?
Do you have any … evidence for this?
🍿
 
TexanKnight said:
I have said this before, and I will say it again.

For ANY total Apostasy to have occurred where a “restoration” was needed, three things would have to be true:
  1. Jesus would have to be incredibly weak. This is because it would mean that man could undo what Jesus set up. Further, it would mean Satan won, even if for only 1800 years. I could not follow a Jesus that weak.
  2. Jesus would have to be dishonest. Jesus was clear that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail. Further, Jesus said He would be with us ALWAYS. Not for a short time and then, again, in 1800 years. ALWAYS. I could not follow a Jesus who was dishonest.
  3. Jesus would have to be incredibly cruel. Jesus knew the future (assuming He was God, which I do). So, Jesus knew the fate of the Apostles. Now, assume there was a total Apostasy (which I don’t). That would mean that Jesus, KNOWING there would be an Apostasy, STILL sent his very best friends out to die incredibly horrible deaths for a Church that would die within a few years and be gone for 1800 years. That is the cruelest thing I have ever heard. I could never follow a Jesus that cruel.
Click to expand...
  1. Men are weak, Jesus is not.
  2. Jesus’ dishonesty depends on how you interpret that scripture.
  3. Jesus didn’t kill his friends, men did, and men let them be killed. An apostasy that had already taken place could create just the environment that would be hostile to the apostles of Jesus Christ.
 
BrotherofJared said:
  1. Men are weak, Jesus is not.
Click to expand...
And therefore, the presumed apostasy could not have taken place.
  1. Jesus’ dishonesty depends on how you interpret that scripture.
Click to expand...
Seriously?

Well, Catholics believe that He is not dishonest, and therefore the presumed apostasy could not have taken place.
  1. Jesus didn’t kill his friends, men did, and men let them be killed. An apostasy that had already taken place could create just the environment that would be hostile to the apostles of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Catholics believe that Jesus is omniscient, and would not have sent His friends out on a mission that would be doomed to fail. Therefore, the presumed apostasy could not have taken place.
 
BrotherofJared said:
You are correct, but this is more out of history than doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church is the mother of all other Christian churches and if an apostasy took place, it had to have happened after the apostles were killed and before the council around 300 AD that established the Catholic Church. We do not discuss how to deal with any religion or their beliefs, at least not in the forums you mentioned above. Any discussion on doctrine would be what we believe the primitive church held as doctrine which disappeared in the apostasy and is now restored in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Namely, apostles and prophets, the correct mode of baptism. baptism for the dead, pre-existence and the nature of the godhead.

You are also correct in that if there was no apostasy, then there would be no reason for the Mormon church to exist. Thus, it is either the Catholic church that is the one true church or it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that is the one true church.
Click to expand...
With regards to the correct mode of baptism, can you please tell me if the instructions on baptism as contained in the Didache were written before or after the “Great Apostasy”? The Didache dates from the late 1st to the early 2nd century (meaning it very well could have been written before John died), and states the following regarding baptism (emphasis mine).
40.png
Didache:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither,** pour out water three times upon the head** into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
Click to expand...
So, again, was the Didache written before or after the apostasy?

I also don’t quite understand why you cite the correct mode of baptism as something that was lost and had to be restored when LDS temple ordinances have changed many times over the years. The most recent change to the endowment was in 1990 when the blood oaths and five points of fellowship were removed. The initiatory was changed in 2005. Are these changes evidence of an apostasy of the LDS church? Do we need a restoration to restore the original endowment and initiatory ordinances?

Even if there was an apostasy (which there wasn’t), it doesn’t mean that Joseph Smith was the one to restore anything. Maybe it was someone else. Maybe the restoration hasn’t happened yet.
 
BrotherofJared said:
You are correct, but this is more out of history than doctrine.
Click to expand...
We do not discuss how to deal with any religion or their beliefs, at least not in the forums you mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Are you sure?
Joseph Smith History 1:19:
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that** all their creeds were an abomination in his sight**; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but** their hearts are far from me**, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Click to expand...
Your own scriptures are anti-Catholic/anti-orthodox Christianity.

If I remember right, Jeffry Holland’s talk from the April General Conference was anti-Christian.
 
BrotherofJared said:
You are correct, but this is more out of history than doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church is the mother of all other Christian churches and if an apostasy took place, it had to have happened after the apostles were killed and before the council around 300 AD that established the Catholic Church. We do not discuss how to deal with any religion or their beliefs, at least not in the forums you mentioned above. Any discussion on doctrine would be what we believe the primitive church held as doctrine which disappeared in the apostasy and is now restored in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Namely, apostles and prophets, the correct mode of baptism. baptism for the dead, pre-existence and the nature of the godhead.

You are also correct in that if there was no apostasy, then there would be no reason for the Mormon church to exist. Thus, it is either the Catholic church that is the one true church or it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that is the one true church.
Click to expand...
So how does an apostasy occur when your own church believes the John still walks the earth with 3 nephites? How can that be when all the Apostles died?
 
FathersKnowBest said:
Thanks, Son of Niall.

I didn’t think it was too confusing of a question.

So, BrothrofJared, do you have any evidence that the Catholic Church was established at the Council of Nicaea?

🍿
Click to expand...
This guy’s “apologetics” has fallen down so many times it’s pathetic.
Part of me kinda feels sorry for him.
:cool:
 
Son_of_Niall said:
This guy’s “apologetics” has fallen down so many times it’s pathetic.
Part of me kinda feels sorry for him.
:cool:
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it’s not entirely him. At least not alone.

He’s trying out the arguments that he’s been given, and hasn’t properly vetted.

Hopefully, he’ll also see how those arguments don’t hold up to any logical or historical scrutiny.

Let’s say a prayer for him.
:gopray2:
 
iepuras said:
Are you sure? If that is true, than why was a Christian minister a character in the LDS temple endowment prior to 1990? On more than one occasion while I was still LDS, we discussed how the Catholic Church was the great and abominable church of the devil in Sunday School and seminary. Protestant reformers and the churches they founded were also not uncommon topics of discussion in Sunday School. One of the LDS apostles even discussed the Protestant reformers at great length in General Conference 2 years ago. After that GC talk, my Relief Society presidency decided to teach a lesson on it, and the entire lesson was filled with praise of Martin Luther and other reformers and how bad the Catholic Church was and is.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, when we talk about other religions it is usually in the historical context, sometimes we get it wrong and sometimes we embellish where we shouldn’t (after all, people do have personal experiences which they carry into such discussions just like your experience from Relief Society), but we don’t invest a lot in picking apart other religions. Most of our involvement in any religious discussion is in defense of our believes and in doing so we often refer to our differences such as my discussion on mode of baptism (which wasn’t a discussion on baptism as much as it was on differences in religions and how we can’t all be right if we practice so differently).
 
kimg901 said:
So how does an apostasy occur when your own church believes the John still walks the earth with 3 nephites? How can that be when all the Apostles died?
Click to expand...
Yes, tell me about it. I’d love to hear how you think that works…
 
FathersKnowBest said:
And therefore, the presumed apostasy could not have taken place.

Seriously?

Well, Catholics believe that He is not dishonest, and therefore the presumed apostasy could not have taken place.

Catholics believe that Jesus is omniscient, and would not have sent His friends out on a mission that would be doomed to fail. Therefore, the presumed apostasy could not have taken place.
Click to expand...
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
 
BrotherofJared said:
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
BoJ,

Please review all of the bible verses that the LDS use to “prove” a great apostasy. You’re a smart guy; you will easily see that these passages refer to the apostasy of individuals or groups from the church, not an apostasy of the Church.

Just consider it, please.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
PaulDupre1 said:
BoJ,

Please review all of the bible verses that the LDS use to “prove” a great apostasy. You’re a smart guy; you will easily see that these passages refer to the apostasy of individuals or groups from the church, not an apostasy of the Church.

Just consider it, please.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
Click to expand...
I am not here to challenge Catholicism, only to defend Mormonism. You have found your peace and I have found mine.
 
BrotherofJared said:
  1. Men are weak, Jesus is not.
So? Are you saying the weakness of men can overcome the strength of Jesus? Sorry…not the true Jesus…
  1. Jesus’ dishonesty depends on how you interpret that scripture.
Wrong. Jesus was clear. You must make Him unclear to fit what you need.
  1. Jesus didn’t kill his friends, men did, and men let them be killed. An apostasy that had already taken place could create just the environment that would be hostile to the apostles of Jesus Christ.
Wrong. For you to be right, Jesus sent His friends off to die horrible, needless deaths that He KNEW would occur. For you to be right, Jesus is very cruel.

You rebuttal had no meat.
Click to expand...
 
BrotherofJared said:
Generally speaking, when we talk about other religions it is usually in the historical context, sometimes we get it wrong and sometimes we embellish where we shouldn’t (after all, people do have personal experiences which they carry into such discussions just like your experience from Relief Society), but we don’t invest a lot in picking apart other religions.
Click to expand...
You mean like in your scriptures when Joseph Smith wrote this?
Joseph Smith History 1:19:
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Click to expand...
Most of our involvement in any religious discussion is in defense of our believes and in doing so we often refer to our differences such as my discussion on mode of baptism (which wasn’t a discussion on baptism as much as it was on differences in religions and how we can’t all be right if we practice so differently).
Click to expand...
You stated in post #281 that the correct mode of baptism was a doctrine that was lost in the apostasy and Joseph Smith was called to restore it. The Didache is an early Christian document dating from the late 1st to the early 2nd century. It could have been written before John died, but we don’t know for sure. The Didache states the following with regards to baptism:
40.png
Didache:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
Click to expand...
So what was Joseph Smith restoring exactly? How was the proper mode of baptism lost in an apostasy when the ancient Christian churches (Catholic and Orthodox) use the same modes of baptism as outlined in the Didache? Was the Didache written before or after the apostasy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top