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

[BrotherofJared]

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:

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?

It is interesting that you present evidence of apostasy to support that there was no apostasy. We don’t know who the author is. We don’t know for sure when it was written. And it was argued out of the scriptures because “some reject it” (Eusebius, emphasis added). Even the New Testament itself shows evidence of apostasy. I personally believe that it was the apostasy that brought about the Apostles deaths, so it was well underway before they died.

 

[iepuras]

It is interesting that you present evidence of apostasy to support that there was no apostasy. We don’t know who the author is. We don’t know for sure when it was written. And it was argued out of the scriptures because “some reject it” (Eusebius, emphasis added). Even the New Testament itself shows evidence of apostasy. I personally believe that it was the apostasy that brought about the Apostles deaths, so it was well underway before they died.

Wow. So you are moving the apostasy up from sometime after the death of the Apostles and before the Council of Nicaea to before the death of the Apostles. So it was apostate Christians that killed the Apostles rather than political forces (Imperial Rome, etc) who weren’t too keen on Christianity? The apostasy was well under way before the Apostles died? So Mormons believe the Apostles were failures in spreading the Gospel?

I think Texan said it best in post # 278.

TexanKnight:

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.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Wow. So you are moving the apostasy up from sometime after the death of the Apostles and before the Council of Nicaea to before the death of the Apostles. So it was apostate Christians that killed the Apostles rather than political forces (Imperial Rome, etc) who weren’t too keen on Christianity? The apostasy was well under way before the Apostles died? So Mormons believe the Apostles were failures in spreading the Gospel?

I think Texan said it best in post # 278.

If I was to put my finger on an exact point when the apostasy was complete, it would be when the authority to administer the gospel was removed. With no Apostles, there is no authority.

I believe the Apostles did a fine job of spreading the gospel. They taught the Gospel in truth and lead the people to the fountain of living waters. But I also believe you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. The Apostles planted the seeds necessary for the restoration of the gospel. Their words were maintained and developed (translated into the common tongue, so that “even a farm boy will know more of the scriptures than the church does” [Tinsdale]) through all those centuries to bring about the restoration. I’d say they fulfilled their missions very well. I’d also say that if God could bring all of these things through all those centuries that He is not weak.

I’m sorry, but to me, it appears that what you call “strong” is a God that forces his religion on people. Who watches as supposed Christians stand by and do nothing as the Apostles are killed. And afterwards, use the remaining few to administer his church without Apostles. No. I don’t see that kind of God. I see entrance into His Kingdom as voluntary and a personal choice and a way of life. And that to stay in His Kingdom is to follow him and persevere in doing good (charity) until the end.

 

[TexanKnight]

It is interesting that you present evidence of apostasy to support that there was no apostasy. We don’t know who the author is. We don’t know for sure when it was written. And it was argued out of the scriptures because “some reject it” (Eusebius, emphasis added). Even the New Testament itself shows evidence of apostasy. I personally believe that it was the apostasy that brought about the Apostles deaths, so it was well underway before they died.

If only Jesus had been string enough to stop it and not so cruel as to needlessly send his best friends to their death

 

[LivingWaters7]

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.

Cite historical evidence of this council around 300 AD that established the Catholic Church. Substantiate your claim.

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.

As I have said before, such a view ignores the fact that Mormonism is merely one among many religions over the 2000 years since Christ established the Catholic Church that claims that they are a “restoration” of the lost true church. So no, it isn’t either the Catholic Church or the LDS church. If indeed a restoration occurred, it could be the Seventh-day Adventist Church, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the Churches of Christ, or any of the other claimants. Fortunately, an apostasy of Christ’s Church never happened, and it has always been here on the earth since He Himself established it, guiding it Himself.

 

[TexanKnight]

If only Jesus had been strong enough to stop it and not so cruel as to needlessly send his best friends to their death

had to edit

 

[zaffiroborant]

It is interesting that you present evidence of apostasy to support that there was no apostasy. We don’t know who the author is. We don’t know for sure when it was written. And it was argued out of the scriptures because “some reject it” (Eusebius, emphasis added). Even the New Testament itself shows evidence of apostasy. I personally believe that it was the apostasy that brought about the Apostles deaths, so it was well underway before they died.

No apostasy, it’s obvious that while some rejected it the church did not. There are many who believe the LDS church is in apostasy because they quit polygamy. There are also of course the changes to temple ceremonies, the endowment has changed dramatically over the years, not to mention changing the wording of the sealing ceremony, removing the penalties. You guys change your ordinances all the time, take a survey change what people don’t like.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If I was to put my finger on an exact point when the apostasy was complete, it would be when the authority to administer the gospel was removed. With no Apostles, there is no authority.

I believe the Apostles did a fine job of spreading the gospel. They taught the Gospel in truth and lead the people to the fountain of living waters. But I also believe you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. The Apostles planted the seeds necessary for the restoration of the gospel. Their words were maintained and developed (translated into the common tongue, so that “even a farm boy will know more of the scriptures than the church does” [Tinsdale]) through all those centuries to bring about the restoration. I’d say they fulfilled their missions very well. I’d also say that if God could bring all of these things through all those centuries that He is not weak.

I’m sorry, but to me, it appears that what you call “strong” is a God that forces his religion on people. Who watches as supposed Christians stand by and do nothing as the Apostles are killed. And afterwards, use the remaining few to administer his church without Apostles. No. I don’t see that kind of God. I see entrance into His Kingdom as voluntary and a personal choice and a way of life. And that to stay in His Kingdom is to follow him and persevere in doing good (charity) until the end.

The Church that Jesus established is like a well, that all are welcomed to, but no one is forced to drink from her. The witness of Christ’s Church, the baptized, through the ages is evidence that many have drunk freely from her waters. Why do you pretend otherwise?

The Aposteles did not have a mission to prepare the way for a new religion of the 19th century. Their mission was given to them by Jesus Himself, to go forth teaching the Gospel, the Good News, of Jesus Christ, to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I think you have a problem to work out, if you believe Jesus commissioned them with this mission and they failed to pass on (ordain), successors to continue this mission, perpetually.

You have to ignore an awful lot as well. The faith of the baptized, through the ages, and the successors of the Apostles. Who did they ordain? And who are they today? Hint: they aren’t Mormons.

You have to out your fingers in your ears and hum a nice tune.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

So reason would tell us that there was a “Mormon” Church from 33AD until 300AD and contained in the many writings of the Christians of that era we would find that Former-Day-Saint (Mormon) Church. I mean: Because Joseph Smith claimed to “restore” that Church, we would find in those ancient writings all the unique beliefs and practices of Mormonism. But that is not the case. So it is clear that Joseph Smith just made up stuff.

 

[Stephen168]

Any former LDS will testify that that is simply untrue. We have all heard Catholic-bashing sacrament meeting talks, Sunday school lessons, General Conference talks and BYU Forum addresses by GAs. We have also read anti-Catholic polemical books by LDS prophets and apostles like “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” by LeGrand Richards, “The Great Apostasy” by James Talmage and many others.

There was an anti-Catholic talk in one of your recent General Conferences. What a short memory you have.

The fact that my BoM professor at BYU declared plainly that the Catholic Church is the great and abominable church described by Nephi shows how deeply engrained in LDS thought anti-Catholicism really is. When I was LDS, everyone knew that the Catholic Church is the G&A church.

Mormonism defines itself by its not-being Catholicism. Without an apostasy of the Catholic Church, Mormonism loses its reason for existing, your playing nice not withstanding.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

In the 1970’s, my Mormon friends claimed to know what the Catholic Church taught but not what other Christian Churches taught. I always thought that was odd until I realized that anti-Catholic teaching was Mormon Doctrine back then.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Show me a religion that has apostles and prophets, that doesn’t teach a triune god, that doesn’t teach that He has no body, has no passions and that teaches a life after death that doesn’t necessary restrict life there to singing in choirs for eternity with love all around (kumbaya), then perhaps, I’d listen.

What I find amazing is that all of the churches that broke off from the Catholics, they still held to the one doctrine of a triune god that makes no sense to me at all and isn’t taught in the Bible in either the Old or the New Testament. Sure, you can point to a few stray verses that say: “The Lord our God is one lord.” Yea. Great. But the entire New Testament is a witness that Jesus Christ is NOT his own Father.

I don’t dredge up issues about the Catholic past, though there are plenty of oddities there, because that doctrine (among others) is what turns me away.

Joseph Smith taught that to know truth one has only to ask God if it is right. He taught this concerning the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon, He did the same concerning his First Vision. I have my own witness that Jesus Christ has His own body and that He is His own person and that His Father is physically separate from His Son’s having a body also. I cannot see it any other way.

 

[LivingWaters7]

What I find amazing is that all of the churches that broke off from the Catholics, they still held to the one doctrine of a triune god that makes no sense to me at all and isn’t taught in the Bible in either the Old or the New Testament. Sure, you can point to a few stray verses that say: “The Lord our God is one lord.” Yea. Great. But the entire New Testament is a witness that Jesus Christ is NOT his own Father.

This shows that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The Trinity doctrine does not teach that Jesus Christ is His own Father (if it does, I would like a citation demonstrating that it does). The Trinity doctrine, as distinct (pun intended) from the heresy of modalism, teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all distinct Persons who are not each other.

 

[Stephen168]

Show me a religion that has apostles and prophets, that doesn’t teach a triune god, that doesn’t teach that He has no body, has no passions and that teaches a life after death that doesn’t necessary restrict life there to singing in choirs for eternity with love all around (kumbaya), then perhaps, I’d listen.

You mean a religion that includes the things invented by Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith taught that to know truth one has only to ask God if it is right.

God’s answer will not disagree with science, history, or reason. These three prove the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

 

[twopekinguys]

If I was to put my finger on an exact point when the apostasy was complete, it would be when the authority to administer the gospel was removed. With no Apostles, there is no authority.

The only problem with this premise is that mormons believe, and have taught the Apostle John still walks the Earth.

If he is still walking the Earth, then your so called Apostasy is not complete. Therefore, no “restoration” could be made.

John is mentioned frequently in latter-day revelation (1 Ne. 14:18–27; 3 Ne. 28:6; Ether 4:16; D&C 7; 27:12; 61:14; 77; 88:141). These passages confirm the biblical record of John and also provide insight into his greatness and the importance of the work the Lord has given him to do on the earth in New Testament times and in the last days. The latter-day scriptures clarify that John did not die but was allowed to remain on the earth as a ministering servant until the time of the Lord’s second coming (John 21:20–23; 3 Ne. 28:6–7; D&C 7).

 

[kimg901]

Yes, tell me about it. I’d love to hear how you think that works…

That’s why I asked you Jared. I would like to know from a Mormon how this works.

 

[BrotherofJared]

You mean a religion that includes the things invented by Joseph Smith

God’s answer will not disagree with science, history, or reason. These three prove the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

Or that are taught in the Bible.

 

[BrotherofJared]

The only problem with this premise is that mormons believe, and have taught the Apostle John still walks the Earth.

If he is still walking the Earth, then your so called Apostasy is not complete. Therefore, no “restoration” could be made.

John is mentioned frequently in latter-day revelation (1 Ne. 14:18–27; 3 Ne. 28:6; Ether 4:16; D&C 7; 27:12; 61:14; 77; 88:141). These passages confirm the biblical record of John and also provide insight into his greatness and the importance of the work the Lord has given him to do on the earth in New Testament times and in the last days. The latter-day scriptures clarify that John did not die but was allowed to remain on the earth as a ministering servant until the time of the Lord’s second coming (John 21:20–23; 3 Ne. 28:6–7; D&C 7).

Apostasy isn’t the total extinction of all priesthood on the earth. It is that no church has the authority to administer the gospel. Just as with the 3 Nephites were taken away from the apostate Nephites even though there were obviously some who still followed Christ. You don’t have to be dead to stop preaching.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

So reason would tell us that there was a “Mormon” Church from 33AD until 300AD and contained in the many writings of the Christians of that era we would find that Former-Day-Saint (Mormon) Church. I mean: Because Joseph Smith claimed to “restore” that Church, we would find in those ancient writings all the unique beliefs and practices of Mormonism. But that is not the case. So it is clear that Joseph Smith just made up stuff.

Or that are taught in the Bible.

There was never a Former-Day-Saint Church, so Joseph Smith could never restore it. Unique Mormon teachings were never Christians teachings. Joseph Smith just made it all up.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Apostasy isn’t the total extinction of all priesthood on the earth. It is that no church has the authority to administer the gospel.

What is the evidence for loss of authority?

 

[twopekinguys]

Apostasy isn’t the total extinction of all priesthood on the earth. It is that no church has the authority to administer the gospel. Just as with the 3 Nephites were taken away from the apostate Nephites even though there were obviously some who still followed Christ. You don’t have to be dead to stop preaching.

That’s not what your post said now is it.

You really need to quit moving the goal posts.

Again, following your new premise, are you saying the Apostle John (who is still walking the Earth) doesn’t have the authority to administer the Gospel?

Either he does, or he doesn’t, so answer very carefully.

IF he does, then the Gospel is intact, the Catholic Church is intact, and there is no need for a “restoration”.

IF he does not, then please provide evidence (not speculation) that would prove the Apostle John does not have authority to administer the Gospel.



I anxiously await your answer.