You know, the doctrine that your current president told you to forget about.
Can you be more specific? I doubt that anyone knows what you are talking about.
I am a former Mormon and I don’t know what you are talking about. Once we understand, we can discuss.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
As you can see, the gates of hell have the same status quo as usual.
So if anyone is teaching false doctrine out there, it hasn’t affected these gates–they remain as is.
Your original post is sparse, but I think I can understand what you are trying to ask.
The ‘Gates of Hell’ quote comes from Matthew 16:18
‘And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’
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. Catholic belief is that Peter was the rock, and that direct succession to his leadership exists to the current day.
I think you are referring to one of several instances where the president of the LDS church or other leaders taught, formally or informally, some doctrine that we simply do not believe.
How am I doing so far?
If the verse says that Peter is the “rock”, where do you get the notion that it really means “revelation”. I don’t see any connection between the verse, and your findings.
When did this “apostasy” occur?
So you admit that the doctrine of the mormon church changes, based upon who the leader is?
When I was in the LDS church, I was taught that the rock was the priesthood, specifically the Melchizadek priesthood.
If Joseph Smith was correct and the priesthood keys were taken from the earth at the time of the supposed apostasy, then didn’t the gates of hell prevail? Or is that one of those verses that was mistranslated or changed by conspiring men?
Since Joseph Smith the church has taught that the rock is revelation. Joseph says:
Jesus in His teachings says, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ What rock? Revelation. HC 5:258
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.
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.
Sure, by extension, and through revelation, John the baptist visited Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. By revelation, in the form of a personal visitation, Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek priesthood. But to change what you have said slightly, I would say that without revelation there is no priesthood power.
Ummmmm nope, not buying it. At best that is a huge stretch.
But hey, thanks for the try.
Which version of the first vision are you talking about? Which one is official?
Within an LDS context, that may have been the case for Joseph Smith, but it doesn’t really work today. For example, if someone came out and said he had a revelation from God that the LDS church went into apostasy and the priesthood authority was taken away when Wilford Woodruff was LDS prophet and that he was called of God to restore the priesthood authority in a new church and that John the Baptist, Peter, James and John appeared and gave him the priesthood keys, would you believe him? I doubt it. During my Mormon days, I would say that it was not a true revelation because this man does not have the priesthood keys to receive revelation (i.e., he is not the LDS prophet).
It’s the whole chicken and the egg conundrum. Which came first revelation or priesthood keys? Even if I believed there was an apostasy and priesthood authority was lost (which obviously I don’t), who is to say that Joseph Smith was the one to restore it? Or that it could not be lost again with the need for yet another restoration. To me, it seems a bit easier to believe Jesus got it right the first time. :shrug:
In order to exercise priesthood power in the name of God one must have two things.
- Priesthood Authority - Such authority can be passed down from one mortal to another, so long as the Lord continues to sanction the leaders of his church.
- Priesthood Power - Without power, the authority means very little to those who obtain it. Such power must be received by an individual through revelation. Such revelation may not be earth shattering but it must be given from above and recognized by the individual.
That is what I was taught when I was LDS. The “rock” was revelation.
How does one know if the Lord continues to sanction the leaders of his church?
Did not Oliver Cowdry leave the LDS faith? How does this square with him having an angelic visit restoring the priesthood? Seems like the sort of thing that would make you a lifelong believer.
The original language has Peter (Cephas, Kephas) means Rock. How do you get from the very obvious seeming, literal translation of Peter (Rock), on this Rock I will build my church, to it just being revelation (being the rock)?
When did the Great Apostasy occur? Could you break it down with historical facts and timelines?
When I do that I find very little wiggle room for an apostasy and even less credibility for some ancient conspiracy to hide it. Can’t have an apostasy while one of the Apostles is alive, correct? So, we know that it did not occur before about 90AD, John was still alive.
Biblical scholarship concludes that the bible is unchanged to about 200 AD, so not mistranslated or other artifacts. The Didache is considered an early instruction manual to the early church, depicts worship of the early christian church. That is credited with being written from 50 AD to 150 AD. So, if we conclude that these data points provide a picture of early christianity, unchanged, then there is only at best 60 years (to the latest Didache) or at worst 110 years to the Biblical scholarship. I’m being generous with most of the data I’ve uncovered. Nevermind all the conversions, the many cities, and folks appointed to run those places when the apostles weren’t around, the letters written (several documented in the New Testament). It becomes increasingly difficult to suggest that they fell away (Apostatized). Or does to come back to an early post and somehow they lost God’s sanction to exercise in His name, but then how does one know? Could not modern LDS have lost the sanction, its been the same amount of time between Joseph Smith and these datapoints illustrated?
There is a history of God changing a man’s name and beginning something on/with him. Abraham with his faith, Israel with his wrestling, Peter with his knowledge. These were established on and marked by the changing of the name of a person.
How come JS didn’t receive a new name from God, that fit his role?
You mean like Gazelem?