The gates of hell shall not prevail against it

[Guest]

  On 8/5/2014 at 9:57 PM, faith4 said:

Okay, but I thought I read on another thread where someone posted that this dispensation could not fail (my mind is suggesitn TFP, but I'm not sure), therefore you can truly trust your prophets and leaders, that they can't lead the church astray.  Or maybe I'm not picking up on the slight nuance. 

 

 

There is a nuance, yes... the prediction is that God will not need to remove the authority restored upon the head of Joseph Smith and passed through the prophets in this last dispensation until the 2nd coming.  This means that the organization of the Church with this Authority will have people who freely choose to qualify for this Authority all the way through the 2nd coming.  It does not guarantee that apostasy is not going to happen even among the leaders of the Church - this will always remain to be a choice freely made by such leaders - but it does predict that God will not find cause to remove such authority from the earth all the way to the 2nd coming.

 

 

  On 8/5/2014 at 9:57 PM, faith4 said:

Anyway, my point in asking, was just to clarify what you believe the Plan of Salvation to be (only part of it of course) and how God has interacted with us throughout history.  It is very different than what Catholics, and most other Christians believe.  We have a different Plan of Salvation, and this is why some of the Scriptures are taught with different translations between our respective faiths.  I know you were once Catholic, so this shouldn't be a surprise to you, it would be difficult to not see the differences. 

 

In all my study, it is quite clear to me where the differences stem from.  And this is why I always say - the differences in interpretations of certain parts of scripture between Catholic and LDS stem from just a small handful of roots.  These are the veering off of Godly attributes to the Trinitarian viewpoint and a small number of concepts that are not present in the Catholic Church, most especially Pre-Mortal Existence, Eternal Marriage, and works of the dead.  Small differences with gigantic implications.

 

 

  On 8/5/2014 at 9:57 PM, faith4 said:

This verse makes sense to you, as a "church" being built on revelation, which once this revelation is revealed, it can't be defeated, and can carry throughout time, correct? 

 

I don't understand this question.  What do you mean by "once it is revealed it can't be defeated"... what does "defeated" here mean?  It seems like you are using Revelation and Priesthood Authority interchangeably.  Revelation is simply God revealing Himself or things pertaining to His Kingdom to man and on this specific event that we are talking about, the Revelation is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. 

 

Peter qualified himself through faith and righteousness to receive the revelation.  So, the Father revealed this truth to Peter.   Peter had the choice to reject such revelation... hence, Jesus asked Him 3 times - do you love me? 

 

Remember that in the following verses, Jesus instructed Peter not to share the revelation with anyone.  Not just yet.  This is because the people were not ready to receive such revelation and would just end up in confusion and reject it - this is what LDS likes to refer to as casting pearls before swine.

 

So, if you mean that Revelation can be defeated by people rejecting such revelation, then yes, every single person ever born on the planet - including Peter himself - has the choice to accept or reject the revelation... and by virtue of free will, it is possible that every single person will reject the revelation.

 

But, what it means that the gates of hell cannot prevail against Revelation... it simply means that death cannot stop every single person from hearing the revelation and have the opportunity to either accept or reject it.  It does not matter if you spent part of your life a Christian or an Aetheist or even if you lived your entire life trapped alone in a cave with only bats for company - eventually, whether it be this life or the next, you will hear this revelation and you will have the chance to exercise your free will to either accept it or reject it. 

 

 

  On 8/5/2014 at 9:57 PM, faith4 said:

We also believe that Peter did receive a revelation and spoke with faith, revealing who Jesus was.  And with this profession of faith, Jesus made Peter the steward of His church here on earth (the significance of the keys), to guide and protect the deposit of faith.  The authority bestowed on Peter, we believe, has been passed down through ordination, b/c Peter had the authority to "bind" on earth, so the authority he passed on to other men, by the laying on of hands, was "bound" in heaven.  I can understand your explanation, from your POV, but in the grand picture of what I know of God, however small it may be, it still doesn't quite fit right for me. 

 

Thank you though, I do enjoy reading these different threads and learning what you believe :)

 

God bless!

 

And here we talk about Authority. 

 

The Church is built upon the Rock of Revelation that Jesus is the Christ which was given to Peter.  Therefore, the Church was built upon Peter given (or ordained with) all the keys as mentioned in those passages we are talking about.  These keys can only be passed by someone that has the authority for those keys with Jesus Christ being the source of such authority.  But the person of authority may pass only specific keys and not necessarily all the keys.  Therefore, Peter, being the Rock of the Church (and successively - James and John receiving the keys at the transfiguration and the rest of the apostles during Penetecost) is the only one outside of Jesus Christ and the ancient prophets with authority that can ordain the keys to somebody else.  If a person was only ordained for specific keys and not all keys (such as bishops only having the keys of authority for their locality and not for the entire church - as is evidenced by the many letters of Paul to correct such bishops) then they don't have the authority to pass all keys - they can only pass the keys they are authorized to pass.

 

So, as it pertains to the Catholic versus LDS claim on authority... we have a difference of opinion on whether Peter (or any of the Apostles for that matter) handed down all the keys to Linus as Linus was not an apostle but a bishop.  Interestingly, another challenge to this authority was made during the split of the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople - both claiming the rightful authority of all the keys.

[faith4]

  On 8/5/2014 at 10:01 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

 

Can't/won't.  I suppose there's nuance there. The end result is the same though. Which is what's important to understand I think. The kingdom of God will not fail.

 

I can agree with that

[spamlds]

I apologize for the length of this in advance.  I know it'll be long because there are a lot of issues connected to this. 

 

The focus on Peter alone is unhealthy.  Latter-day saints believe Peter was the president of the Church, with James and John acting as counselors in the First Presidency.  We see little instances of deference shown to Peter by John when the two apostles ran to the tomb at the news of the missing body. John, being younger, outran Peter and arrived first.  But he waited for Peter to enter first.  Paul speaks of his visit to Jerusalem after a 14-year mission and meeting Peter, James, and John for the first time and how awed he was at them (See Galatians 2:9). 

 

We don't downplay Peter's importance, but we see our First Presidency in the same light.  The president of the Church today holds the keys that Peter did.  Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.  The ancient apostles ordained new apostles and conferred the priesthood anew.  Either Joseph Smith made this up or it is true.  It's up to each believer to come to terms with it. 

 

Personally, I believe it.  Why? Because I lived the first two decades of my life without any contact with the true priesthood.  I went to dozens of denominations, attended their meetings, and studied their teachings.  Then when I became a Mormon, I received the priesthood.  A real, true power came into my life.  I have laid hands on the sick and had them recover.  I have baptized and confirmed people and they truly received the Holy Ghost.  In one case, I baptized an African man in France and angels began appearing to his family in Brazzaville, Congo, urging them to read and believe in the Book of Mormon. 

I know that I don't have any kind of power of my own that can do things like that.  However, the priesthood has that power. That power didn't come to me until after I was properly ordained and called of God as was Aaron (See Hebrews 5:4). 

 

Regarding Catholics, the apostasy, and the loss of the keys.  Again--I mean no offense here--let's look at history and compare it to a hypothetical situation today.  Let's suppose a giant meteor or a nuke hit Salt Lake City and killed every single person who currently holds the keys simultaneously.  Let's say all that were left were stake presidents and bishops to run the Church.  They have delegated authority that is derived from the keys.  They would still hold that authority.

 

Nevertheless, the Quorum of the Twelve is who authorizes ordinations of bishops and stake presidents.  Without a Quorum of the Twelve, no new bishops or S.P.s could be called. 

 

Now let's say that some of the bishops and stake presidents died shortly thereafter, leaving congregations without leaders.  Let us suppose that the elders and high priests decided they had authority to elect their own bishops and ordain them.  Let's suppose that a council of bishops got together and said, let's make the guy who is the bishop in the biggest, most powerful city an apostle and we'll put him in charge of everyone.

 

They don't have authority to do that.  They don't hold he keys independently.  They can't act beyond the scope of their authority. 

 

Now let's say that there were internal disagreements and external persecution adding additional pressures.  Let's imagine that a congregation decides to fire its bishop and elect a new one. (That's what happened with Polycarp anciently).  To escape persecution, the Church and the government get linked together and ultimately, when the government collapses the Church fills the void.  Now, the elected bishop has civil power as well as control of the Church.

 

This is what happened with the early Christian Church.  There was persecution, there were intrigues, and there were false brethren creeping in unawares teaching false doctrine.  Worldliness overtook them.  They sought the approval of the world and they lost the keys.  Over the centuries, the organization became more and more corrupt.

 

True, there were faithful believers who stand out, but they were rare.  When the Church became "universal" it exercised tyrannical powers and became utterly corrupt.  It sought to keep the scriptures out of the hands of laymen.  It persecuted and killed reformers.  There was seemingly no end until the Protestant reformers came along.

 

The reformers did much good, but they couldn't restore the keys.  They were gone.  If any man had authority from that dispensation today, he would have to trace it through John, the last surviving apostle, not Peter. The bishop of Rome may have been ordained by an apostle, but he was never more than a bishop.  He didn't have the keys of the apostleship.  Without the apostleship to approve the ordination of bishops, there is no way to ordain new ones without usurping power that is beyond their own authority. 

 

The deacon's quorum president can't ordain another deacon's quorum president.  A bishop has to give him the keys.  But a bishop can't call a new elder's quorum president--those keys come from the stake president's level.  He's the president of the Melchizedek priesthood in his area.  The bishop is the president of the Aaronic priesthood.  A stake president can't ordain a bishop and he certainly can't ordain his own replacement.  That authority comes from higher up.  When the apostles are gone, there isn't anyone who can confer the authority.

 

One of the blessings of this dispensation is that it is the last one.  If it weren't for the Lord cutting short his work in righteousness, we would probably end up falling away like previous dispensations.  The fact that the Lord will return during this one saves us the fate of previous dispensations.  We're not any different people than the saints in the ancient times.  The same things would happen to us.  Fortunately, the Lord's coming is soon.

[Guest]

  On 8/6/2014 at 9:50 PM, spamlds said:

<snip>

 

Regarding Catholics, the apostasy, and the loss of the keys.  Again--I mean no offense here--let's look at history and compare it to a hypothetical situation today.   

 

<snip>

 

The same FAITH that is required to believe that Peter handed down the keys to Joseph Smith who then handed it down to Brigham Young is the exact same FAITH that the Catholics have in believing that Peter handed down the authority of the Church to Pope Linus elevating him from Bishop to Pope who then handed it down to the Popes through the ages.

 

Now, why did they start calling Linus Pope instead of Apostle?  Doesn't matter.  What matters is that Catholics have FAITH that Pope Linus was ordained by Peter himself to lead the Church.

 

Now... try to disprove that!

 

And about your experiences healing the sick and what-not... that still doesn't disprove the apostolic claim of the Catholics.  Because, they can take your priesthood experiences and raise that with miraculous experiences of Catholics in a game of poker.

 

So, really... it does no use to try to prove your claim by dumping on Catholics.

[mrmarklin]

As LDS myself I can certainly see the problem any Catholic would have accepting Joseph Smith's claims of a restoration. We must remember that even from LDS point of view, the Catholic church used to be the true church!

While the "gates of hell" scripture is clear to me, I freely admit that it's ambiguous enough to be open to interpretation. And both religions acknowledge that Peter was the head of the ancient church.

I personally believe that there have been enough doctrinal deviations from the bible in other so called Christian churches to constitute apostasy. Therefore making a restoration necessary, but of course other religions claim that their bible interpretations are correct.

In the end it boils down to faith, backed by study, and prayer.

[spamlds]

I wanted to chime in on a couple of points.  Faith4 has a growing understanding of our concept of priesthood, but it's not a complete one.

 

Peter was not the first person to hold the keys of the kingdom on earth.  Adam was given them.  They came down through his lineage through Seth down to Noah. From Noah to Melchizedek, there was an unbroken chain.  Abraham had the gospel preached to him (Galatians 3:8).  From Abraham, the priesthood lineage came down through Isaac, Jacob, and then to Joseph.  

 

Apostasy usually appears as a gap in the scriptural record because they generally represent times with no revelation.  The 400 years of bondage in Egypt was accompanied by a gap in revelation.  The untold story is that, when Jacob's family settled in Goshen, they probably drifted away, adopted false traditions, and then God's blessings withdrew from them.  It's like the Record of Zeniff in the Book of Mormon, most likely.

 

When Moses came, he was a restorer.  He sought to restore the old order that had been handed down through the patriarchs.  He had priesthood keys that had been lost to Israel.  It was by this power that he presided over the people.  He tried to bring them into God's presence, but the people resisted this.  For this reason, the Law of Moses was given to give them a "schoolmaster" to bring them to Christ (Galatians 3:24).  Even under that lesser law, Israel had trouble avoiding apostasy.  There were several times that God allowed them to be conquered and they were dispersed twice that we know of.  There were gaps in which there were no prophets and no new revelation given.  Most notably, there's another 4-century gap between the end of the Old Testament and the ministry of John the Baptist.

 

During that 400-year period, the Levitical priesthood survived.  Many had to be put from the priesthood because they had drifted away from their religious roots and could not prove their connection to the priestly lineage while they were in Babylon.  However, we have no record of a prophet bearing the Melchizedek priesthood during that period.

 

Besides being our Savior and bringing to pass the atonement--his most important role--Jesus also acted as a restorer.  He restored back the gospel that was preached to Abraham and the prophets before him.  The Great Aposasy we have been talking about followed that restoration.  When Jesus gave Peter and the rest of the 12 Apostles the keys, he was restoring them.  Certain other keys were committed to the Twelve on the Mount of Transfiguration when Moses and Elias appeared to them.

 

After the removal of the apostles, there were still the Nephite Twelve on the other side of the planet, but if you read carefully, you'll see that they did not receive the keys of the kingdom from Jesus.  The Jerusalem Twelve received them for the whole world.  When they were gone, the keys were gone with them.  With the last of the Nephite prophets gone around 400 A.D., there was a general, global apostasy with no man exercising the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood.  That's why the restoration of the keys is a big deal.  

 

The priesthood keys held by today's apostles are the connecting link between all generations and all dispensations.  They are the same.

 

Regarding Anatess' opinion that I'm solely attacking Catholics, once again let me remind her that the LORD is the one who said the creeds were an abomination and that their professors are corrupt.  There are many good people in other Christian faiths who are blessed according to the light and knowledge they are willing to receive from God.  On the other hand, the creeds and those who defend them are working against God's kingdom.  They actively undermine God's true Church.

 

The purpose of this thread was not to debate Catholicism's merits, but to share the correct interpretation of the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" argument that sectarian Christians use to say that the apostasy couldn't have happened.  Inasmuch as Faith4 uses that argument to defend the Catholic view, its only natural that there is going to be a discussion of Catholicism's claims.  We don't violate her agency by stating the facts.  The same goes for the thread on the Apostasy Timeline.  If Faith4 is going to argue that it didn't happen, but the facts show that the Roman Church displays evidence of it, then I'll stand by what history has to say on the matter.  If she argued from a Baptist perspective, there would be a different point of contention since Baptists don't claim the keys to begin with.

 

I'm sure Faith4 is familiar with the "Mormons are ignoramuses" story.  If the reader doesn't know of it, it comes from a General Conference in 1928 by Elder Orson F. Whitney.  

 

 “You ‘Mormons’ are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other position tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Roman Catholic church. The issue is between ‘Mormonism’ and Catholicism. If you are right, we are wrong. If we are right, you are wrong, and that’s all there is to it. These Protestant sects haven’t a leg to stand on; for if we are right, we cut them off long ago, as apostates; and if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and came out of us. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there was no need of Joseph Smith and ‘Mormonism;’ but if we have not that apostolic succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and ‘Mormonism’s position is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.”

 

 “Doctor,” said I, “that is a very clear and concise statement, and I agree with it in almost every particular. But don’t deceive yourself with the notion that we ‘Mormons’ don’t know the strength of our own position. We know it better than you do. We know it better than any other people can know it. We haven’t all been to been college, we can’t all speak the dead languages, and we may be ignoramuses as you say; but we know we are right, and we know you are wrong.” I was just as frank with him as he had been with me (Elder Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1928, 60.).

 

The ultimate truth can be known by personal revelation.  If someone makes the wrong choice because he or she has been misinformed, indoctrinated with religious traditions, or eschews spiritual things in favor of secularism, he or she answers to God for it.  We can prove we are right by history, but ultimately, God is going to determine the candidates for the celestial kingdom by sorting people based on their willingness to ask for and receive revelation.  If Faith4 or any other Christian believes his or her church is the true one, that's fine.  God will judge, not me.  He knows what kinds of revelation has given.  He has prepared the terrestrial kingdom as a place for the "honorable" people who were "blinded by the craftiness of men."  He also has a place in the telestial kingdom for those who preach sectarian divisions (See D&C Section 76:75, 99-100).  I don't judge any person, but I can make righteous judgment regarding the creeds based on history and revelation.

 

Again, to return to the thread's topic, a gate prevails when it keeps things in.  The gates of hell keep in the wicked and those who still need to hear the gospel, who didn't hear it in mortality.  The priesthood keys in possession of the Church has power to free those prisoners from the "pit" or "prison" of which the scriptures speak.  They cannot prevail against the priesthood's authority and keep a repentant, believing, baptized soul captive.

[faith4]

I actually was not familiar with the "Mormon Ignaramuses" story.   

 

God is my witness, and this gives me peace, b/c I know, and He knows what He has done for me.  He has revealed Himself to me, I have seen His hand at work in my life, even as a child, though I did not understand until I was an adult and I could see how everything worked out perfectly in hindsight.  I have experienced the miraculous, seen the miraculous, heard the miraculous and felt the miraculous (both interiorly and exteriorly). 

 

Spamlds, you may think others from different faiths can't truly experience the Holy Spirit in their lives, that somehow we lack the proper humility and sincerity, that we've been "blinded by craftiness of men", but I have experienced the Holy Spirit.  And that love and joy, that He has put in my heart has erased all my fears, His heavenly peace, has infused every part of my being.  I do not fear persecution, I do not fear rejection, I do not fear your judgement, I do not fear cancer or sickness, I do not fear death.  For I know that when death comes, I will be crying for joy, with His name on my lips, and my arms wide open for His embrace!!  To feel His love again!  The love we feel for our children is only a shadow compared to how He loves us!  What He has given me, through my tears, seeking, fasting and prayers to know Him, is irreplaceable.  Nothing on this earth can take it from me now, absolutely nothing can remove that Peace.

 

This is a verse that a fellow parishioner (woman at my parish) gave to me.  She said she was praying and this verse and myself came into her mind.  So she wrote it down and told me the Holy Spirit gave this to her for me. 

 

"The Lord himself goes before you and he will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.  Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged."  Deut. 31:8. 

 

This is only one example of many, many answers to my prayers, and many, many beautiful signs that He gave me on my search that were meant specifically for me.  Perhaps this verse is insignificant to you, but it meant the world to me and has brought me to tears many times since I've received it.     

 

This does not mean that I discount anyone else's experiences of the Holy Spirit, Gods ways are not our ways.  I will not presume that you did not seek and pray with sincerity and humility (though I do believe you did a terrible job "researching" my faith), and that what you experienced was misleading.  Who I am to judge?  Are you not my brother?  You are my brother!  What God has made plain to me, is that there is a great lack of peace in this world, and it's b/c there's a great lack of love.  There's a lot of feigned love, and shallow love for our fellow brothers and sisters, but there is hardly any real love in our hearts.  A love that is pure and honest...a love like a childs.  Rather than presume that others aren't as righteous, or humble, or sincere, as you and your fellow church members, cross that line in your mind that separates you from them (and me).  Love them instead.  Step over, and learn who they are, not to "convert them" or "debate", but to love your neighbor.  Pray with love for one another, rejoice with love for one another, understand with love those who don't understand you.  In the end, we will be judged for how much we've loved one another.  And yes, a few times I have gotten in a few "tiffs" w/a few of you, but I am still human, still just a person who has good days and bad days (um, 4 rowdy little boys anybody?!) who is doing the best she can. (Anatess likes to excuse her Filippino blood sometimes, so therefore I can blame my Mexican/French blood, I can be very stubborn). 

 

Oftentimes, I regret that we can't hold these conversations face to face, b/c then you could see me, and how much I actually enjoy being a part of these forums.  I am constantly smiling (though not when I read spam's "parable", I was not smiling at. all.) and happy b/c I feel I am learning how to think "like a mormon".  And by doing this, I can love my neighbors better by understanding who they are, since faith plays such a large role in their lives (as it also does in mine!).  I can love them better b/c now any lingering prejudices I may have unknowingly harbored against their beliefs, can disappear and stop hindering my ability to love them more. 

 

Oh dear, now I'm preaching.  Time to stop.  I hope my intentions are more clear to all who read this now, I have been questioned about my intentions since I dared argue w/Spamlds about his "proof".  I just wish to learn more and that's it, and I feel as if I have made progress in these past few months.  Thank you for being patient w/me, a faithful Catholic.  I already pray for all of you, please pray for me too!!  xoxo     

[spamlds]

Hi again,

 

Faith4 wrote:

 

God is my witness, and this gives me peace, b/c I know, and He knows what He has done for me.  He hasrevealed Himself to me, I have seen His hand at work in my life, even as a child, though I did not understand until I was an adult and I could see how everything worked out perfectly in hindsight.  I have experienced the miraculous, seen the miraculous, heard the miraculous and felt the miraculous (both interiorly and exteriorly). 

 

I don't dispute that you may have had many wonderful spiritual experiences.  I never said that other believers in other faiths can't feel the manifestation of the Holy Ghost.  A really good example of this is the great evangelist Jonathan Edwards.  Edwards is pretty much credited with starting the second "Great Awakening" in America.  He was a staunch Calvinist and I would disagree with most of what he taught.  (A Catholic would, also!)

 

Anyways, one of the manifestations of the spirit that Mormons often refer to is the "burning in the bosom."  A lot of anti-Mormon critics attack this because they say we are trying to get people to rely on emotion, not scripture or reason. Regardless, Jonathan Edwards beautifully described the manifestation in his personal narrative:  He said:

 

This I know not how to express otherwise, than by a calm, sweet abstraction of soul from all the concerns of this world; and sometimes a kind of vision, or fixed ideas and imaginations, of being alone in the mountains, or some solitary wilderness, far from all mankind, sweetly conversing with Christ, and wrapt and swallowed up in God. The sense I had of divine things, would often of a sudden kindle up, as it were, a sweet burning in my heart; an ardor of soul, that I know not how to express.

 

 Amazing, isn't it!  Jonathan Edwards felt the burning in the bosom that Mormon missionaries would have people trust!  Let's see what else Edwards had to say about it:

 

My mind was greatly fixed on divine things; almost perpetually in the contemplation of them. I spent most of my time in thinking of divine things, year after year; often walking alone in the woods, and solitary places, for meditation, soliloquy, and prayer, and converse with God; and it was always my manner, at such times, to sing forth my contemplations. I was almost constantly in ejaculatory prayer, wherever I was. Prayer seemed to be natural to me, as the breath by which the inward burnings of my heart had vent. 

 

Again, Edwards said:

 

Sometimes, only mentioning a single word caused my heart to burn within me; or only seeing the name of Christ, or the name of some attribute of God.

 

I point this out as one example.  I could cite inspired experiences of believers of many denominations who had dreams, visions, the word of knowledge, spiritual gifts, and other such things.  God loves his children, regardless of what church they attend.  He is merciful beyond our understanding.

 

However, Joseph Smith taught that there is a difference between having the Holy Spirit touch our hearts and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost which comes as an ordinance, by the laying on of hands, after proper baptism by authority for the remission of sins.

 

Joseph cited the case of Cornelius, the Gentile in the scriptures.  Jesus had sent the apostles to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" only at first.  Cornelius was a God-fearing Gentile and was praying when a vision came to him telling him to send for Peter.  Peter has his vision and comes at Cornelius' request and the Holy Ghost fell upon the family of Cornelius when they heard the gospel preached.

 

Now, this was a manifestation of the Spirit bearing witness of Christ's reality.  In my experience, most Christians have felt something akin to this.  That's why they believe.  Their hearts have been touched by the Spirit and they believe in Jesus.  For some people, they think this is all that is necessary to be saved.

 

When Cornelius and his family received the Spirit, Peter "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..." (Acts 10:48).  Joseph Smith taught rightly that, had Cornelius not acted and had declined to be baptized, that spiritual manifestation would have been the end of it.  The Spirit ceases to strive with a person who refuses its invitations.  

 

In Acts chapter 19, we find a group of "believers" who had received something they termed "John's baptism."  Paul asked them if they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost.  He was confused when they answered that they never heard of such a thing.  He surmises that they have been baptized by some sincere person who meant well, but did not have authority.  We can make this assumption by what he did next.  He re-baptized them (by proper authority) and laid hands upon them to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  

 

It is difficult for us latter-day saints to explain this difference to people of other faiths.  Yes, we admit that they have spiritual experiences. We who are converts from other faith will testify that there is a difference in what you experience after baptism, compared to what you had before.  You don't see Mormons talking about how bad it was when they were a Catholic or a Methodist or a Baptist.  Instead, you hear them say that they obtained new blessings that they did not experience when they were in those prior denominations.  The companionship of the Holy Ghost comes from the remission of sins that results from proper baptism.  

 

I don't discount your spiritual experiences or those of any other non-Mormon.  Those are blessings that God has given you because of his love for you.  We do say that there is something more you can experience.  You can have the gift of the Holy Ghost all the time.  It doesn't mean that we walk around having visions of glory all the time, but there is a difference between before and after baptism that endures.

 

Consider that nearly 300,000 people a year convert to Mormonism.  Sure, we lose some because of persecution, temptations, worldliness, etc, (i.e., Parable of the Sower).  But most of them stay in the Church because they feel something that they didn't have in their former denomination.  We very rarely attract complete non-believers.  Usually other denominations are an intermediate step to a fuller truth that is available.  

 

The gift of the Holy Ghost is the source of the richness of life as a Mormon.  People who are outside the church get a taste of it now and then to draw them closer to Christ.  The fullness of it is to be had after baptism by one holding proper authority for the remission of sins.  Without proper baptism, those experiences tend to fade away because the individual doesn't accept the invitation of the Spirit to move forward.

[faith4]

God is my witness :)   Lol! 

 

May the Peace, Grace and Blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be upon you and all those you love. xoxo

[Blackmarch]

only way for the gates of hell to prevail would be to prevent every soul from being resurrected and redeemed or to remove God permanently. I don't think it has anything to do with the portion of authority that is granted unto men.