Hey, the article portion you cited (& agreed with) was: "...the doctrines which its inspired leaders taught were corrupted and changed by others not of similar inspiration -- and the very context of that line came after this: "Latter-day Saint theology asserts...the church of Jesus and his apostles came to an end..."
Now to be fair, you probably didn't know when Mormon theology stipulates that supposedly "the church of Jesus and his apostles came to an end..."... you may have simply thought this was an eventual end -- and not a "sudden death" when the last of the apostles died.
Hence, your additional comment: "Since the council of Nicea onward the “Church” has added unto the gospel message."
Now I don't disagree that the Rome-based church has at times added to the Gospel.
But...#1...that's a different statement than claiming that 100% of the church failed...
and #2...that it failed pre-Nicene council...
(which is what the Mormons claim)
If I were you, I'd be careful agreeing with ANY organization (like the Mormon church) about the alleged 100% apostasy of Jesus' church...because the Mormon slam is a direct slam upon Jesus that He couldn't sustain His church! _
If you're only talking about how some doctrines have at times undergone corruption, that's understood.
You are correct that my interpretation of the quoted statement and its implied meaning may have been different. I do not believe 100% of the gospel church died with the death of the last apostle. The point I was trying to make was the perversion of the gospel by the roman church to lend support to their goal of placing the papacy as Christ on earth was begun extremely early in church history. And I might add there was lots of evil involved The textual changes made were deliberate, premeditated and papacy centered.
Have a blessed Shabbat.