ONE CANNOT HAVE A PROPER RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS WITHOUT HAVING A PROPER RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS AUTHORIZED SERVANTS AND CHURCH!

“He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”

— Luke 10:16

“Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

— John 20:21-23

“Notice the direct line of authority. The Father sends the Son, and the Son sends the apostles with his authority, such that listening to them (and the men whom they in turn authorize) is equivalent to listening to Jesus and the Father.”

- Devin Rose. 

Is your Church led by Apostles (Ephesians 2:20; 4:11-16)?

Does your Church have living Apostles and Prophets that “teach you to observe all things the Lord has commanded them” to teach you (Matthew 28:18-20)? 

We also see how closely Christ associates himself with his Church in the conversion of Saul of Tarsus below: 

“And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the DISCIPLES OF THE LORD, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou ME? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus WHOM thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.”

— Acts 9:1-6

THE STRENGTH OF THE LATTER-DAY SAINT POSITION!

I will never forget the journey that took me to where I am today. It was such an unexpected destination. As I became convinced that the formal doctrine of Protestantism known as Sola Scriptura was unbiblical, illogical, and ahistorical as far as biblical times and early church history, 

I stood between two roads to take. Catholicism or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There was a topic that kept me between Catholicism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That topic is known as the Great Apostasy. Protestants are practical LDS when it comes to this issue of the great apostasy. If distinct Protestant doctrines are true then their theology of history is virtually identical with that of the LDS Church. The vast majority of Protestants reject fundamental Christian doctrines one being baptismal regeneration upon which the ancient Church was UNANIMOUS concerning. Joshua Charles summarizes the Protestants similarity to Latter-day Saints view of Christian history below: 

“That means the vast majority of Protestants (including myself at one time) must necessarily believe—whether they realize it or not—that from the very first generation after the apostles forward, all Christians got it wrong on how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how Christians worship. In other words, they must believe that Christians got the essence of their religion wrong, that it got worse and worse through time, and that this began right after the death of the last apostle, since every Church Father of which we have any record is squarely opposed to Protestantism on…..fundamental doctrines.

While these Protestants do not claim to believe this is what happened, this is nonetheless the necessary conclusion if their doctrines are true, making their theology of history virtually identical with that of the LDS Church.

This is absurd for various reasons, but here is where it gets very disturbing.

If this is true—that the fundamentals of Christianity were essentially lost from the first post-Apostolic generation, but have been available in one form or another for the 500 years since the Reformation—then this conclusion necessarily follows: what God in the flesh established in the first century was weaker than what men like Luther, Calvin, and others re-established in the sixteenth century.

I made the same objection to Mormon missionaries who visited me for several weeks. “If your religion is true,” I said, “then what Christ himself established was weaker than what Joseph Smith re-established.”

As disturbing as I found this conclusion about the nature of my own Protestantism, it was nonetheless true in light of the facts of history.

I realized I had been deceived by a religious system that had surreptitiously claimed to achieve something greater than even the apostles.”

Now below is a quote taken from a good book on the great apostasy that exactly described the dilemma I was in when deciding between crossing the Susquehanna River or the Tiber River.

“Elder Orson F. Whitney, an apostle of the restored Church, once told of a learned Catholic theologian who spoke to him as follows:

“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 tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude 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.”

That, indeed, is the issue: Did Christ's Church continue uninterrupted for two thousand years since the meridian of time, or was there a cessation of that church followed by a restoration? In our search for the truth we will examine the evidence—the testimony of the scriptures, the witness of the early Christian writers, the records of history, the power of logic, and the whisperings of the Spirit. Occasionally in isolation, but most often in unison, these witnesses will weave a consistent and compelling tapestry of the truth, however unthinkable it may seem.

-The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration by Tad R. Callister

After my research I decided to cross the Susquehanna River! The way I summarize my position is that if I lived BEFORE 1820 I would be a Catholic Christian but after 1820 I’d be a Latter-day Saint! The great apostasy is the conclusion of the massive mixture of false doctrines found in Catholicism and Protestantism. This involves canon issues and doctrinal divisions including false doctrines that were accretions not found in the Lord’s original Church and teachings.

Below are some great resources on the Great Apostasy issue from an LDS perspective for those who are interested and opened to proving all things by researching both sides of a position! 

Tad Callister, https://www.amazon.com/Inevitable-Apostasy-Promised-Restoration. 

Noel B. Reynolds, ed. Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy

Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (2d ed.)

Scott R. Peterson, Do the Mormons have a Leg to Stand on? A Critical Look at LDS Doctrines in Light of the Bible and the Teachings of the Early Christian Church

Idem. Where have all the Prophets Gone? Revelation and Rebellion in the Old Testament and the Christian World

Miranda Wilcox and John D. Young, ed. Standing Apart: Mormon Historical Consciousness and the Concept of Apostasy

Using the Bible alone Mark Petersen completely refutes the use of Revelation 22:18-19 against the Latter-day Saints

 A LENGTHY POST FROM ONE OF MY NEW FAVORITE TALKS BY MARK E PETERSEN! 

Using the Bible alone Mark Petersen completely refutes the use of Revelation 22:18-19 against the Latter-day Saints belief in more written scripture outside of the Bible. 

Here is the link to the talk in its entirety!

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16S39QS4uZ/?mibextid=wwXIfr

I will share a lengthy portion from that talk that deals with Revelation 22:18-19!

“ We Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the word of God. We love it, and we use it continuously. We also believe the Book of Mormon and other modern scriptures to be the word of God. Some people who study the gospel with us are concerned by this latter fact because they are of the opinion that the Bible contains all of the word of God and that there can be no more scripture. They turn to the last chapter of the book of Revelation, which is also the concluding part of the Bible, and say that it proves that there should be no scripture other than the Bible. The words of John the Revelator to which they refer read as follows: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18).

Of course a careful reading of this text shows very clearly that John the Revelator was speaking only of the book of Revelation and not of any collection of other sacred writings. Moses used a similar expression in speaking to ancient Israel when he said: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it . . .” This is found in the fourth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, verse 2. In the 12th chapter of the same book, verse 32, Moses said this: “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it”.

Can anyone suppose that in these words Moses laid down a prohibition against all subsequent revelations and against all books which might be called scripture in years to come? Did he have the power to silence all future prophets and forbid them to speak or write as God intended that they should? Of course not, or we would be without most of the Old Testament and would have none of the New Testament at all.

It was the same with John the Revelator. In warning against additions to the book of Revelation he spoke of that book only, insisting that no one attempt to change or corrupt what he had said. The Bible was not compiled when John wrote the book of Revelation, so he could not possibly have referred to it.”

Mark Petersen continues on powerfully to say:

“ The Bible is a record of the work and writings of the prophets of God throughout the ages, together with a history of their time. It begins with the writings of the Prophet Moses, who is the accepted author of the first five books of the Old Testament. When Joshua was called to lead Israel, he received revelations also, and they were recorded with the history of his time. This record became known as the book of Joshua. It was new scripture for that day and was placed with the writings of Moses. The book of Judges came next. It was new scripture also and was added to the existing volume. Then came the Prophet Samuel. He received many revelations and wrote much history. His record was new scripture for his day and was added to the existing and now fast-growing volume of God’s word. 

Who among us would discard the writings of Samuel because in earlier years Moses had said, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you” (Deut. 4:2) It is obvious that Moses spoke only of his own writings and not of anything written in subsequent times by men called to be prophets like unto himself.

When Ezra and Nehemiah came on the scene, they received revelations which were recorded as scripture and placed with what Moses, Joshua, and Samuel had written. This became a pattern by which we obtained the entire Old Testament. Whenever God had a people on the earth, he raised up prophets who spoke in his name. Their writings became our scriptures. New scripture came with each new prophet, and each of these new books was included with the scripture already in hand. 

This pattern held true for the New Testament also. As the sacred word of the Christian era was written, it became scripture. Even the letters of Peter, James, John, Paul, and little-known Jude became scripture, new scripture. And they were so accepted by the people of that day and added to the final volume of scripture as it was at last compiled.

That is the way in which the Bible was prepared originally. It came out of a well-ordered procedure of the Lord. It was always the purpose of God to guide his people and not let them drift, but that guidance constituted new revelation every time it was given. Prophets were there to receive it, and as they wrote, their record became new scripture. 

Don’t you see that one of the greatest marks of identification of the true Church of God in all the ages has been that it constantly produced new scripture? When there was no new scripture, it was a sign that there was no new revelation, and when there was no new revelation, there was no divine guidance. And when there was no divine guidance, the people drifted into error and darkness. Continuous revelation was essential to the life and survival of the true Church. So were the records of those new revelations, and each new record became new scripture.”

I would recommend reading the whole talk in its entirety!