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!

Just a Few of My Favorite Articles and Resources on the Refutation of Sola Scriptura

 Below are a few of my favorite articles; books and videos online that do a great job refuting the Protestant doctrine of  sola scriptura or “Bible Alone” mentality. 

https://douglasbeaumont.com/2015/04/20/does-1-corinthians-46-teach-sola-scriptura/

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/refute.html

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/macart.html

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/macart.html

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter3.html

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter4.html

https://christianrenaissancemovement.com/2017/10/31/sola-scriptura-7-fatal-flaws-of-a-bleak-doctrine/

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/10-point-biblical-refutation-of-sola-scriptura

http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/solascriptura_earlychurch.htm

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/athans.htm

https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/how-to-refute-sola-scriptura/

https://chnetwork.org/2018/03/27/is-sola-scriptura-historical-part-i-going-deep-in-history-with-cardinal-newman/

https://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/Luke_Wilson_Response_to_01.htm

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2020/09/dealing-with-issue-of-sola-scriptura.html

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/01/did-jesus-teach-that-bible-is-final.html

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/06/does-mark-7matthew-15-support-sola.html

Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis

Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions

Idem, The Meaning of Tradition

Dave Armstrong, Pillars of Sola Scriptura: Replies to Whitaker, Goode, and Biblical "proofs" for"Bible Alone"

Idem, 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?

Idem, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Gerard Loughlin, Telling God's Story: Bible, Church, and Narrative Theology

Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture

John Whiteford, Sola Scriptura: An Orthodox Analysis of the Cornerstone of Reformation Theology

Mark Aziz, Sola Scriptura or Sola Traditione?: The Orthodox Theology of Tradition as a Solution to the Reformation Debate about Theological Authority

Patrick Madrid, Scripture and Tradition

John Breck, Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church

Geoge H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church. The crisis of the Protestant Reformation

Joel Peters, Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

Mark P. Shea, By What Authority?

George Agius, Tradition and the Church

John Salza, The Biblical Basis for Tradition

Devin Rose, The Protestant's Dilemma

Casey J Chalk, The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity 

Joel Peters, Sola Scriptura Doesn’t Work- 25 Practical Reasons to Reject the Doctrine of ‘Bible Alone’

The Bible Alone? Is The Bible Alone Sufficient? Edited by Marcus Grodi

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/03/not-by-scripture-alone-latter-day-saint.html

https://youtube.com/shorts/8C52_azXQ2E?si=9_KuTye1ZxkuxSWc

https://www.youtube.com/live/CV01DNwNmig?si=zpbg_aix_XUvNia0 Trent Horn vs James White

https://youtu.be/TFJTRRoAgx8?si=zAibh2pdkNAvOTgz James White vs Tim Staples

https://youtu.be/LlLlzDBHhhA?si=S1sdpcYI1j4pvKaT James White vs Patrick Madrid 

https://www.youtube.com/live/kn7qdPSHSJk?si=N6Gv9YkqEdIMcWzR Trent Horn vs Gavin Ortlund 

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1HYW8yjFNm/?mibextid=wwXIfr

http://catholicsilentcrusade.blogspot.com/2013/12/24-sola-scriptura-bible-alone.html

Very Good Insights on Acts 2:38 In Relation to Baptism and Forgiveness of Sins.

 I really like Jack Cottrell’s work on Baptism! I highly recommend reading his book Baptism: A Biblical Study https://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Biblical-Study-Jack-Cottrell from which the insightful read below is taken from!

“The relation between Christian baptism and forgiveness of sins is much more specific and clear, though, especially here in Acts 2:38, where baptism is said to be “for [eis] the forgiveness of sins.” The key word here is eis, translated in different versions in a wide variety of ways including “for,” “unto,” “into,” “in order to,” “in order to have,” “so that,” “with a view to,” and “in relation to.” The preferred terminology is a matter of considerable controversy since exegetes often try to make the word conform to a preconceived view of baptism.

Three main approaches may be identified. The first is that eis here retains its most common meaning of direction or motion toward something, which includes the concepts of purpose and goal. On this understanding the purpose or goal of baptism is to bring about forgiveness of sins. This view is consistent with the idea of baptism as a condition for salvation and for entrance into the kingdom of God. A second approach is that eis here means because of, the idea being that a person is baptized because his sins have already been forgiven. The third view is that eis here means the same thing as the preposition en (“in”), which does not mean motion toward but simply location in. This view posits only a very general connection between baptism and forgiveness, viz., “be baptized in relation to forgiveness of sins.” The last two views are preferred by those who reject the conditional relation between baptism and salvation.

Of these three views, the first is clearly the meaning in Acts 2:38 on both lexicographical and contextual grounds. Regarding its actual meaning, a study of the lexicons shows that the primary meaning and the overwhelmingly most common use of eis is “motion toward” in any one of a number of senses, the explanation of which takes two full pages in the Arndt and Gingrich lexicon. In this general category the two most common meanings are “moving from one physical place to another” (88 lines in the lexicon) and “goal or purpose” (127 lines—one full page). By contrast only five lines are devoted to the alleged causal use of eis. Arndt and Gingrich call this use “controversial” because there is reason to doubt that it ever has this meaning in Greek usage. M.J. Harris flatly declares that this causal sense “seems unlikely in any one of the passages sometimes adduced,” including Acts 2:38. A meaning similar to that of en is not disputed but is still relatively infrequent. Arndt and Gingrich use only 16 lines to explain that eis sometimes means “with respect to” or “with reference to.” Most of the cases where eis is used where en would be expected (30 of 34 lines) refer to physical location.

Of course it is understood that simply counting lines in a lexicon does not decide the meaning of a word in a particular verse. The point is to show that the primary meaning of eis involves motion toward or purpose, and that this is how it is used in the overwhelming majority of cases. The meaning “because of” is highly debatable simply because it has no solid basis in the Greek language as such. The meaning “with reference to” is possible but not as likely given its relatively infrequent use. Thus if eis has one of these last two meanings in Acts 2:38, that meaning would have to be contextually clear.

In the final analysis the meaning of eis in this passage will be determined by the context. The general meaning “with reference to” would be warranted only if the context itself did not suggest a more specific meaning, only if the connection between baptism and forgiveness remained vague in the context. But this is certainly not the case. We must remember that Peter’s statement is part of his answer to the Jews’ question of how to get rid of the guilt of their sins, especially their sin of crucifying Christ. They specifically asked, “What shall we do” to get rid of this guilt? Any instruction Peter gave them would have been understood by them in this light, and must be so understood by us today. When he told them to repent and be baptized “eis the forgiveness” of their sins, the only honest reading is that baptism is for the purpose or goal of receiving forgiveness. This meaning is not just warranted but is actually demanded by the context.

The fact that baptism is paralleled here with repentance confirms this meaning. Surely no one questions that Peter is telling his audience to repent for the purpose of bringing about forgiveness of sins. Even if such a connection between repentance and forgiveness were not already understood, it is perfectly unambiguous in this context. The fact that baptism is part of the same response to the same question makes its meaning just as clear and gives it the same basic meaning as repentance. In whatever way repentance is connected with forgiveness, so also is baptism. If repentance is for the purpose of bringing about forgiveness, so also is baptism.

Even if the so-called “causal” meaning of eis were not in doubt on lexicographical grounds, it would surely be excluded in Acts 2:38 by the context itself. “Be baptized because your sins have been forgiven” is the exact opposite of what would be expected and required in the situation. The whole point is that the Jews’ sins are not forgiven, and they are asking what to do to receive such forgiveness.

The bottom line is that the only meaning of eis that is consistent with the context of Acts 2:38 is its most common meaning of “motion toward,” specifically the purposive meaning of “unto” or “for the purpose of.” The Greek construction is exactly the same as Jesus’ statement in Matthew 26:28, that he shed his blood “for [eis] forgiveness of sins,” namely, for the purpose of bringing about forgiveness. Thus we must conclude that Peter is saying in Acts 2:38 that part of what a sinner must do to bring about forgiveness of his sins is be baptized.”

Cottrell, Jack. 1989. Baptism: A Biblical Study. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company.

Jack Cottrell’s Very Insightful comments on Romans 6:3-4 in regards to Water Baptism!

 In Romans 6:3–4 Paul assumes that every Christian already knows that he has been baptized into Christ. His point here is to show us specifically what this means. Don’t you know, he says, “that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death”? In the context he reminds us that Jesus died for our sins not only in the sense that He paid their penalty, but also in that He died to defeat sin and destroy its power and do away with it (see 6:6–10). And every Christian has come within the scope of this sin-destroying force of the death of Christ; we have tapped into its lethal power. When did we do this? In our baptism. There is absolutely no indication that this union with Christ in His death happened as soon as we believed or repented. We did not believe into His death; we did not repent into His death. Paul explicitly says we “have been baptized into His death” (v. 3). If this is not plain enough, he repeats the idea in verse 4: “We have been buried with Him through baptism into death.” Those who say that our union with Christ in His death, and thus our own death to sin, occurred before baptism are simply not taking the text at its word. The idea that baptism as a burial implies that death has already occured is an inference that goes contrary to the text itself. Romans 6:4 does not say we are buried in baptism because we have already died; it says we are buried through baptism into death.

What is true of our union with Christ in His death is true also of our union with Him in His resurrection. This passage does not speak explicitly of our being baptized into Christ’s resurrection or being raised up with Christ in baptism, but the implication is quite clear. The logical and chronological connection between death and resurrection is such that union with Christ in resurrection could certainly not occur prior to union with Him in death. Verse 4 specifically says that we were buried with Him through baptism into death for the very purpose of experiencing resurrection with Him, too. “For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection” (v. 5). Colossians 2:12 does explicitly say that our resurrection with Christ occurs in baptism. (This passage will be discussed fully in a later chapter.)

Paul is telling us, then, that the historical events of the saving work of Jesus have their counterpart or fulfillment in a specific historical event in the life of every Christian, namely, our baptism. Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection are the events which save us, but the power of these saving acts is applied to us in baptism. As Oepke says, “Baptism … is for individuals the actualisation of this relation to salvation history.” Just as Christ really died and rose again, in our baptism we too really died and rose again in a spiritual sense by virtue of our being brought into a relationship with His death and resurrection at that point.

It would certainly not be out of place to comment at this point on the propriety of immersion as the only valid form of baptism. The reference to baptism as a burial with Christ (v. 4; see Col. 2:12) in itself underscores this fact. But the concept of burial should not be emphasized in isolation from the aspects of death and resurrection. In fact, the dying and rising with Christ are the main elements of baptism; burial is in a sense only incidental to these. Or rather, the main point is the full and unbroken sequence of death, burial, and resurrection, all of which are represented by the single act of baptism. It cannot be disputed that immersion is the only form of baptism that pictures this whole sequence; no other form even comes close. This connection must be intentional; God appointed immersion for this purpose because of its unique ability visually to represent death, burial and resurrection—both Christ’s and our own.

This acknowledges that baptism is a symbolic representation of a deeper reality, an “outward sign of an inward grace,” as the common description goes. This is a truth denied by practically no one. The serious error often connected with this truth, however, is that baptism symbolizes a reality that has already occurred. This would be true if we were thinking only of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus; in this case it does symbolize a past reality. But this is not true with regard to ourselves. In our case Scripture consistently teaches that baptism as the external symbol occurs simultaneously with the spiritual reality it is symbolizing. In Romans 6 that reality is the death and burial of our old life of sin and our resurrection to new life. It is a reality that occurs because we are “baptized into Christ.”

Cottrell, Jack. 1989. Baptism: A Biblical Study. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company.

Good responses to the Galatians 1:6-9 argument used automatically against Latter-day Saints.

 Galatians 1:6-9 was a passage I automatically would ramble off against Latter-day Saints in connection to the Angel Moroni’s visit to Joseph Smith supposedly proving that the gospel of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a false gospel. The below links provide a good response to using the above passage as a default argument against the Book of Mormon as another gospel. 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Moroni%27s_visit/Angel_of_Satan

Paul warned about angels. Doesn't that condemn Joseph Smith? 

I believe you have two passages in mind:

Gal. 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Cor. 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Paul warns against anyone accepting any other Gospel than what Christ and the Apostles preached, regardless of its apparent source, and I agree. Now consider this: what was early Christianity? What did Christ teach? What was His Church? Christ taught faith and repentance, followed by baptism by immersion for those who believe (Acts 2:37-38; John 3:3-5; Matt. 4:17; Mark 16:16; Romans 6; many others). Anything else - infant baptism, baptism by sprinkling, etc., is not the same Gospel. Christ instituted an unpaid ministry (Matt. 10:8; 1 Cor. 9:18; John 10:11-13; Acts 20:33-35; 2 Thess. 3:7-8) comprising apostles and prophets and other offices (Bishops, Seventies, etc.) which was lead by revelation from Him (Eph. 4:11-14). Any other form of organization must be questioned. Where do we find the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands as in the early Church? (Acts 8:17) Where do we find priesthood authority given by the laying on of hands, by revelation and by the laying on of hands, by those who have received it from God? (Heb. 5:4; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6) For centuries these things were not to be found on the earth, but they have been restored now through the promised "restitution of all things" (Acts 3:19-21) which came after the prophesied time of apostasy (2 Thess. 2:1-3; Acts 20:29,30).

Does Paul say that we should not accept angels or their ministry? That's not at all what he warns against. He warns against being deceived. He warns that Satan can appear as an angel of light, which is a deception only because it sort of looks like the real - and holy - thing. Counterfeits don't work unless they imitate something real. Angels are real, and they look human and are bright, as we gather from several Biblical descriptions. Cornelius, for example, describes the angel who ministered to him as a man in bright clothing (Acts 10:30-32; see also Heb. 1:7). Two angels are described as men in white clothing in Acts 1:10-11. They announced the birth of Christ, they ministered to Christ (Luke 22:43), they rolled away the stone in front of his tomb and announced His Resurrection (Matt. 28); they were present after He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:11),and they will yet come with Christ (Matt. 16:27). Angels have been sent by God to visit men long before Paul wrote anything, angels ministered to and delivered Paul himself (Acts 27:23), and angels ministered to others such as John (see the Book of Revelation) after Paul wrote Galatians and Corinthians. John even prophesied of angels ministering to men in the future (e.g., Rev. 14:6,7, where an angel proclaims the "everlasting Gospel" to the world - perhaps an allusion to the role of the Angel Moroni). Angels can be spirits (Ps. 104:4), including those of righteous men of God who lived before, such as Moses and Elias who appeared to Christ and some apostles in Matt. 17. Since the time of Christ, they may also be resurrected spirits, as may be the case for the former prophet who appeared as a glorious angel to John the Beloved (Rev. 22: 8,9), and was the case for the angel Moroni who appeared to Joseph Smith to help bring forth The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Christ, a record which confirms and verifies the Bible and convinces millions that Jesus is the Christ. Angels were a real part of the early Church. If there is no more ministering of angels in some quarters, perhaps its for the same reasons that we don't find apostles and prophets and modern revelation and other gifts of the Spirit. Where do we find the ministry of real angels today? In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

How can we tell a message from a false angel versus that from a real angel? The same as we can tell a false prophet from a real prophet: "by their fruits ye shall know them." The definitive fruit of Joseph Smith is the Book of Mormon, translated by the power of God from an ancient manuscript. That book begs to be examined and pondered carefully. It's power and Christ-centered message of truth have changed my life. I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true and I have an intellectual knowledge as well that it could not have been fabricated and that it is clearly an ancient document, translated into a modern language (King James style English - and now many other languages as well).

Some modern Christians reject the idea that God would send an angel to testify of anything, forgetting the words of Christ ("I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things. . . ." in Rev. 22:16). Real angels from God have been sent in these days to testify, to instruct, and to return sacred authority and power and ordinances from God, bringing back the fullness of the Gospel of Christ, not some other Gospel of men. I hope you'll take some time to look into the Restored Gospel and hear its simple but beautiful message from authorized servants of God, the LDS missionaries. They have received Priesthood authority for their ministry in the true Biblical manner, by prophecy and by the laying on of hands from other authorized servants who in turn can trace their authority back to Christ, thanks to the ministry of angels - even Peter, James, and John - who Christ sent to Joseph Smith to restore the Priesthood power of God- https://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Facet.shtml#angels