NOTE: The following is an incomplete work, there are many misspellings and grammatical errors but the content is useful even in this state. Please read on and apply the principals to their fullest extent. Also you may want to print this out since it is about 11 pages long.

It seems to me that one of the core problems that Non Mormons have with Joseph Smith and Mormonism lies with one of Joseph Smiths claims. That claim is that none of the other churches is of God and that they do no represent Him. This statement is used by Non Mormons to claim that Joseph Smith assaulted them first and thereby makes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the attacker. Thier Utilization of this claim against their churches is used to justify thier own attacks and acts of persecution against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Joseph Smith said that Jesus had told him not to join any of the churches that existed in his day because they were all wrong. He (Jesus) also said that all of their creeds were an abomination in His sight and that the professors were all corrupt and that they drew near to Him with their lips but their hearts were far from Him. The professors taught for doctrines and for commandments of men , having a form of Godliness but they denied the power therof (This is an excerpt from the Joseph Smith History). I particularly noticed that Joseph said that Jesus didn't call the relgious leaders "Preachers" or "Priests" , instead they were called "Professors". Which is what they really are, Learned men who have studied the Bible that think they are quailfied to preach the Word of God simply because they believe that they understand it well enough to preach it.

Joseph Smith claims that God told him to restore the church because it had gone apostate, meaning that the Church of God as the primitive members knew it had ceased to exist ( bluntly put, The original primitive church had died). Non Mormons take offense to this and counter this claim with Matthew 16:18

Please forgive me for misquoting the Bible. The above verse is not exactly correct but it does render the interpretation of what Non Mormons WANT it to say. Matthew 16:18 actually reads :

The Orthodox Christians have a different understanding of the word _ not_ in the above passage. The Bible does not say that the gates of hell would not EVER or NEVER prevail against the church as they would like it to. That understanding is ASSUMED and ADDED to the passage by men (professors of theology) so that they can deny that the church could have ever been trodden down at all by anyone at anytime.

Yet, no sooner than they make this denial do we see them condemning the church from which they sprang claiming that it had gone too far astray from the Bible for them . (so I guess we're supposed to assume that the church went apostate without the gates of hell helping...ok...whatever...). Then they turn around ever so quickly and move to establish themselves as the authorites. ( by the way, authority now has to be held plurally [which is totally unbiblical] because they can't decide among themselves which sect is the right one.) Now, thats some pretty crafty movement if you ask me!

Anyway, all that the passage implies is that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church and since the church has been resurrected and or restored (whichever you prefer) through Joseph Smith, the gates of hell have in fact not prevailed against the church and nor will they. I am pretty comfortable with Gods ability to ressurect and restore things, I figure that if he can bring his own son back to life (as well as anyone else he chooses) then restoring an organization should be no problem for Him either.

[ You need to realize that the church is a timeless institution (the mobile kingdom of God) that has been in existence since before the earth was created. It will exist throughout the eternities on and in every other world that God creates so long as man does not destroy it through apostasy]

Non-Mormons assume that the Roman Catholic Church somehow took the place of the original primitive church. There are some very BIG problems with this ASSUMPTION. My first problem is the belief that Constantine (Roman emperor 325 a.d.) had forcefully assumed control of the church with the authority of God and made christianity the official religon throughout the Roman Empire.

I believe that the remaining parts of the church that were left to be assumed by Constantine were already apostate. I believe this because problems began to surface in the newly assumed church among the newly united churchmen. Those problems were in the form of some pretty violent squables over the interpretation of the doctrines of the Bible (apparently there was some great and disturbing differences of belief among the church leaders). This fact had slipped by me at first but eventually I noticed it and it led me to suspect that the churches had not remained_UNIFIED_ after the departure of the Apostles.

[The churches were unified only in the sense that they accepted the central leadership of the Apostles and Prophets, take away the central leadership and branches of the church tend to start going their own ways]

If the churches had remained UNIFIED from the beginning then there should have been little to no squabling at all over basic doctrinal understanding. After all, those problems had been solved for centuries before the Romans took over the church right? Not exactly. When a problem arose in the church while there were Apostles on the earth they and the Elders could handle it. The New Testament which the Orthodox Christians use (and so often grossly misinterpret) was written by the Apostles during the first century while they were alive to write the epistles and books that form it. The Bishops and Elders of the churches which recieved them understood them perfectly most of the time but if for some reason they did not understand them perfectly or if there could be a misunderstanding , they could send a letter with an elder back to the Apostles asking for some elaboration to clarify what was meant.

[just imagine how many fewer sects there would be today if our so called church leaders could just write a letter or send an elder to an authoritive body requesting clarification over a matter of interpretation which was causing contention to the point that it was deviding the church body into sects. and they say there's no need for Apostles or prophets today, who are they trying to kid?]

The problem that the churchmen had on thier hands over two centuries later was that they didn't have any Apostles (CENTRAL LEADERSHIP) to go to for _CLARIFICATION_. What most likely happend was that after the Apostles had been disposed of , certain men both outside and inside the church rose up and perverted it. Without Apostles to stop the corruption, the perverts couldn't be stopped and the church lay wide open for destruction. (Paul expected this to happen as you will see later). This would explain perfectly why the church men over two centuries later had the problems they did over doctrine.

The subject of the church being a unified organization presents two important questions that the Orthodox Christians would love to brush aside. Was the church an organization made up of numerous church branches and if so were they unified?

First, the church has the requirements that fit the definition of an organization. "Parts that form to function as a whole". Non-Mormons will admit that the church is made up of the believers. Which is true, but not in the context that Orthodox Christians would like you to believe it is. They would have you believe that some beleivers can have _some_ of thier own beliefs about the Bible and its doctrine and that they can come together to form their own _part_ (divison/denomination) of the church (which they might call a branch) and that so long as they do not differ in certain agreed on beliefs or creeds (among protestant churches), then thier own little part will find acceptance as a "part" of the body of the church.

But thats not the way it works. Yes, The believers are the body which make up the church branches which in turn come together to form one body. Yes, All of the parts/branches of the church do indeed ultimately make up the organization called the Church BUT each branch or division is not allowed to have its own beliefs or interpretations of Bible doctrine. Allowing the churches to make their own interpretations will always create disunity and I for one certainly do not believe that God intended for His church to have any form whatsoever of disunity among His children in His church. This is evidenced by 1 corinthians 1:10 when God through the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to say: " Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. "

Even if we were to allow the Orthodox Christians thier claim that all thier seperate denominations were PARTS of the church then even by their own admission "they" as parts of the church would come together to form and function as a _whole_ church (a thing they've never done formally) and if this is what they believe then it still fits the definition of an organization which serves my arguement perfectly. I still disagree with them completely that they all together as different divisions with their own beliefs form a whole church or that any of them are even parts of the church at all to begin with but thier claim to being parts work well for my arguement that the church was an organization.

Lets consider the following statement from my personal e-mail by an anti-mormon, dennis kelvie. (dennis was the most dispicable anti-mormon I ever met besides a fellow using the handle nsewanswer on aol)

"The Roman Catholic Church did go off on its own, and it did do alot of bad things. It was Christian for a little while, but then DID apostasize. It NEVER constituted more than just PART of Christianity, even though it did have political clout because of Constantine. But the sins of the RCC do not reflect Christianity as a whole. They just reflect the sins of the RCC."

[Apparently dennis thinks that the Roman Cahtholic Church thought that it was only part of the church. Apparently dennis never heard of the CRUSADES or the INQUISITIONS (especially the Spanish one)] There you have it from an "Orthodox Christian", an actual admission of apostasy and better yet a further admission that the Roman Catholic Church was a PART of the so called Christian church (which created itself).

Another reason which causes me to suspect that the church was (is) an organzation is that there were offices such as Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Elder,Pastors, Teachers and Deacons. Organizations have titled offices don't they? Furthermore, the church had rules (functions/protocol) , seperate (remote but equal) locations and last but not least lets not forget that Jesus's ministry had a treasurer "Judas" ( Are we to suppose that each church did not have someone to account for the weekly income?), Organizations have treasureres. There are more examples but I see no need to provide further proof that the church was in fact an organization.

If there is any further disagreement with me on this subject, I feel that it is the responsibility of those who disagree with me on this subject to present scriptural evidence from the bible which suggests that the church was not an organization and then weigh it against the reasoning which I have provided.

In response to the second question, I believe that the churches were unified. The Apostles themselves were the earthly leadership of the unified church. They had the power to solve problems. The epistles in the Bible which came from them were hand written letters of praise, rebuke and instruction for the body of the church. If the churches were not unified and didn't take council from the Apostles, why then were these letters accepted and kept as cherished documents if they were not honored?

The fact that the letters (NOTE: we only have copies of copies now) survived leads me to suspect that the remaining churches were still unified in atleast some respects (The respect that the letters were accepted and kept and that's about it).

Here is another e-mail from dennis describing an Orthodox Christian understanding of how the primitive church grew.

> The Apostles went from town to town, starting new congregations, > choosing leaders to lead them. Those congregations sent out > evangelists who started new congregations, choosing leaders to > lead them. Those congregations sent out evangelists who started > new congregations, choosing leaders to lead them. Right down to > today, with no interruption at all."

NOT! dennis a self professed "Christian Scholar" admits that it was the Apostles who went from town to town starting new congregations. Those congregations in time grew and sent out their own Evangilists who started new congregations which chose leaders to lead them and in time sent out more evangilists who started new congregations. He claims that this cycle went on and on and is still continuing today.

My problems with this begin with the assumption that any change was created within the new congregations that found accord with the mother church (modern denominations are here because of changes). These congregations were offspring of parent church. They link back to the Apostles and the other church branches which followed the Gospel that was taught by the Apostles from the mother church in Jerusalem (where the church began). I do not believe (nor will I without thorough pursuasion and Bible references) that any new church branches created any un-acceptable differences that were tolerated (none that can be proved in the Bible anyway) by the mother church in Jerusalem.

I do believe that there were some shady charectors that were inside and or outside of the church which sought to change the doctrines of the church but as soon as any form of corruption was detected, it was dealt with and corrected promptly as possible by letter (epistle) from the Apostles and elders or a personal visit from a high authority (an Apostle) or appointed Elder. Again, the epistles do after all contain instruction, rebuke and corrective advice. Again, Paul himself said to the corinthians (1st 1:10) that there were to be no divisions among the church members. They were to be like minded in doctrine. (some Orthodox Christians may attempt to say that Pauls letter to the Corinthians was only to the corinthians but certainly any good principal he would have given to one church would have applied to any other church as well).

I have seen no biblical evidence supporting the logic that denominations are acceptable. I see no good reason to assume that the newly created churches varied in doctrine or practices (function/protocol) of the Christian church or that if they did differ that the variances would find acceptance. Also, since there is not even one example of a formed denomination (let alone an acceptable one if there were) in the Bible, we must conclude that denominations are of man made origin ,completely UN-BIBLICAL and should not be tolerated.

My next problem is with the assumption that the cycle of church growth continued on today without delay or end. According to dennis........

"You seem to be getting a LITTLE glimmer of what happened. THE church. Different names of the congregations, such as "the church of Christ at. . ." and "the church of God at . . .", but the SAME church. And it is STILL the same church, the one we have today, the one which has been spread all over the world for almost 2,000 years now! Only there are MANY congregations in each major city. Some of them are called "Baptist." Others "Congregational." But they are the SAME church! "

dennis thinks that the church is made up of other churches which are different in name only. He neglects to mention that there are many other denominations which do not regard themselves as being affiliated with other denominations (INCLUDING Orthodox Christians) nor do they agree very closely with other churches on doctrinal understandings or thier creeds. Here is an example. The Church of Christ and the Jehovah's Witnesses (both considered to be cults by fundamentalists), both claim to be "The Church" exclusively (They dont believe that they are merely denominations, they believe that they and thier branches alone are the church). [Atleast they seem to comprehend the principles of singular authoritie and central leadership] Both of these churches like the Orthodox Christian churches also believe that the primitive church has been around since its formation and yet they are not accepted by Orthodox Christians at all as parts of the Christian church (because they deny certain or all Orthodox Christian creeds.

I find it really hard to believe that anyone could buy dennis' story. If all the churches were really one church, would they really need to be devided by any other factor than location? dennis also forgot to mention that the churches each have their own seperate understandings and interpretations of the Bible which leads to thier own individual ways of doing things. Are we really to believe that all of the seperate churches with their own different understandings and practicings of Bible doctrine somehow come together to form the same church? If this were to be allowed then it will always be impossible to have a unified church. Following a system like that thwarts the principle of Singular Authority, making it impossible to have one correct Bible interpretation and if that happens then no one can ever know what the true interpretation is because everyone can have thier own (which suits many churches just fine ). It just does not make sense to say that seperate churches which teach different understandings of doctrines are the same church.

I also want to point out that there is also a total lack of scriptural reference to say that the churches operated independantly of eachother acceptably in the practice of doctrine. The assumption that they did this acceptably is totally unprecidented and is completely unwarranted speculation. Those who disagree with me need only to produce scripture from the bible supporting thier speculation (but they wont find any).

Orthodox Christians want us to believe that thier divisions can come together (so long as they all believe the same basic creeds) in a way similar to how the 50 United States come together to form a union but what they over look in their equation is that while each state in the union is allowed certain freedoms it is also governed by a higher Federal Government. Under the Orthodox Christian system, each church denomination is its own state but is not held accountable to any higher earthly authority other than Jesus (so they say).

At this point of my explanation the Orthodox Christians will usually become defensive and try to counter it by saying that all churches are accountable only to Jesus since all the churches are His. This cop out is highly circular in reasoning because the reasoning used here is greatly upon an assumption that THEIR church is really His in the first place! In light of Biblical Consistencies (and thier lack of them) ,them proving that they are even real churches at all looks very bleak.

From here Orthodox Christians will quickly pull out Matthew 18:20 , the verse they say gives them permission to start their churches.

" For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the mdst of them."

Aside from the obvious fact that the word _CHURCH_ is used no where in the verse, the context is clearly speaking of THE HOLY GHOST. This is a prayer meeting (which you could hold outside the church)_NOT_ a church (Let alone a new one).

The original primitive church had Apostles (who were prophets) who lead the church. They defined what was so and what was not so among the entire body of the Christian Church, they were the authorities in charge and they were given that duty by Jesus himself . They continued His ministry which became the Church (See Matt. 10:1-14).

The Orthodox Christian church has never had any Apostles or any form earthly central leadership which governs them together as a whole (thier sole claim to authorative leadership is weakly manifested by an understanding that Apostles are with them today via the scriptures, yet we've seen what happens when we leave them to decide what the scriptures mean). The reason for this is because each denomination as well as the individual churches of it each have their own leadership and do not recognize any higher authority on the earth than itself with exception to their claim that Jesus (who is not on the earth) is their leader.

Lets examine this claim that Jesus is leading them. In what sense can they claim that "Jesus" is leading them? Could they be claiming that Jesus is leading them like Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, Peter, Paul or John was led by Jesus? Absolutely not. You see, what the Catholic church and the Orthodox Christian (fundamentalist) churches do not have in common with the Congregation of the Children of Israel or the original primitive Church is that unlike a real church they do not have Prophets (nor will they claim to) which Jesus speaks to and uses as the go between between us and Him. This claim that Jesus is leading any church which does not have a prophet is totally rediculous. Lets look at Amos 3:7, " Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Is there anyone who the Lord has spoken to verbally (or by other more direct means) that wasn't a prophet? Or shall we consider everyone who just thinks that the Lord has spoken to him to be a prophet? If so, did any prophet in the Bible ever say that he only "thought" or "felt" that God spoke to him? No, I dont recall (nor will anyone else) anywhere in the Bible where a man that God didn't speak to by some direct means was counted as a Prophet.

[ Modern church leaders tell us that they felt that they were called by God. They felt they were called by perceiving a certain series of events in their lives as leading them to the ministry. Make no mistake if you or anyone else is called of God directly it will be in the form of an audible experience (awake or in a dream)and not of a "feeling"] [Men of God have also been known to have been called by other men who have lineage of authority linking back to a prophet but no one in the Bible was ever called by a feeling]

Modern Christians believe that since they know that the Apostles were murdered and never replaced then it is only logical to assume that a present day central leadership body made up of real people living today is not necessary (how convienient and profitable that is for the present day clergy). There are a couple of problems with this assumption. First, in the New Testament times, the church was lead by Apostles. They wrote the New Testament (as they were led by the Holy Spirit). No one who was not a Prophet or an Apostle ever wrote any cannonical (acceptable) scriptures. John's last letter to the seven churches gives testimony that John (an apostle) was still an authoritive figure. He was after all receiving revelation from the Lord himself and then writing those prophetic words down. If anyone was an authority at that time (especially in those latter days of the Apostolic era) it had to have been John. Modern professional Christian religionists perpetrate and perpetuate a fraud by peddling an assumption that because the bible doesn't supply replacement leadership for the extinguished Apostles then somehow a great change was to have taken place. (want to see how horribly bankrupt the fundy think tank is on explanations of this assumption? Then you ought to see Hugh Nibley's analysis of the explanations of what took place according to present day orthodox Bible scholars, see his "Mormonism and Early Christianity") Coincidentally ,they also mistakenly assume that since no more scriptures have been produced then every word of God has been given to us (this will also be discussed at length later in my book). From this, we can gather that fundamentalist/orthodox Christians seem to understand that the death of the Apostles marked the end of the scriptures and the end of Apostolic leadership. Where they get the idea that Apostles were no longer necessary is notably absent from Biblical references. (In an attempt to offer some explanation)Some how, they believe that since no central leadership was perpetuated then this can only mean (to them) that God never intended for there to be a continual central leadership by men. They believe that Apostles and Prophets are no longer necessary and will back this claim by saying that only Christ himself leads them (or that the apostles are still leading them from the scriptures), but we've already covered that and how that doesnt work. The Bible contradicts this assumption when in Ephesians 4:11-13 it says:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints,for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"

In context this says that "He" (Christ) gave some Apostles etc etc etc...for the perfecting of the saints. "Till" (the key word here) we all come in the unity of the faith. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Apostles were supposed to be discontinued, atleast not _UNTIL_ there was a unity of the faith (now when was unity ever reached? can you prove it?).

[Even if it could be proven that unity was achieved at one time, wouldn't the obvious lack of unity now warrant the presence of new Apostles and Prophets? It undeniably did so in the past]

Paul does however give us some warning of what to expect though in Acts 20:29-30, " For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. "

The first thing Paul said was " I know this ", He fully expected it to happen. Secondly, He points out who will commit the perversion " of your own selves ". Paul indicates to us that the corruption was to occur almost immediately. The corruptions were to have occured well before the Roman Catholic Church was ever set up (So why do the catholics get blamed for everything?).

Also, (just for fun) the claim that Apostles were not to be continually replaced is unwarranted because of the fact that they _WERE_replaced! Judas was replaced and others were added later on as well. Where Othodox Christians get the idea that Apostles were not to be replaced is completely Biblically unprecidented. I gravely doubt that you or I will ever get a satisfactory answer for from our fundamentalist teachers on this one.

This takes us right back to the question of whether or not the church was unified at the time of the Roman Catholic assumption of the church. When you take into account the fighting amongst the churchmen it makes it very difficult to rationally say that the church was existing in a state of "unity of the faith". When you add in the key phrase in Ephesians 4:11-14, "till we all come to the unity of the faith" , you can see that Christ meant to have central leadership "till" we (the entire christian body) all came to the unity of the faith. When exactly was it that the entire Christian body ever came to the unity of the faith? According to recorded history there was such a lack of unity among the churchmen of the newly formed Roman Catholic Church that a Council had to be formed to work out all the difficulties. Where were the Apostles during this council (none are ever mentioned)? The Apostles didn't have any say at the council held at Nicea. They didn't help to ratify the Nicene Creed (or the creeds of any other councils make). To my knowledge there wasn't one real man of God at that council at all and if there were no one listend to him as they voted on these heresy laden creeds (add to that that the votes were far from unanimous).

Plainly put, we are being expected to believe that the church was in such a dismal state of disunity that a meeting was called for soley for the purpose of creating unity. This meeting was called for and officiated by men who were not called of God. We are expected to believe that men created a state of unity which the Apostles themselves were not able to produce so that they could end the need for the office of Apostles .

Todays divisions in the form of denominations are in fact divisions among a body of believers that should be in Christs church which He does lead (through prophets, as always see Amos 3:7). Arguing that divisions can form unity of the faith is just plain irrational and it should be an insult to your intelligence that anyone would even try to serve this idea to you. Without central leadership we can not say that we are united nor can we ever be.

[When I speak as though there really is a church I man that there is in the form of his restored church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints]

The last part of the fundamentalist Orthodox Christian assumption is that their church leaders (and members too) are led by the Holy Spirit. This line of logic allows for alot of liberal (mis) interpretation. Under the assumption that one is saved as soon as one says a small prayer and asks to be saved ,Orthodox Christians can simply and immediately declare that they are led by the Holy Spirit and have permanent license to assume that He is leading them in all thier decisions.

[They are assuming that they are receiving the Holy Ghost (rather the gift of) whether or not authoritive hands were ever laid upon them or not]

Orthodox Christians claim that the Holy Spirit leads each denomination in the capacity that they are all in one body. Yet, they all come up with different Bibical interpretations over doctrine (whatever happend to God not being a God of confusion?). This cannot possibly be true since all the leaders of the inidividual christian churches will definately say that they are being led by the Holy Spirit. This cannot be true because the Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself , Christ or God the father. The Holy Spirit would not instruct one man to contradict another man which he had previously instructed and to say that he would would make God a liar. Every one cannot have their own correct interpretation of Bible doctrine, so someone isn't telling the truth or else the Holy Spirit is lying. Most likely it is all of Orthodox Christian churches that are lying since none of them will claim to be the one true church. If one of them were to make that claim, they would find themselves in the same boat with the LDS, Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Seventh Day Adventists who also make that claim. Consider a couple of verses concerning the Holy Spirit.

John 16:13 " Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

1 Corinthians 2:12 " Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

1. If these man made churches were of God, (made by his request by some means which led these men to come to the conclusion that they should create these churches) Why then do they not teach and practice the same exact things if they have been "led into all truth"?

2. If "we might freely know the things that are given to us OF God" why cant the leaderships of modern so called christian churches agree perfectly when it comes to the practicing of doctrine found in the bible?

3. If the Holy Spirit were truely guiding the leaders of these churhes, would he really be guiding them to continue in the unbiblical sectarian denominationalist practice which devides the congregations? (should'nt they be coming to the same conclusions and truths?)

4. How can Jesus lead His church if he does'nt have a prophet to speak to on the earth?

5. What does any of this have to do with the necessity of a RESTORATION of the church and its priesthood?

More from dennis.....

" If you are going to get us to believe that all congregations of Christ's church operate from one central government, you must show it to us, chapter and verse in the Bible. Not argue with us, but show us. Or your readers will drop you like a rock."

As you can see, I have discovered some problems with the understandings of churches created by men. When I suggested that the churches were unified the above was given in response. What dennis suggests for me to do seems logical at first, but it seems to me that the burden of proof is really on him since the Bible does suggest that there was Apostolic Leadership but doesn't suggest there were any acceptable divisions of the christian church. I believe that it is his assumption that the church was not a unified organization with central leadership that needs to be proved with biblical scriptures. I suspect though that instead of producing supportive scripture (which does not exist) those that disagree will become frustrated and choose to argue and refuse to show me (us) the chapters and verses in the Bible which support thier assumptions, which is exactly what dennis has done. (BTW, You will find the chapters and verses to support me on this website)

Church Makers always want to assume the position that they are correct right from the start thus leaving everyone else in the defensive position. Do not let them do this, (Do not supply them with an undeserved advantage) it is ok to turn the tables and make them EARN their position by proving themselves to you. Them proving themselves (successfully) is something I have yet to ever see. If they don't give you any reason (that will stick) to believe that they are actually authoritive why should you just take thier word for it? By now, I hope I have provided enough evidence for you not to.

Still more problems,

Previously in this article, dennis (as well as the Protesants themselves) admitted that the off-spring of the primitive church (the Roman Catholic Church) had gone apostate. The Roman Catholic Church never was a part of the primitive christian church. It was created by Constantine without command or consent from God. Just for the sake of arguement though, even if the R.C.C. had been a part of the church by somehow becoming a continuation of it , it did not continue for very long as a mere part. It proceeded to become (immediately) "the" church allowing no difference of doctrine of practice thereof. After the Nicence Creed was ratified There were no other "parts", they simply would not be tolerated. Those who disagreed or differed were labeled heretics and severely punished if not killed. The Protestants claim that the R.C.C. was indeed apostate centuries before they themselves ever came into existance as self constructed parts of the church. (In light of the fact that Constantine formed the R.C.C. , I maintain that the R.C.C. never was part of the church, it was instead, a man made organization very much like every other modern church not claiming to be founded by a Prophet of God or better ) Since there was no church or part of the church which survived the Catholic captivity, we must conclude that the primitive church and all parts of it were terminated either before or by the total domination of the R.C.C. and that no part of it (the first church) still lives today (atleast none that can prove it by any logical or rational means). Survival of the original church was impossible. No one today can trace any link of God given authority to the primitive church or its Apostles, Prophets, Evangilists,Elders, Pastors or teachers.

With this knowledge you now have three options from which to choose. Option (1) You accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the rightfull successor and living extension of the original primitive church which was started from Jesus' ministry and that the R.C.C. had and still has the right to modify, add and delete doctrine as it sees fit whereby it could never have gone apostate (it made mistakes but did not become apostate). Of course this means you'll be a Catholic now. Option (2) You accept that the Roman Catholic Church rightfully assumed the surviving parts of the church and ultimately united them again by settling their disputes through the manufacturing of creeds. But, you take the word of protestant reformers who were never called of god (or claimed to be) as rightfull interpreters of God who claim that the Church had gone apostate. You agree that the Protesants knowing that the church had been apostate for centuries somehow recieved the authority of God without any lineage or word from God above at (seems silly doesn't it). You agree that though there are differences among the protestants ,it is ok to side with the denomination that seems to be the most correct to you even though you now know that there was never any such arrangement to be found in the Bible. You agree that there doesn't need to be any more Apostles or Prophets or prophecy from either, yet every church in every age always had living prophets (and subsequently prophecy). Option (3) You accept that the churches went apostate as a result of lost leadership which led to disunity and corruption and or misinterpretation of doctrine. You realize that the Roman Catholic Church was nothing more than an attempt to unify the remaining churches but the effort was made by men who were not of God nor did they claim to be. You recognize the Protestant movement finally saw through farce and tried to correct the situation but did so using virtually the same exact methods as the Romans but ending up with only more problems in the form of divisions (they created more problems in the attempt to the problem). You recognize the need for a prophet and a God given restoration (instead of a reformation by men) but you have serious doubts about whether or not a real prophet could solve the Christianities problems. Knowing that you can't start a church without Gods say so you realize that either the Catholics are right or you will wait for a Prophet from God to come and settle this mess.

[ Joseph Smith claimed to be that prophet, yet most of the world does not believe him. Many persecute him and his church in the name of God while they cling to a church organized after Christs church by a self righteous man or men ]

Let me show you the reason behind my belief that a man must be able to prove his calling. When the Congregation of the Children of Israel came back from the Babylonian captivity, Ezra had to determine who was of the priestly lineage. He did so by seeking proof by documentation, see Ezekiel 2:62

"These sought their REGISTER among those that were reckoned by geneology, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood".

Geneologies were written records kept by families. Those geneologies were proof documents. They proved that the men holding and presenting them to Ezra were of the priestly lineage and that they were authorized to be representative of the Lord. The man made institutions which project themselves to the public as authorized servants of the Lord have no credentials of any form which should lead anyone to believe that they or thier organizations (churches) are in fact authorized representatives of God. No man of these man made church organizations claiming priestly authority to teach the gospel can produce any means of proving to you or me that he is in fact of God through any means that can be traced back to the original church.

[An expected arguement: Does Joseph Smith have any proof? Answer: Yes, he does. The orthodox christians attack every bit of it relentlessly trying to prove to themselves that the proof is invalid]

All of this leads back to one very crucial question and that question is, Where does authority come from in the first place? The answer is simple, it comes from God himself. God empowers individuals and empowers other certain individuals to empower (call,ordain, set apart etc...)others. The man made institutions have really made of mockery of Gods authority as far as attaining it is concerned. They have created theology schools which teach thier own priest crafts. Such schools are not of God they are of men. Men cannot make their own way to God in which they indoctrinate themselves and then attempt to force God to accept them as His servants but that is exactly what the church makers have been doing. So how does a man become a man of God?

In order to unravel all the confusion over who has God given authority and how they can validly attain it, we must refer to the bible and look for citings showing delegations of authority to individuals. We must look for what I call "Biblical consistencies". The Bible is consistent in the ways in which authority is recieved and transferred. When looking for delegated authority to an individual comes to mind, the first person I think of is Moses (since he did write the first five books of the Bible). Moses had no geneology records to prove to anyone that he was of God. What he had instead though is the only other way to prove that he was chosen and called of God. What he had was a claim (the first necessary step). His own personal testimony that God had verbally spoken to him and had called him to service (Just making the claim is the first valid step). Also, the Bible tells us how to recognize a prophet in chapter 12 verse 6 in the book of Numbers,

Biblical protocol and hermanetics will both prove that there are only two ways to present yourself as a VALID authorized representative of God. Those two ways are :

1: Claim that you were contacted personally by God or Jesus and were called into his service by oral command or request. ( At the very least a claim MUST be made )

2. Be called by a servant of God who is authorized (previously) to call you, choose you , set you apart and then (either immediately or some time later in some cases)commission you to a duty which the Holy Spirit himself (or God or Jesus, depending on which ever scriptural citing you use ) has directed the authorized individual to do.

**As a special note and an advance forwarning, I would like to point out a scripture verse that I know without a doubt will be brought up against Joseph Smith. That verse is Deuteronomy 18:22, " When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Tongue in cheek, this is check mate to the modern religionists who have built thier own churches and taught the Gospel to thier own understandings. The original primitive christian church was created by the Lord himself (his ministry). No church created since has had the proper requirements to say that it is of God. No church today outside of those that claim that God has given his commandment to create such organizations has complied with the Biblical protocol found to be consistently necessary to form a church. The Roman Catholic Church nor the Protestant churches (or thier unfortuante offspring) qualify to be representatives of God.

In closing of this subject, the necessity of a restoration is required because unless there was a restoration then there could be no truely authorized church or man which would be qualified to serve the Lord in an acceptable capacity. Until there were a restoration, man is left with only the assumption of men that there was no need for a restoration . While at the same time ,very obvious problems with that assumption protrude from it in essencence screaming "hey! somethings not quite right with this!!". Indeed, something must be wrong. The orthodox christian community as well as the Roman catholic church has been seeking for some way in which they (the multiple congregations) might be as one, functioning as one body and seeing things in common. After all, they (of the modern christian leadership) know full well that the original primitive church of God was not devided and that so long as they are devided and have no central leadership they cannot have all things in common as the primitive church did.

An Expected argument... or two...

There are probably a few of you out there who might think they have found a flaw with my argument about the Apostles being necessary until unity is reached (as per Ephesians 4:13). The argument I most expect is that some of you or your pastors will claim that unity had been attained and thus a handy explantion arises for the apparent lack of Apostles today.

My reply: Show us the unity. Show us the same organization among the many sects that the original church had. The Apostles and Prophets sought to bring us to one understanding not everyone's understanding. Paul expected heresy to enter no sooner than he left. Heresy led to the disunity which continued until the power of the Roman government could stop it (and only for as long as it could keep stopping it).

Second argument. I did infact state that the early Christian churches were unified. However, I did not mean to say that the church along with all those who BELIEVE in Christ ever attained unity. There were many who believed in the man Jesus but they held many different ideas about Him and His doctrines. The apostles continually fought misunderstandings and misrepresentations which came from believers and members alike. These occurrances of apostasy eventually swept through the church and ultimately destroyed it. The apostles were killed and the remnants of the believers were left to be tossed to and fro by many different winds of doctrine. In short, the Church in its entire lifespan saw continuous attacks in many shapes and forms all through its lifetime, never achieving true unity. Though the congregations (where ever they were) were in unity, they utimately succumbed to apostasy and became de-unified (read what the early christian church fathers wrote, you'll read about all their problems with the gnostics). No greater evidence need spark your attention than the fact that only a few years after Constantine had spawned his version of the Christian church then did he have to form a council to settle the matters of conflicting doctrinal understandings in order to unify the church.

One last objection you may hear is a request for the actually date that the church went apostate.

My reply: Though the church progressed into an apostate condition gradually member by member over the course of time after the death of the last Apostle we could say the date that the final stroke was made was the very same day that the Nicene Creed was ratified and instituted (Until then there may have been atleast one true priesthood holder but after the creed was ratified a new priesthood took over). It was only after this date that it was illigal to believe and practice Christianity with any variance from that of the established Roman Catholic Church. Though some may have evaded the R.C.C for any number of years the strong iron hand of the R.C.C. To date, as much as some churches would like to say that they are a living extension of the original church NONE can prove it with any written records.

I suspect that there will be well more than a few that will not be so easily convinced by my arguments. If you're one of them, I challenge you to first explain my errors and then present me with a more believeable and most importantly unrefutable story of how the church survived until today. Good luck!