Answering a challenge....

Your request for archeological evidence would presume you are already somewhat familiar with the content of the Book of Mormon. As it is apparent that you are not even well acquainted with the problems of the Bible, I will assume you have no working knowledge of the Book of Mormon, but will noentheless proceed and conclude that most of the following will miss the mark with you, through no fault of the information itself. I will leave you to read the book before passing any further judgment on it and then only prayerfully, I would hope. I will provide in the folowing a bit of history as well.

I remind you that there were other prophets than Christ in his time. Agabus would be a Biblical name few are familiar with, but he prophesied the death of Paul. That God should have other prophets than Christ and his apostles prophesy should be no surprise. Any person worthy and called to do so is allowed. We are told in the Book of Revelation that 'the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy.' Can you say you know by the spirit that he is the Christ? If so, your spiritual witness was that spirit of prophesy spoken of in the text. And God has a history of choosing the young and teachable, such as Daniel, Samuel, David, Esther and so forth. Is it any wonder he might choose a young farmboy of no major note to restore his church in a land with freedom of religion in modern times? After all, he chose a young and unknown carpenter's son as a guise for the Messiah, didn't he?

Christ prophesied there would come a falling away, with grievous wolves entering in and NOT sparing the flock. His prophets said there would be a famine in the land, not of food and water, but of hearing the word of the Lord and that men would run to and fro and not find it. That sounds a bit like the dark ages to me. It also implies that there would not be an authorized prophet or man of God to speak the word. That would then necessitate a restoration, or the 'time of refreshing', as the Lord called it. Thomas Jefferson eagerly awaited the day when Christ would restore his ancient church. How would this happen but through a prophet? Can you honestly say that modern Christendom could ever agree on all the myriad of opinions regarding the Bible, let alone other religious texts? Not without a prophet, they can't. About the only thing they seem to agree on is their dislike for the Mormons.

Let's see what a minister at the time of the founding of the LDS Church has to say about the Book of Mormon. Alexander Campbell, founder of the Church of Christ says this about the book after reading it ALL the way through:

"It decides all the great controversies; infant baptism, the Trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of free masonry, republican government and the rights of man."

That pretty well nails it. Apparently he didn't find those answers in the Bible because the Bible is not the entire word of God. Do you recall the verse that says that if all the doings of Jesus were written, that even the world itself might not hold all the books? I won't get into the math and physics of that, but will assert that he did and said a lot more than you know and accept presently and a lot more than is in the Bible itself. So, by necessity, the Bible is incomplete. And why warn men not to take from the text of Bible (remove anything) if God expected it to be treated with the respect it deserved over the centuries? He knew human nature.

Now note the interesting fact that a Baptist minister in Salt Lake City has been teaching directly from the Book of Mormon for some twenty years by now and you would have to wonder why, if he saw no real value to doing so. He apparently doesn't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, but then one must wonder, how does he explain the origins of the Book of Mormon?

Keeping in mind that it is historically verifiable that Joseph Smith had only a third grade education and that he couldn't write a coherent letter without help, according to his wife, how likely is it that he wrote the book totally unaided? Not likely. Now, there are those who say it was written by Sidney Rigdon, who was better educated. Then Mr. Rigdon would have had no reason to have begged Joseph for 116 pages of the handwritten manuscript to show to his wife, who handed it over to a mob to alter and discredit Joseph. Likewise, Rigdon would have had to claim intimate knowledge of the Hebrw language, because although the book is horrendous English, it is excellent Hebrew. It is full of Hebraisms. Even the Bible, which has been altered by several translations, shows relatively few overtly Hebraic signs anymore. That the Book of Mormon is closer to the original document and its source Author is obvious to those informed on the matter. At the time of Smith and Rigdon, no extensive studies or books on the language were available and certainly not in the library of a small town like Palmyra, New York. Biblical archeology itself was in its very infancy.

The book claims that there were Hebrews in the Americas. The evidence is certainly there, should one care to do even a smidge of research. Books such as the Apocrypha (I don't recall which one specifically) state that God sent the tribes of the northern kingdom into dispersion; specifically "to the north and to the west and to the isles of the sea." This is a Hebraism in itself, as there is no word for north-west in Hebrew, but they instead stated the direction by employing the word 'and' differently than we would. Perhaps you have noticed that chapters or even entire books will begin with the word. This is a unique Hebrew idiom. It should be noted that the British Isles are to the north-west of the Holy land and are indeed isles of the sea. It should also be noted that these 'lost tribes' would have intermingled with the indiginous peoples and eventually would have come to the Americas as Europeans, if nothing else. But there is more evidence of earlier migrations. It should also be noted that there was a modern British Israelite movement. One might also note that the word 'British' bears a striking resemblance to the Hebrew "b'rith ish", meaning 'covenant man'. There is also a legend that the prophet Jeremiah traveled to the British Isles and carried with him the Stone of Destiny, the very stone that Jacob laid his head on the night he 'wrestled' with the Lord and had his vision of the ladder to heaven. I would recommend a reading of the book The United States and Great Britain in Prophecy, by Herbert W. Armstrong. The man was an outstanding scholar of the Old Testament. I would argue only that he confused the modern identities of Ephraim and Manasseh, reversing them inappropriately.

God said He would spread the house of Israel to all corners of the earth. I assume He meant what He said and that AMERICA would be a part of that plan. The Ojibwa spoken language is 13% recognizable Hebrew. That is a large percentage and beyond coincidence. The Sac, Fox and Ojibwa have a unique DNA haplo-group marker that is found only in the Holy Land, a remote part of Italy and in the remians of Kennewick Man. That marker identifies them as Hebrews. Then there is the Cherokee oral tradition that their ancestors "escaped from a place called Masada, across the sea." Anyone familiar with Masada and it's history will recognize immediately the inference in the word 'escaped'. They will also recognize the inference of a sea-going migration. That would be the fulfilling of the prophecy that Joseph's seed was a fruitful bough by a well and that they would reach over the wall; the wall being the barrier of the sea. The Cherokee also have rites that are almost identical to Hebrew rites and use the Hebrew name of God often in their ceremonies. Their head wear is also more reminiscent of the middle east than of the plains Indians.

There is evidence such as the Bat Creek Stone and the Los Lunas Stone, both inscribed with paleo-Hebrew characters, the first stating "For the Judeans" and the latter bearing the entire Ten Commandments in that ancient script.

The book states that their remples were fashioned after the manner of the temple of Solomon. I will point out that sites such as Cahokia, near present day St. Louis, and thought to have once had approximately 25,000 inhabitants, has evidence of a temple mount a 100 feet high, 200 feet wide and 600 feet long, bearing the marks of a courtyard and a building atop it that resembles the temple of Solomon in form. That they would build pyramids in this manner and that there would also be great stonework and hieroglyphic evidence throughout the Americas is remniscent of the Hebrew works in ancient Egypt while in their time of slavery.

The mention of their ancient means of fortification is also evident in Cahokia and other sites throughout north America. They dug ditches and piled the earth on the edge of the ditch and then built walls of logs, like early settler forts, on top of the high points. This would force an enemy to drop into the hole and then climb twice as far back up, making them vulnerable to attack from the wall above the entire time. Many of these fortifications, built in as many as six concentric circles, have been found. As the record states that they used wood to great skill and that their cities were often burned with fire, it would be evident that they had wooden walls and homes most often. The stone works seems to have been employed more often by later migrations to the south. The temples there are not after the manner of Solomon's, indicating either a different people or a corruption of the original methods. There is at Cahokia evidence of a wall being built hastily across the city and without much care for where it was placed, being built of as many as 80,000 timbers, if I recall correctly. The indication seems to be that they were fighting an enemy of enormous size and ferocity and needed to act quickly. The book states that this was indeed the case.

I could also point out to you that the mentioned waters of Mormon, where ancient baptisms were done in a 'fountain of waters' in the wilderness may in fact be the present site of Big Springs. This would seem reinforced by the fact that a million or more gallons of water perday flow from the site and there is an ancient stone stairway down to the water at a place that is suitable for baptism.

Another point of geopgraphy would be the account of those who went off in search of those who had founded the city of Zarahemla. They followed the rivers to the north and eventually came to a "land of many waters". That would accurately describe thge Great Lakes area. They did not, however, find the city. In fact, according to where Joseph said it would lie, had they crossed the river at the wrong time and follwed another branch northward into the Great Lakes area, they would have missed the site altogether.

The Book of Mormon says there were the light skinned Nephites and the darker skinned Lamanites. It describes a battle that involved a band of two thousand young Lamanite warriors wherein none were killed in battle. It would be of great note that there is in Mexico a pyramid wherein the inner walls has a mural depicting two thousand YOUNG dark skinned men outfitted to battle. That many murals also show a light skinned and a dark skinned race in battle is significant, as well. Mind you, the furthest south Joseph Smith ever got was MIssouri. How would he write of these things?

The book also says that Christ came to the Americas after his resurrection. That could be evidenced by the numerous native legends throughout the Americas that describe a bearded white man with blue eyes that went about teaching and doing great miracles, including walking on the water, commanding the storms and healing the sick with his touch alone. One tribe even called him Chee-soos. I thnk you easily see the similarity. You might wish to read the non-Mormon record of some of these traditions in a book called He Walked the Americas. It is available on Amazon. I would also remind you that Christ said of himself that he was called only to the lost sheep of Israel (the Apostles went to the gentiles when commanded) and that he had other sheep not of that fold and that he must visit them and that they would see him and hear his voice and there would be one fold and one shepherd. We know what Christ was doing while his body lay in the tomb, thanks to the writings of Peter, but what did he do after his resurrection? Would he keep the promise to the other sheep of Israel? Of course. These legends and the Book of Mormon record that visit. IN fact, evidence shows tghat there was a change from Mosaic practices in the Americas to Christian practices at some time among the ancients. I will leave you to research that, as I have done.

There are descriptions early of the journey of Lehi and his family from Jerusalem to the sea. That sea is the on the Arabian peninsula. The details of travel accurately describe the geography of the region and can be plotted and followed to this day. It os worthy of note, too, that there is a site in the Holy Land that bears the name House of Lehi and even the Arabs consider it the ancient dwelling of a holy prophet. There is a cave there that has the depiction on the wall of a ship. The cave is nowhere near the ocean. The book of Mormon tells how Lehi's son, Nephi, was commanded of the Lord to build a great ship to travel to the land of promise. If Noah could do so with God's help, I think Nephi could, as well, don't you?

There is the book's claim that the geographical features of the promised land included a sea eastward and a sea westward, with a narrow neck of land between them, being wide enough that a Nephite could cross it in a day and a half. Based on what the pioneers could cover in that time, that could be about twenty-one miles or so. Not so surprisingly, there is an inland sea to the east and west of the Niagara Passage. These are called Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. If you wish to argue that they are lakes and not seas, I would remind you of the lake known as the Sea of Galilee. Interestingly, the name Niagara means narrow neck or passage. The book says it leads to a land northward and the Niagara Passage does just that. It is also about 21 miles across and able to be traversed in about a day and a half.

The book states that there was a final stand of the Nepites against the Lamanites and that they defended against an attack from the south. Across upper New York state in the forests, you find ancient outposts that are evenly spaced and all facing southward. They are stone structures built in such a way that soldiers could hide inside a hill-embedded fortress and see the enemy while being able to prevent arrows and spears from entering their installation by use of a stone obelisk in a small courtyard in front of each installation. Each site is the same.

The book claims they knew how to mine and smelt iron and copper. There are numerous accounts of farmers finding mounds that were obviously smelters. There are numerous accounts of iron arrow heads and spear heads, as well. There is the fact, too, that Michigan is known for its native copper nuggets. It also states that they wrote on tablets and plates of brass and gold. Gold would have been the means of preserving rexcords over millenia so there would be no tarnishing and loss of the writings. That is what Joseph Smith stated the angel led him to. It might also be noted that prophest anciently claimed to have seen the Lord and Joseph was no different. He learned more about the nature of God and His Son in those first few sconds than mankind had known for centuries before, having been lost in philosophical arguments since the decline of the ancient church and loss of the prophets and revelation.

Then there is the test of the internal spiritual evidence itself, such as the segment known as Moroni's promise, in chapter 10, which reads as follows:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.

7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

In additon to providing the supreme test by which the truth of the claims might be known, those verses alone should dispell any claims that we don't believe in Christ and are not Christians. There are many more verses that detail his visitation and teachings to the people of Israel in America. And ancient Bible revelation states there could be much more.

The book also shows certain signs of having been written by numerous individuals, as attested to by each succeeding segment under a different prophet's name. This has been verified via compter investigations into word patterns and usage that would identify unique authors. There are many.

Now, why don't we start with what God has stated through scriptures about His plan for Israel, shall we? "One Lord and one shepherd" sounds like a uniting of the tribes, whether lost or still extant in the world. A restoration of his ancient church would require amodern prophet to speak the word of tghe Lord, That is how he has always operated and there is no need to assume he will differ now. The ancient church had a foundation of apostles and prophets, so that will be an identifyonf factor today, as well. By necessity, there will be revelation. That requires that the modern spoken word of God be as well received as the ancient written word. Many will believe and many others will say, as stated in the Book of Mormon,

2 Nephi 29

3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?

• • •

6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

• • •

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

He states that what he speaks to one nation he speaks to another and all alike. Why would he not speak to each nation as he visits the lost sheep of Israel and cause that they should record his words also? Is God any respecter of persons? Will not all men be judged alike?

After that chiding by the Lord, there is the crux of the entire matter--whether modern man in all his assumed wisdom will humble himself and test the book and the prophet and come to know the truth of it all. He may claim, as did the ancient scribe and Pharisee, that he would never have stoned the prophets as their fathers did, but the fact is that Joseph was falsely accused, imprisoned and murdered, along with his brother, Hyrum, while held securely and helplessly behind bars. It is known that amongst the painted mob were the faces of local religious leaders of the day. What good Christians these men must have thought themselves to be, commiting murder and thinking they were doing God a favor, just as prophesied in their own Bibles. Now the testimonies of Joseph and Hyrum are sealed with their blood and it is upon the generations of the guilty to repent of the deed.

There are other things I could add. These would include the prophecies in the Book of Daniel that verify the restoration of the House of Israel and identify both northern and southern kingdoms, while pointing out exactly the years of their restorations in modern times--that "marvelous work and a wonder" which God promised to fulfill. The fulfillment of the northern kingdom vinbdicates to the year the restoration of the ancient Church through the prophet Joseph Smith, as well. God tells us so much in so few words.

The handwriting on the wall at the feast of Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel records that the finger of God wrote these words in prophesy:

MENE MENE TEKEL PERES

This matter is dealt with in some detail, applying the prophesies to the Ishmaelite descendants of Abraham as well as the Israelite descendants, in a book called The Other End of the World, available at Amazon. I highly recommend it, but will cover some of it here and also add the bit that God revealed to me personally. I hope it is clear enough for you to understand.

Daniel interpreted these words to mean that the kingdom of Babylon was weighed in the balance and found wanting and would that very night fall to other kingdoms. That was fulfilled, but how did he determine the translation of the words? He recognized weights and measures, plain and simple. Just as we have the English pennyweight in our history, they had the Hebrew Maneh and Shekel, being multiples of the Gerah. The Babylonian names for these were what Daniel read on the wall.

A maneh is equivalent to a thousand gerahs, as our dollar might be seen as a hundred pennies. Since the word is mentioned twice, there are two thousand gerahs. A Shekel is twenty gerahs. Peres means 'half' or 'divided'. Therefore, half a maneh is five hundred gerahs. The total now being 2,520 gerahs. If you will note that the Lord said 'seven times' would pass over the kingdom of Babylon before it would be restored, you should see the parallel that seven 'times', consisting of 360 degrees each, is a total of 2, 520. Where the Book of Revelation refers to 'a time, times and half a time', you may also use the 360 day prophetic year or think of them as degrees of a circle, labeled as years after you add them up. That is the key to understanding them.

After knowing that from that time of Daniel to a point 2,520 years later was the year 1917 and the recapture of the Holy Land, I read that Daniel also referred to it in a verse saying "blessed is he that waiteth until the thirteen hundred and thirty fifth day'. In the Muslim calebdar, the year 1335 is the same as our 1917. The date, shown this way, identifies that the land was in the hand of the Ottoman Turks when it was taken back for the homeland of Israel. Being that some of the inhabitants were probably Ishmaelitic descendants of Abraham, they would and should live peacefully with their cousins in the land. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. There are too many Philistines yet.

May I point out that the Holy Land was captured in that year 1917 by General Allenby of the British Army--again with b'rith ish, or covenant man. God works in mysterious ways. Now, after having determined that the southern kingdom of Judah and Benajamin were restored in that year, I began to wonder about the northern kingdom of Ephraim and Manasseh, sons of Joseph of Egypt and inheritors of a double portion of the blessing. So, I did some research and determined that the northern kingdom had gone into exile a full 97 years before the southern kingdom. By that determination, I paced their restoration in the year 1920, the very year that God and Christ appeared to Joseph Smith, the young and teachable farm boy chosen to be groomed as a modern American Moses. No other religious event claims to have taken place in that year that is of any worthy note, to my knowledge. Only the appearance of the Father and Son and the beginnings of the marvelous work and wonder spoken of by prophets of old. The days of refreshing spoken of by Christ, when all that was spoken by the holy prophets of old would be restored.

God has not ceased to be a God of miracles. We ay have ceased to have faith, but he can do no miracles where there is no faith and has stated so himself. Christ did no moracle sin the towns that would not believe. Had he dones so, he would have condemned them more fully by their unbelief in his miraculous works. Are we any more enlightened than they were in their time?

By now you must know that I am not the average Christian and not even the average Mormon. I have taken it upon myself to study deeply the things I thirst and hunger after in the ways and word of God. And for you to dismiss it all as my being misled by the devil would be a great mistake. And it would be a supreme dis-service to God, as I have always humbly and sincerely prayed that He would lead me into more truth. God has not changed. He is as much a God of miracles as ever He was. And he keeps His promises, even after man has long since forgotten them.

The fact of th matter is that the Protestant movement, of which I was once a part, has no leg to stanbd on as to authority to act in the name of God. They are breakoffs from Catholicism, for the most part. If the Catholics are a continuation of th Chruch of Christ, then those who left have no authority. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true restored church of Christ, then the Catholics and the Protestants together are without authority to act in the name of God. It is that simple--continuation or restoration. There is nothing else. Only prayer, fasting and sincere study to gain a spiritual witness will answer that one for you. And eventually adding the other mentioned books that the ancients themselves would have revered is a good idea for the properly initiated and seasoned student of the scriptures. Milk before meat.

For about forty years now, I have made it an exercise to try to poke holes in the doctrine and determine where it might stray from the Bible and the impressions of the Spirit. I have found that I cannot do so. There are no hooles. It is the ancient Chruch restored and it is perfect in every way. While the members may have their faults, there is none with the doctrines and they will bring a person to the ultimate destiny that God has planned for him or her.

I have not been able to attend to every detail of the matter here, as I said, but I will testify that I know without doubt the Book of Mormon to be the word of God to our day, a second witness with the Bible, which many have ceased to believe in and it is another testimony of Jesus the Christ. I bear witness that Joseph Smith was and still is a prophet of the most high God. I know this because I have personally put to the test the promise of Moroni and in return the Holy Ghost has witnessed to my spirit that the claim is true. There is no way a man can forget the feeling when the Spirit of God enters into him and bears witness in pure intelligence and light to his very soul that a matter is indeed so. I have had that "Damascus Road experience" in my own life and, like Paul, will never be able to deny it. I cannot do so and be held guiltless. I will not deny the Holy Ghost. What you do with these words is up to you. As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord. Amen.

Addendum: To add to an already lengthy post, I have been additionally challenged (indirectly, but by the same person) to show any problems with the Bible, which he deems to be infallible and translated entirely correctly and claims that I cast it aside and therefore have no right to even call myself a Christian. So, to clear that up, I offer the following:

GrandGizmo, the Bible, if mistranslated, cannot be infallible. As translated correctly and accurately, as dictated by God, it is. Even God warned not to change His word or alter it. Our responsibility, then, is to determine that the text is correct or is not correct. Only the truth will set us free, as you know. I am not casting the Bible aside. I only know that there are several versions and not all are accurate. Do you, for example, use the King James or the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Do you use the NIV or the Geneva Bible? Why or why not? Do you know that even the 300 or so scholars that took part in the King James translation could not agree on every point and a concensus had to be reached? Did you know that KIng James demanded they come to a conclusion or pay the price? Was the concensus reached by a vote or by revelation? I think you know the answer to that one.

I will show you a few problems with translation, but let me suggest a book that might interest seekers of truth in this area. It is called Amazing Discoveries and is written by Karl Sabiers. The topic is the underlying gematria structure (similar to computer programming checksums) that indicates where the translations are accurate and where they are incomplete, added to or inaccurate. And there are indeed indications of such. The fingerprint of God is there in the underlying structure and not just the accurately translated text. Much like the Bible Codes, it took computers to fully expose them.

There are numerous problems with the translation of the Bible and in how to understand it. Genesis 1:1, for example, as it stands now, has led the Christians to think God used Ex Nihilo creation methods ('something from nothing'; ironically, even such eminent scientists as Michio Kaku are now adopting this lunacy that once they chided--"There was a disturbance in the vacuum." ?! What disturbs a vacuum? A prime mover must be present and they do not acknowledge God.) Instead, if we translate it the way the Hebrews meant it to be, the word baurau would have been understood to mean 'organized', implying that unorganized matter and endless empty space was already there and only needed intelligent and creative influences to make it productive.

Let me again say that I do not cast aside the Bible totally--only the incorrect translations, because only the truth shall make us free and the scriptures are not for private interpretation, but were given by the Spirit and will be understood through the same Spirit. Now, as to other troubles, compare:

Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 (same book, same author) Did they all hear the voice or did they not?

John 19:14 and Luke 23:44 Confusion possibly, regarding Pilate?

Acts 1:18 and Matt. 27:5 Confusion regarding Judas.

Matt. 27:9-10 and Zech. 11:13 Did Matthew lie? Jeremiah?

Acts 7:22 and Exo. 4:10 Is the mistake made by Stephen and the Holy Ghost or by the translators?

We live in a day that was prophesied to be a time when people would begin to trun their backs on the Bible (a collection of books that may not even be complete, by the way). You see some churches saying that Genesis is merely fable or allegory, etc. Some have tossed out the OT altogether. There is little agreement possible when you find some churches dividing themselves over whether to allow music in the church or not.

What is wonderful is that God promised in the last days to have a time of restoring and refreshing and to do a marvelous work and a wonder that the world would not believe even though a man would declare it unto them. That time has just come to pass. It is foolish to believe that angels no longer visit the earth or that prophets will never again be needed. The promise in the Bible is that Elijah would return before the great and dreadful day of the Lord (else the world would be cursed and lost) and that there would be two prophets in Jerusalem in the final conflict. Either you believe those parts of the Bible or you do not.

What God has done is to again reaffirm His power and keep His promise to the world. The Book of Mormon takes nothing away from the Bible, but stands with it and attests to its authenticity. The prophecy was that the Stick (proper translation would be tablet, scroll or record) of Joseph and the Stick of Judah would be one in his hand and they are. He said tghe truth would spring from the earth and there are other prophecies that tell even when the temple of the last days would again begin its work (to the very year--and that is fulfilled only by the LDS temple that was built in the year 1836.) Elijah did come again, during Passover, and to the prophet Joseph Smith. No other Christian Church was even expecting him or waiting for him. He fulfilled his duty of restoring to the earth the keys he held, much as Christ received on the mount of transfiguration. Follow the dots. No authority = no true church = no valid baptism. Restoration was critical to God's plan, unless you believe Catholics have an unbroken line of authority and the Pope is infallible.

I have not gone into this without a bit of foreknowledge, as you can see. I ask of you only one thing--be humble and teachable. Do some research and don't cling to partisan religious propaganda only. Think for yourself. Is not truth more important than defending opinion or 'partisan religion'? Only the truth can save us.