Oh, and on the "1545 the Church named the catechism another Gospel" thing. Do a Google search. Better yet, do an AI query to see if that's what the Church did in 1545 or any other year. I'm actually scared at what you might find. I kid. No I'm not. I already know the answer. 3/

The result is you don't believe in Sola Scriptura either, do you? You implicitly presume an unwritten tradition that informs you of the content of Scripture,from hundreds of books purported to be Scripture in the first centuries of the Christian era. The Church discerned the inspired content and had made it so ubiquitous over the centuries that you forget that an unwritten tradition of the Canon is still necessary, and that's because the Bible alone does not explicitly reveal which books are supposed to be in the Bible. You accept an unwritten tradition, just like Catholics do. Is that tradition from men or from God? If it's from men, then the Bible is nothing. It's just another fallible text like every other book is. But if the Canonical tradition is from God, then you have asserted a divine revelation outside of Scripture, which denies Sola Scriptura and well, welcome to the Church. But those are your only reasonable options as far as I can tell. Which is it? From men or God?

What authority are you restoring if you too accept the authority of the Catholic Church for the Bible? Here's a summary: The Catholic Church discerned the Bible the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also accepts as authoritative. The Trinity was taught from the beginning of the Apostolic era. See Athanasius, Pope Julius, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, etc., we have their writings from the first and early second centuries. There is no early Church Father, taught by the Apostles themselves, that held to the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have most of their writings and have read much of them. Name an early Church Father who believed what you do. There must be some if it is the original, orthodox Christian message. Who believed it? Your Church preaches a restoration of Christ's Church was necessary, meaning Christ's original Church was not sustainable and therefore Christ was not sufficient to sustain it Himself the first time. There is no evidence for the Book of Mormon, it's history, language, or archeology anywhere in the world. And there is no evidence the early Church was "Mormon". Please show us any evidence to the contrary. Your only claim is to a testimony (Alma 10:4) at the end of the day. And when the rubber meets the road, it's a blind faith claim for something you have no other evidence for. Would you accept those terms for any other religion? For Islam? JWs? Then why for Mormonism if it's really true? 2/

Onesiphorus is dead. Even prominent Protestant Scripture scholars (ex. DA Carson) will admit that because Paul refers to him in the past and future tenses, but in the present, he refers only to his "household". Note that Paul prays for Onesiphorus after he's dead. 4/

Note that Onesiphorus is dead. Even Protestant Scripture scholars will admit as much because Paul refers to Onesiphorus in both the past and future tenses, but not the present. Why would Paul pray for someone who is either in heaven or hell, where are prayers are ineffective? 3/