I served a mission and everything came down to this. I asked people to pray and ask God to reveal to them whether or not the LDS church was the right thing for them. Many of them came to realize that it was. Other didn’t. I didn’t get upset with those people and respected their choice. I was just glad that they made one.

I can’t help but wonder, though, if there are a few meanings of the word “authority,” and they’re just slipping between our fingers, so to speak? I can understand that there is scriptural authority and Priesthood authority (as the LDS define it, the authority of God). I know the LDS to be very proficient in understanding both, but in my experience, the Priesthood authority is more commonly espoused, seeing as they view the Book of Mormon and Bible on equal scriptural-authoritative planes. (And so what do you mean by “[your] Bible” and “theirs”? Are they different?)

Hopefully we’re not getting scriptural authority confused with the Priesthood authority, of which they claim the direct line to the Lord through Peter, James and John, then Joseph Smith and other early apostles and prophets. On the other hand, I do not know the LDS Church to claim the only scriptural authority. In fact, I’m pretty sure the same KJV Bible is used, and other books of scripture alongside it.

In any sense, it seems like you are emphasizing scriptural authority, not Priesthood authority… and I suppose that is what most of your post is about.

Like you, I find it interesting that the 3 witnesses of the golden plates all left the Church, and 2 of the 3 did eventually come back (though, I disagree: they play important roles in establishing the history of the Church). But did you know that none of them ever denied their testimonies, despite having become, at times, vehemently opposed to the Church, to the days they died?

While we’re talking about loyalty of witnesses for a moment, you do mention that “of the eleven disciples who were with Christ, all endured to the end.” But there were twelve, one of whom betrayed the Lord which led to His crucifixion.

Finally, I would point out that Church leaders have always disagreed on various topics. It still happens today as LDS Church leaders make decisions, before they unanimously agree (see video interviews at the LDS newsroom!). Indeed, Peter and Paul disagreed at times, and so did Smith and other early LDS Church leaders.

For instance, I am familiar with LDS history enough to know that sometimes, Joseph’s fellow apostles or other leaders would seek for authority — probably Priesthood authority — greater than their own, or rather, they sought the title of “Prophet” and “President” of the Church (much like the position that the Lord placed Peter in when he said, “upon this rock I will build my church”). Joseph of course would refuse, but not because he was the “highest” authority in the Church, but because it was not apparently the Lord’s will or way that it happen. (Naturally, those men who coveted authority eventually left the church.) Smith always talks of Jesus, not of his own (Priesthood) authority.

You say this: “The authority that has transformed lives is backed up by not by a man but by a Scripture that transcends them all.” — and as I conclude, I am still unsure what you mean “authority” and “man” and “Scripture” here. There is obviously a connection between the Bible and Christ, in that the Bible points to Christ. Is there no connection between that man and Christ? Does Joseph not point to Christ? Then did Peter not point to Christ?

You hit home on the last paragraph, though. I think that’s what unites a lot of Christianity together.