spamlds

In the headlines today...
China will create own Christian belief system amid tensions with church, says official New Chinese theology must suit Chinese culture and values, State Religious Affairs director says
 
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1568209/china-will-create-own-christian-belief-system-amid-tensions-church-says
This is an excellent modern example of how the Great Apostasy occurred.  Constantine created a state church out of Christianity and it was modified to meet the political ends of the Roman Empire.  Henry VIII started a state church so he could get divorced.  Martin Luther was sheltered by German kings so they could diminish the power of the Roman Church over their domain.  Now we see a new state chuch being created in real-time, for political purposes.
 
In 500 years (if the world lasts that long) there will be Chinese Christians contending with Roman Catholics and Protestants that they are the true church!  It's the way of history.

Farewell Iguy2314.  I would simply like to comment on your approach to finding truth compared to the one taught by our missionaries.  You urge anyone investigating the Church to start with C.S. Lewis.  We urge people to ask of God.  There is no more fundamental teaching that our missionaries present than James 1:5-6.
 
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."
 
When a person seeks religous truth, whether to believe in Christ or not, or whether to accept the precepts of a particular denomination as truth, he needs to go to the source: God.
 
I'm sure Iguy2314 did not intend this, but it'll ultimately be the outcome of his approach.  His approach is to try to find the smartest guy around and then ask him for truth.  The world is full of smart people who all disagree on what the truth is.  Such an approach can only lead to confusion or deception.
 
Joseph Smith, although a real person, represents all of us as a proxy in one sense: he had to find out what was true amidst the "war of words and tumult of opinions" in the world around him.  He, like Iguy2314 and many of the rest of us, inquired of the smartest, educated, and most well-informed people he could find. He read from the Bible and compared the smart guy's answers to it.  Inevitably, he came to the solution that any honest person would come to.  There's no way to know.  The smart guys were all sincere and convinced they were right.  Then he read James 1:5-6.
 
In a modern context, I would paraphrase this passage like this:  If you lack knowledge about spiritual things, don't ask Google.  Don't ask Yahoo Answers.  Don't go to CARM, or MRM, or Ephesians2, or any of the various anti-Mormon ministries out there.  Don't go to the Pope, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, or Jimmy Swaggart.  The professors of religion at the theological seminaries argue among themselves about what the Bible means.  You won't get the answer you seek from them.  Instead, ask of God.
 
Joseph Smith learned firsthand that God answers prayers and grants wisdom to those who ask him for it, in faith, believing that they will receive.  The one caveat to all this is to set aside your pride and promise to follow God's answer when it comes.  Have faith.  Asking doesn't come without a price.  Revealed truth requires you to commit to it once it is given to you.  Clarity comes through personal revelation from God.
 
For any non-LDS visitor that reads this discussion, please ask yourself.  Who would you trust more, C.S. Lewis or God?  We urge every sincere seeker of truth to study the Bible and the Book of Mormon and then to ask of God if it is true.  We ask this confidently knowing that God will never steer you wrong.
 

(Note:  This is an article I wrote several years ago for the Examiner.  I thought you all might enjoy it and that it will lead to interesting discussions.)
 
Latter-day Saints love the Bible and believe it as scripture. Indeed, Joseph Smith went so far as to say that we are the only people who truly believe it as it is written. Modern, sectarian Christians hang Bible verses like ornaments on an artificial tree constructed of man-made creeds, ignoring the passages which conflict with or contradict their doctrines. In the process, they have allowed a number of myths about the Bible to be promulgated because it serves their own ends. The following eight myths are summarized from "Here We Stand" by Joseph Fielding McConkie (1995, Deseret Book) McConkie is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University.
 
1. The Bible is a single book
 
McConkie points out that the Bible is a collection of books which were gathered together by men over thousands of years. The Jewish Bible consists of 24 books that Christians call the Old Testament. The actual books that are agreed upon by Jews came from a council in 90 A.D. in Jamnia (near Joppa, Israel). At his council, it became so contentious that it resulted in bloodshed. (McConkie, 36)
Christians have divided these 24 books into 39 and ordered them differently. Their version of the Old Testament comes from the Greek Septuagint, which was rejected by Jews, because of the influence of Greek thought and the inclusion of the Apocrypha. Catholics accept the Apocrypha as scripture because they sustain otherwise unscriptural doctrines, such as masses for the dead and the existence of Purgatory. (McConkie, 37-38)
 
The origin of the New Testament begins with two second-century heretics. Marcion, a bishop's son and a wealthy ship owner, was the first to create a canonical list of books. His list rejected the Old Testament entirely as scripture and "was closed to all but ten of the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke." Macrion's false teachings caused him to be excommunicated from the ancient Church. Macrion's excommunication was so final that the Church gave him back all the money he had donated.(McConkie, 38)
 
The second "heretic" was Montanus who declared that he was the incarnation of the Holy Ghost promised by the Savior to come. He denounced the absence of revelation in the church and the lack of spiritual gifts. To counteract his claims, the church began to teach that there would be no further disruptive revelations and that the canon of scripture was closed.
 
Over the next two centuries, Origen of Alexandria divided the books in his New Testament into classes of acknowledged books and disputed texts. The list of disputed books included James, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. This constituted the oldest Greek manuscript, consisting of 29 books. (McConkie, 39)
 
Eusebius of Caesaria omitted not only the Shepherd and Barnabas from his list, but also the Book of Revelation. Most Greek manuscripts omit it also. Other disputed books which Eusebius rejected were the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, and the Teachings of the Apostles. (McConkie, 39)
 
In 367 A.D., Athanasius sent an Easter letter to the churches of his diocese, listing the books approved for reading in the church. This list matches the current-day New Testament. Thus it wasn't until the fourth century that there was any consensus on which books comprised the Bible.
 
2. The Bible preceded doctrine
 
Since the Bible didn't exist in its current form in the time of the Bible, how did it then form the basis for the doctrines taught by Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles? "The book was created by the church, not the church by the book." (McConkie, 40) An example of doctrine preceding the Bible would be the Nicene Creed, which was devised by a council in 325 A.D. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged from this council, which took place after the church had declared that revelation had ceased, but before the time that the canon of the Bible was agreed upon. (McConkie, 41)
 
3. True religion is Bible religion
 
Since the Bible didn't exist in the time of Peter and Paul. "No one who lived within the time period of the Bible ever had a Bible." (McConkie, 41) Therefore, their religion was not "Bible religion." The Bible is the testimony that God interacts with man via revelation and spiritual gifts, directly and personally. It was not based solely upon the words of God to ancient prophets, but to living ones. Why should it not be so today?
 
4. Everything in the Bible is the Word of God
 
The Bible is the word of God so far as it is translated correctly, but every word in it was not uttered by God. The Bible contains the words of the devil to Adam and Eve in the Garden and to Jesus Christ during his temptation in the wilderness. It contains the words of Adam, Eve, a serpent, angels, prophets, apostles, and their scribes. It even contains the words spoken by Balaam's mule, who chastened him for his cruel treatment. All these are in addition to the words of God spoken to prophets and the words of Jesus Christ himself. (McConkie, 43)
 
5. The canon is closed
 
Nowhere in the books of the Bible does it say that the canon of scripture is closed. Many will refer to the last lines of Revelation to claim that the book cannot be added to. Since the Bible didn't exist at the time of the writing of the Revelation of John, it couldn't refer to the Bible as a whole. The Revelation remained a disputed book for two centuries after John penned it. Thus the commandment that it should not be added to must refer to that particular scroll which John wrote. We should understand that most scholars believe that John himself "added to" the Bible, because it is commonly believed that he wrote Revelation before the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John came AFTER the book of Revelation in the chronological sequence of Bible texts. The apostle John told us that "...there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one...that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
 
A similar interdiction against adding to God's word appears in Deuteronomy. Following the logic of those who say the Bible can't be added to because of John's statement, we must consider tossing anything that comes after Moses and Deuteronomy. Man's rejection of further revelation is an attempt to "mute" God and deny that he has power to reveal anything new or essential to mankind. It defends the status quo, having a "form of godliness" but denies the power thereof. Since the Bible itself doesn't claim to contain all God's words, it would require a revelation from God to tell us that the Bible is inerrant, sufficient, persipicacious, and the final authority in all things. Thus, you can see the quandary: it would require a revelation to tell us that there will be no more revelation. The position is logically untenable.
 
6. The Bible can be interpreted independent of a predetermined ideology
 
McConkie poses a hypothetical situation. Suppose an angel took a copy of the Bible to a people who had no knowledge of it whatsoever and had no predetermined views on its contents. Suppose they built up a church using the Bible as their guide. Can we realistically imagine that they would, using the Bible alone, come up with anything remotely resembling the doctrine of the Trinity? Neither can we imagine that they would come up with a doctrine that one is saved solely by God's grace, without the requirement of faith and obedience to the commandments of God and the ordinances. (McConkie, 50)
 
The Bible doesn't clearly explain how to baptize, who can perform the ordinance, and at what age the ordinance the ordinance can take place. It doesn't explain the duties of bishops, deacons, and elders and what are the limits of their ecclesiastical authority.
 
Thus everyone, including Mormons, must interpret the Bible through an ideological lens. The lens the Jew uses is different than the Christian. The historian will use a different lens altogether. The Mormon's view must necessarily differ from that of Jews, the Christians, and the historian. This realization is important, because we must understand that, without modern day revelation to guide us, one Bible interpretation is no more authoritative than another. The restoration of the Gospel, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, all provide additional light and knowledge that give us the keys to interpret the Bible correctly.
 
Without revelation, it would be impossible to determine whose interpretation is correct, because each interpretation will be influenced by the world view of its proponents. The same scriptures that convince a Jew that it is unlawful to turn on a light switch on the Sabbath day also convince him that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah. (McConkie, 48) The same Bible that convinces Christians to proclaim an end to revelation and miracles also led a young Joseph Smith to "ask of God" and receive a glorious vision of the Father and the Son.
 
7. To know the Bible is to understand it
 
The Bible is probably the most misquoted book in existence. Paul is probably the most misquoted person ever. The Bible was written by living oracles of God to people who were accustomed to and accepting of the principle of contemporary revelation from God. The counsel and guidance the apostles gave were to people who had a shared understanding. It makes no sense to preach grace to those who haven't repented, been baptized,and had a remission of their sins. It doesn't add up to teach about spiritual gifts and the fruits of the spirit to those who have no right to them. The scriptures don't ask the reader to accept Christ as a personal Savior or to make a committment for Christ, because it is addressed to those who had already accepted Christ by covenant. (McConkie, 53)
 
The cafeteria-style doctrinal approach of contemporary Christian churches is the result of their rejection of modern revelation as a possibility. Without revelation to guide, one must try to cobble together some theology by picking and choosing what fits into one's world view and reject the rest as "metaphors" or "symbolism." (McConkie, 54)
 
8. The Bible is common ground in missionary work
 
This statement applies especially to Latter-day Saints. We often assume that the Bible is the common ground from which we can build understanding. If there was any semblance of agreement in modern Christianity, do you think there would be a thousand quarelling sects and denominations? (McConkie, 54)
 
Joseph Smith went into the grove to pray because he came to the conclusion that it was impossible to find out which Church he should join by studying the Bible alone. This is a true statement.
 
In this "war of words" and "tumult of opinions" that rages in Christendom, the only way to find the truth is to "ask of God." (James 1:5) Thus the Book of Mormon becomes the preeminent tool for conversion. It offers clear and plain gospel teachings free of sectarian interpretations. It clarifies the Bible's teachings and helps identify the interpolations of men. It also identifies to the sincere seeker, where and how to locate the conduit of personal revelation for himself, independent of anyone or anything else.
 
Latter-day Saints will be more effective by teaching the gospel from the Book of Mormon than from any other source. We should encourage all interested parties to seek truth in prayer and from the Book of Mormon. Finding the truth in this manner identifies the means of obtaining personal revelation, the source of restored authority, how to obtain the ordinances of salvation, and how to live in such a manner as to obtain and keep a remission of one's sins.

Farewell Iguy2314.  I would simply like to comment on your approach to finding truth compared to the one taught by our missionaries.  You urge anyone investigating the Church to start with C.S. Lewis.  We urge people to ask of God.  There is no more fundamental teaching that our missionaries present than James 1:5-6.
 
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."
 
When a person seeks religous truth, whether to believe in Christ or not, or whether to accept the precepts of a particular denomination as truth, he needs to go to the source: God.
 
I'm sure Iguy2314 did not intend this, but it'll ultimately be the outcome of his approach.  His approach is to try to find the smartest guy around and then ask him for truth.  The world is full of smart people who all disagree on what the truth is.  Such an approach can only lead to confusion or deception.
 
Joseph Smith, although a real person, represents all of us as a proxy in one sense: he had to find out what was true amidst the "war of words and tumult of opinions" in the world around him.  He, like Iguy2314 and many of the rest of us, inquired of the smartest, educated, and most well-informed people he could find. He read from the Bible and compared the smart guy's answers to it.  Inevitably, he came to the solution that any honest person would come to.  There's no way to know.  The smart guys were all sincere and convinced they were right.  Then he read James 1:5-6.
 
In a modern context, I would paraphrase this passage like this:  If you lack knowledge about spiritual things, don't ask Google.  Don't ask Yahoo Answers.  Don't go to CARM, or MRM, or Ephesians2, or any of the various anti-Mormon ministries out there.  Don't go to the Pope, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, or Jimmy Swaggart.  The professors of religion at the theological seminaries argue among themselves about what the Bible means.  You won't get the answer you seek from them.  Instead, ask of God.
 
Joseph Smith learned firsthand that God answers prayers and grants wisdom to those who ask him for it, in faith, believing that they will receive.  The one caveat to all this is to set aside your pride and promise to follow God's answer when it comes.  Have faith.  Asking doesn't come without a price.  Revealed truth requires you to commit to it once it is given to you.  Clarity comes through personal revelation from God.
 
For any non-LDS visitor that reads this discussion, please ask yourself.  Who would you trust more, C.S. Lewis or God?  We urge every sincere seeker of truth to study the Bible and the Book of Mormon and then to ask of God if it is true.  We ask this confidently knowing that God will never steer you wrong.
 

(Note:  This is an article I wrote several years ago for the Examiner.  I thought you all might enjoy it and that it will lead to interesting discussions.)
 
Latter-day Saints love the Bible and believe it as scripture. Indeed, Joseph Smith went so far as to say that we are the only people who truly believe it as it is written. Modern, sectarian Christians hang Bible verses like ornaments on an artificial tree constructed of man-made creeds, ignoring the passages which conflict with or contradict their doctrines. In the process, they have allowed a number of myths about the Bible to be promulgated because it serves their own ends. The following eight myths are summarized from "Here We Stand" by Joseph Fielding McConkie (1995, Deseret Book) McConkie is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University.
 
1. The Bible is a single book
 
McConkie points out that the Bible is a collection of books which were gathered together by men over thousands of years. The Jewish Bible consists of 24 books that Christians call the Old Testament. The actual books that are agreed upon by Jews came from a council in 90 A.D. in Jamnia (near Joppa, Israel). At his council, it became so contentious that it resulted in bloodshed. (McConkie, 36)
Christians have divided these 24 books into 39 and ordered them differently. Their version of the Old Testament comes from the Greek Septuagint, which was rejected by Jews, because of the influence of Greek thought and the inclusion of the Apocrypha. Catholics accept the Apocrypha as scripture because they sustain otherwise unscriptural doctrines, such as masses for the dead and the existence of Purgatory. (McConkie, 37-38)
 
The origin of the New Testament begins with two second-century heretics. Marcion, a bishop's son and a wealthy ship owner, was the first to create a canonical list of books. His list rejected the Old Testament entirely as scripture and "was closed to all but ten of the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke." Macrion's false teachings caused him to be excommunicated from the ancient Church. Macrion's excommunication was so final that the Church gave him back all the money he had donated.(McConkie, 38)
 
The second "heretic" was Montanus who declared that he was the incarnation of the Holy Ghost promised by the Savior to come. He denounced the absence of revelation in the church and the lack of spiritual gifts. To counteract his claims, the church began to teach that there would be no further disruptive revelations and that the canon of scripture was closed.
 
Over the next two centuries, Origen of Alexandria divided the books in his New Testament into classes of acknowledged books and disputed texts. The list of disputed books included James, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. This constituted the oldest Greek manuscript, consisting of 29 books. (McConkie, 39)
 
Eusebius of Caesaria omitted not only the Shepherd and Barnabas from his list, but also the Book of Revelation. Most Greek manuscripts omit it also. Other disputed books which Eusebius rejected were the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, and the Teachings of the Apostles. (McConkie, 39)
 
In 367 A.D., Athanasius sent an Easter letter to the churches of his diocese, listing the books approved for reading in the church. This list matches the current-day New Testament. Thus it wasn't until the fourth century that there was any consensus on which books comprised the Bible.
 
2. The Bible preceded doctrine
 
Since the Bible didn't exist in its current form in the time of the Bible, how did it then form the basis for the doctrines taught by Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles? "The book was created by the church, not the church by the book." (McConkie, 40) An example of doctrine preceding the Bible would be the Nicene Creed, which was devised by a council in 325 A.D. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged from this council, which took place after the church had declared that revelation had ceased, but before the time that the canon of the Bible was agreed upon. (McConkie, 41)
 
3. True religion is Bible religion
 
Since the Bible didn't exist in the time of Peter and Paul. "No one who lived within the time period of the Bible ever had a Bible." (McConkie, 41) Therefore, their religion was not "Bible religion." The Bible is the testimony that God interacts with man via revelation and spiritual gifts, directly and personally. It was not based solely upon the words of God to ancient prophets, but to living ones. Why should it not be so today?
 
4. Everything in the Bible is the Word of God
 
The Bible is the word of God so far as it is translated correctly, but every word in it was not uttered by God. The Bible contains the words of the devil to Adam and Eve in the Garden and to Jesus Christ during his temptation in the wilderness. It contains the words of Adam, Eve, a serpent, angels, prophets, apostles, and their scribes. It even contains the words spoken by Balaam's mule, who chastened him for his cruel treatment. All these are in addition to the words of God spoken to prophets and the words of Jesus Christ himself. (McConkie, 43)
 
5. The canon is closed
 
Nowhere in the books of the Bible does it say that the canon of scripture is closed. Many will refer to the last lines of Revelation to claim that the book cannot be added to. Since the Bible didn't exist at the time of the writing of the Revelation of John, it couldn't refer to the Bible as a whole. The Revelation remained a disputed book for two centuries after John penned it. Thus the commandment that it should not be added to must refer to that particular scroll which John wrote. We should understand that most scholars believe that John himself "added to" the Bible, because it is commonly believed that he wrote Revelation before the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John came AFTER the book of Revelation in the chronological sequence of Bible texts. The apostle John told us that "...there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one...that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
 
A similar interdiction against adding to God's word appears in Deuteronomy. Following the logic of those who say the Bible can't be added to because of John's statement, we must consider tossing anything that comes after Moses and Deuteronomy. Man's rejection of further revelation is an attempt to "mute" God and deny that he has power to reveal anything new or essential to mankind. It defends the status quo, having a "form of godliness" but denies the power thereof. Since the Bible itself doesn't claim to contain all God's words, it would require a revelation from God to tell us that the Bible is inerrant, sufficient, persipicacious, and the final authority in all things. Thus, you can see the quandary: it would require a revelation to tell us that there will be no more revelation. The position is logically untenable.
 
6. The Bible can be interpreted independent of a predetermined ideology
 
McConkie poses a hypothetical situation. Suppose an angel took a copy of the Bible to a people who had no knowledge of it whatsoever and had no predetermined views on its contents. Suppose they built up a church using the Bible as their guide. Can we realistically imagine that they would, using the Bible alone, come up with anything remotely resembling the doctrine of the Trinity? Neither can we imagine that they would come up with a doctrine that one is saved solely by God's grace, without the requirement of faith and obedience to the commandments of God and the ordinances. (McConkie, 50)
 
The Bible doesn't clearly explain how to baptize, who can perform the ordinance, and at what age the ordinance the ordinance can take place. It doesn't explain the duties of bishops, deacons, and elders and what are the limits of their ecclesiastical authority.
 
Thus everyone, including Mormons, must interpret the Bible through an ideological lens. The lens the Jew uses is different than the Christian. The historian will use a different lens altogether. The Mormon's view must necessarily differ from that of Jews, the Christians, and the historian. This realization is important, because we must understand that, without modern day revelation to guide us, one Bible interpretation is no more authoritative than another. The restoration of the Gospel, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, all provide additional light and knowledge that give us the keys to interpret the Bible correctly.
 
Without revelation, it would be impossible to determine whose interpretation is correct, because each interpretation will be influenced by the world view of its proponents. The same scriptures that convince a Jew that it is unlawful to turn on a light switch on the Sabbath day also convince him that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah. (McConkie, 48) The same Bible that convinces Christians to proclaim an end to revelation and miracles also led a young Joseph Smith to "ask of God" and receive a glorious vision of the Father and the Son.
 
7. To know the Bible is to understand it
 
The Bible is probably the most misquoted book in existence. Paul is probably the most misquoted person ever. The Bible was written by living oracles of God to people who were accustomed to and accepting of the principle of contemporary revelation from God. The counsel and guidance the apostles gave were to people who had a shared understanding. It makes no sense to preach grace to those who haven't repented, been baptized,and had a remission of their sins. It doesn't add up to teach about spiritual gifts and the fruits of the spirit to those who have no right to them. The scriptures don't ask the reader to accept Christ as a personal Savior or to make a committment for Christ, because it is addressed to those who had already accepted Christ by covenant. (McConkie, 53)
 
The cafeteria-style doctrinal approach of contemporary Christian churches is the result of their rejection of modern revelation as a possibility. Without revelation to guide, one must try to cobble together some theology by picking and choosing what fits into one's world view and reject the rest as "metaphors" or "symbolism." (McConkie, 54)
 
8. The Bible is common ground in missionary work
 
This statement applies especially to Latter-day Saints. We often assume that the Bible is the common ground from which we can build understanding. If there was any semblance of agreement in modern Christianity, do you think there would be a thousand quarelling sects and denominations? (McConkie, 54)
 
Joseph Smith went into the grove to pray because he came to the conclusion that it was impossible to find out which Church he should join by studying the Bible alone. This is a true statement.
 
In this "war of words" and "tumult of opinions" that rages in Christendom, the only way to find the truth is to "ask of God." (James 1:5) Thus the Book of Mormon becomes the preeminent tool for conversion. It offers clear and plain gospel teachings free of sectarian interpretations. It clarifies the Bible's teachings and helps identify the interpolations of men. It also identifies to the sincere seeker, where and how to locate the conduit of personal revelation for himself, independent of anyone or anything else.
 
Latter-day Saints will be more effective by teaching the gospel from the Book of Mormon than from any other source. We should encourage all interested parties to seek truth in prayer and from the Book of Mormon. Finding the truth in this manner identifies the means of obtaining personal revelation, the source of restored authority, how to obtain the ordinances of salvation, and how to live in such a manner as to obtain and keep a remission of one's sins.

Farewell Iguy2314.  I would simply like to comment on your approach to finding truth compared to the one taught by our missionaries.  You urge anyone investigating the Church to start with C.S. Lewis.  We urge people to ask of God.  There is no more fundamental teaching that our missionaries present than James 1:5-6.
 
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."
 
When a person seeks religous truth, whether to believe in Christ or not, or whether to accept the precepts of a particular denomination as truth, he needs to go to the source: God.
 
I'm sure Iguy2314 did not intend this, but it'll ultimately be the outcome of his approach.  His approach is to try to find the smartest guy around and then ask him for truth.  The world is full of smart people who all disagree on what the truth is.  Such an approach can only lead to confusion or deception.
 
Joseph Smith, although a real person, represents all of us as a proxy in one sense: he had to find out what was true amidst the "war of words and tumult of opinions" in the world around him.  He, like Iguy2314 and many of the rest of us, inquired of the smartest, educated, and most well-informed people he could find. He read from the Bible and compared the smart guy's answers to it.  Inevitably, he came to the solution that any honest person would come to.  There's no way to know.  The smart guys were all sincere and convinced they were right.  Then he read James 1:5-6.
 
In a modern context, I would paraphrase this passage like this:  If you lack knowledge about spiritual things, don't ask Google.  Don't ask Yahoo Answers.  Don't go to CARM, or MRM, or Ephesians2, or any of the various anti-Mormon ministries out there.  Don't go to the Pope, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, or Jimmy Swaggart.  The professors of religion at the theological seminaries argue among themselves about what the Bible means.  You won't get the answer you seek from them.  Instead, ask of God.
 
Joseph Smith learned firsthand that God answers prayers and grants wisdom to those who ask him for it, in faith, believing that they will receive.  The one caveat to all this is to set aside your pride and promise to follow God's answer when it comes.  Have faith.  Asking doesn't come without a price.  Revealed truth requires you to commit to it once it is given to you.  Clarity comes through personal revelation from God.
 
For any non-LDS visitor that reads this discussion, please ask yourself.  Who would you trust more, C.S. Lewis or God?  We urge every sincere seeker of truth to study the Bible and the Book of Mormon and then to ask of God if it is true.  We ask this confidently knowing that God will never steer you wrong.
 

There are a lot of variables here.  I agree with the idea of having a family council and maybe even a family fast about it.  Get everyone on the same frequency.  Church councils work this way.  The General Authorities will table a matter if unanimity can't be reached rather than force someone to decide something under pressure.  Unanimity is one of the signs of inspired guidance given to a group.  
 
That said, when the Spirit speaks to the person who holds the keys of presidency in a council and indicates the way to go, and he reveals that to a council over which he presides, it's the duty of the council to set aside doubt and move forward.  That can happen sometimes.
 
In a bishopric, matters about calling and stuff, ordinations, etc. can involve some deliberation.  Consensus comes eventually.  I have learned that, when consensus doesn't come, the Lord doesn't want the decision to be made at that time.  Other times, the bishop would receive revelation and the other counselor and I would receive an immediate confirmation of a decision and sustain the Bishop's action.
 
As the father in the home, you have the right to the inspiration and the right of presidency.  Your daughter doesn't hold those keys.  In a ward, a Primary Teacher doesn't come to the bishop and tell him to release her and call her as the Young Women's Presidency because she had a revelation.  She doesn't hold those keys.
 
If your heart tells you this is right and it confirms your daughter's feelings, great.  If not, you have the right to revelation and her revelation won't override the one God gives to you.  If she's inspired, you'll be inspired to arrive at the same decision.  If not, remember, you're the "bishop" of your home.  I can't think of a Ward or Stake Council that would go against the inspiration of its presiding authority.

I've been a branch president and had to do these kinds of interviews before.  I'm also a parent with five children.  I would urge you to talk to your parents privately first.  Then have them go with you to see the bishop.  If you truly have an addiction to pornography, you won't beat it alone.  Parents can help you.  You'll need an "accountability partner" and they'd be your best choice.  Satan tells you that you have to deal with this alone.  The Lord would broaden the circle of care and let you know you have support.  

It's wonderful that you are considering joining the Church.  It's great that you have an understanding of the Bible enough to ask good questions.  Most of all, it's great that you sincerely want to do the Lord's will.  
 
I think that last one is the most important.  Think for a moment about the way Jesus asked for a commitment from people.  He told some of them to come and follow him, right that minute.  Imagine that you lived in that time.  All you could see concerning the Lord during his mortal ministry was that he was an itinerant preacher who taught some familiar things and some things that seemed to defy the old ways and the old teachers.  The "experts" and the learned men of his day dismissed Jesus.  They used their scriptures to prove to themselves they should be looking for another Messiah.
 
Imagine you had heard all the hearsay.  You heard that Jesus did miracles, that he healed people, walked on water, and fed a multitude with only a few loaves of bread and some fish.  You didn't see those things.  You can only accept or reject the testimony of those who say it happened.  Then you talk to your clergymen and they said that Jesus was a phony and a fraud.  The anti-Christian literature of the day sounds a lot like today's anti-Mormon literature.  The Pharisees spread the word that Jesus was from a disreputable family, who left home in shame when Mary got pregnant out-of-wedlock and went to Egypt.  While in Egypt, Jesus picked up a few magic tricks that fooled the unschooled rubes. 
 
Now imagine that you've heard all of this anti stuff and yet, when you hear him teach, you feel something special.  When you practice his teachings, you feel closer to God.  Imagine that, in this moment, he asks you to forsake all and follow him today.  How would you decide?  There isn't time to spend months researching it.  Even if you did, there's so much conflicting material, you can't figure out if it's true or not.  But there he is asking you to follow him right now.  How do you decide?
 
In my experience, you have to trust your heart.  You pray about it and trust that God won't lead you astray.  You will never know all that you might want to know beforehand.  The time for the decision is now.  What you have to do is ask God with sincerity and promise you'll follow whatever he tells you--and mean it.  You'll find that your answer about what to do will come.  Trust in God.  We ask people to study, ponder, and pray.  Asking God is important and it sounds like you've done a lot of the first two steps already.  If Jesus asked you to follow him today, would you do it?  The invitation to join the Church comes from him also.  Pray.  Maybe do a day of fasting.  Then act on the answer that comes.  Don't be afraid.  You don't have to trust us.  You just have to trust what God will tell you.

There are a lot of variables here.  I agree with the idea of having a family council and maybe even a family fast about it.  Get everyone on the same frequency.  Church councils work this way.  The General Authorities will table a matter if unanimity can't be reached rather than force someone to decide something under pressure.  Unanimity is one of the signs of inspired guidance given to a group.  
 
That said, when the Spirit speaks to the person who holds the keys of presidency in a council and indicates the way to go, and he reveals that to a council over which he presides, it's the duty of the council to set aside doubt and move forward.  That can happen sometimes.
 
In a bishopric, matters about calling and stuff, ordinations, etc. can involve some deliberation.  Consensus comes eventually.  I have learned that, when consensus doesn't come, the Lord doesn't want the decision to be made at that time.  Other times, the bishop would receive revelation and the other counselor and I would receive an immediate confirmation of a decision and sustain the Bishop's action.
 
As the father in the home, you have the right to the inspiration and the right of presidency.  Your daughter doesn't hold those keys.  In a ward, a Primary Teacher doesn't come to the bishop and tell him to release her and call her as the Young Women's Presidency because she had a revelation.  She doesn't hold those keys.
 
If your heart tells you this is right and it confirms your daughter's feelings, great.  If not, you have the right to revelation and her revelation won't override the one God gives to you.  If she's inspired, you'll be inspired to arrive at the same decision.  If not, remember, you're the "bishop" of your home.  I can't think of a Ward or Stake Council that would go against the inspiration of its presiding authority.

There are a lot of variables here.  I agree with the idea of having a family council and maybe even a family fast about it.  Get everyone on the same frequency.  Church councils work this way.  The General Authorities will table a matter if unanimity can't be reached rather than force someone to decide something under pressure.  Unanimity is one of the signs of inspired guidance given to a group.  
 
That said, when the Spirit speaks to the person who holds the keys of presidency in a council and indicates the way to go, and he reveals that to a council over which he presides, it's the duty of the council to set aside doubt and move forward.  That can happen sometimes.
 
In a bishopric, matters about calling and stuff, ordinations, etc. can involve some deliberation.  Consensus comes eventually.  I have learned that, when consensus doesn't come, the Lord doesn't want the decision to be made at that time.  Other times, the bishop would receive revelation and the other counselor and I would receive an immediate confirmation of a decision and sustain the Bishop's action.
 
As the father in the home, you have the right to the inspiration and the right of presidency.  Your daughter doesn't hold those keys.  In a ward, a Primary Teacher doesn't come to the bishop and tell him to release her and call her as the Young Women's Presidency because she had a revelation.  She doesn't hold those keys.
 
If your heart tells you this is right and it confirms your daughter's feelings, great.  If not, you have the right to revelation and her revelation won't override the one God gives to you.  If she's inspired, you'll be inspired to arrive at the same decision.  If not, remember, you're the "bishop" of your home.  I can't think of a Ward or Stake Council that would go against the inspiration of its presiding authority.

Before I joined the Church 35 years ago, there was an impression that had formed in my mind from attending many and various Protestant and Catholic services and Sunday Schools.  If you've been raised in the LDS Church, you don't understand this narrative.
 
The narrative is this:  God created Adam and Eve in a perfect world.  They were like joyful naked children running around, innocent.  Then they "discovered their nakedness."  I remember a little old lady who held Bible class for children in her home awkwardly trying to explain this.  I figured out later on that most Christian sects believe that sex was the original sin.  They believe that Adam and Eve suddenly discovered one another and did the "wild thing."  This displeased God and he cast them out of Eden and cursed them.  In other words, it's all their fault.  I've had some of the pastors of these denominations explain to me that Eve actually had sex with "the serpent" first, then went and did it with Adam.  Seriously.  This is what I was taught by many of these learned pastors.
 
Original sin comes to all of us because we are Adam and Eve's posterity, according to their doctrine.  The fact that you have sexual desire as a mature person is the taint of original sin.  That's why Calvin taught that man is fallen and degenerate. 
 
All through the teaching of the Old Testament, these churches taught that God was vengeful and punishing.  Then, he got a better idea.  According to their creeds, the Father (the One God of Aristotle and Plato) came down and became a mortal, died for our sins, and then transformed himself into the Holy Ghost.  Because he went through the mortal experience, he knows what it is like for himself.  From that point on, he became merciful and forgiving, not vengeful and punitive.
 
Thus, in the sectarian mind, the "fear of the Lord" comes of the Old Testament, but the new covenant of the New Testament is kindness, mercy, and love.  Over the centuries, much of the persecution that was focused on Jews by Christians came because of resentment that the Jews rejected mercy and kindness offered by Jesus and thus, they merited the vengeance of God upon them. 
 
Most latter-day saint converts come into the Church from other Christian denominations and they struggle to harmonize what they once were taught with what they now understand.  When we understand the fall properly, as taught in Genesis, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham, and of course the temple ceremony, we understand how the Lord is both to be feared and respected and, at the same time, trusted for mercy and forgiveness.  When the false precepts about the fall and original sin are corrected, we see that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  We see that Jesus wasn't "Plan B" for a "Plan A" that failed.  We understand that God loves us, that he created the world for us, and that he gave us agency to choose.  We see how it all fits together. It is difficult for lifelong latter-day saints to understand the amount of false teaching that has to be unlearned and how much new truth there is to drink in after conversion.
 
This allows us to understand situations like the one in which Jesus cursed the fig tree and it withered because it bore no fruit.  Jesus had the power over life.  He could raise people from the dead.  He could raise himself up from the grave when the time came.  But he also illustrated that he had power to judge and condemn.  He sometimes corrected people with sharpness.  He overturned the tables of the money changers.  He called the lawyers "vipers" and the Pharisees hypocrites.  His disciples were afraid to ask him questions sometimes, fearing his rebuke.  Yet they loved him and they were willing to lay down their lives for him.  They endured persecution for him.  When I read Peter's words in his epistles, written near the end of his life, the gravity of the reverence he has for Christ really stands out to me.  He knows, like Joseph Smith said, that "God is not trifling with you and me." 
 
In the culture of the Church we strive to show this reverence and fear of God, even though we love him.  For example, in the Church Handbook of Instructions, there are seeminly small details that show this reverence.  For example, if a ward or stake puts on a gospel-oriented play or skit and Jesus is portrayed in it, the scripted lines of the character that plays the Savior can only be scripture.  No ad libs are allowed.  Aside from the temple movie and the First Vision movies made by the Church, God the Father is never portrayed in any church play or skit.  As Jesus was careful to always honor the Father, how much more should we be careful to show him the ultimate in reverence?
 
The Lord represents the ultimate fairness in judgment.  He knows us and he has borne our sins.  He lived the live of a mortal.  Yet he felt the unwavering demands of justice upon his own flesh and he did not quit.  He has power to create, to sustain, and to destroy.  He obtained that power at great price.  He bore the ultimate in suffering.  For that reason alone, the fear of God should be upon us, as well as a loving trust in his offer of mercy, conditional upon sincere repentance and faith.

It all comes down to the Sacred Grove.  Joseph Fielding McConkie explained this well in his book "Here We Stand."  We can substantiate much of our beliefs using scripture.  We can show such-and-such to be biblical.  But it all comes down to the same exact quandary that the ancient apostles had.  How could they prove that Jesus was resurrected.  If that one fact was not true, then nothing else mattered.  But how could they prove it?
 
They did miracles and people still didn't believe them.  They reasoned and argued with scripture and logic.  No matter what, they couldn't prove to the Jews or the Gentiles that Jesus was resurrected.  It all comes down to whether or not their hearers could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd or not.  Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice."  Their job, then was to simply preach to as many people as they could and the ones whom Jesus had called at that time would hear, understand, and receive the message.  
 
For those who were not ready, nothing would ever prove that Jesus was resurrected.  For those who were ready and embraced the truth, spiritual gifts came to them following their covenant of baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit confirmed the truth to them.
 
Today, proving Mormonism is true is like proving the resurrection of Jesus.  We say that God spoke to Joseph Smith.  We have the Book of Mormon as "proof" but people may not accept it.  Like the scribes and Pharisees of old, they argue that it doesn't fit their creeds or their doctrines.  It's no different.  Even Jesus couldn't convert Caiaphas or Pilate.  They were too invested in their own thing to accept anything new.  
 
Interestingly, God gave 11 witnesses of the Book of Mormon--the same exact number as the witnesses of the resurrection.  There are still people who don't believe in the resurrection despite those 11 witnesses.  It's not surprising that people reject the 11 witnesses of the Book of Mormon.  They can't see it because they don't hear the voice of the Good Shepherd.
 
We know what we know because of the Holy Ghost.  We know the doctrine of the Triune/Trinity is false because our prophets (and some of the lay members of the Church) have seen God and Christ.  We have members who have seen angels.  We have had spiritual gifts in our midst for almost 200 years.  The very survival of Mormonism is a miracle!  The miracle of the quails and the miracles of the seagulls!  The miracles of Joseph Smith healing hundreds of people along the banks of the Mississippi river bottoms!  The transfiguration of Brigham Young after the death of Joseph.  Thousands of healings.  Angels in the Kirtland Temple!  It goes on and on and it isn't finished!  What a marvelous thing!
 
Yet it all comes down to the First Vision.  Ask any Christian to prove that Jesus was resurrected.  It can't be done.  It's a matter of faith.  Ask a Mormon to prove that Joseph saw the Father and Son in the sacred grove?  It can't be done.  The Holy Spirit bears witness and only those who are called will hear and obey that voice.  We have to preach it to everyone, but the gate is strait and the way narrow.  Few will truly find it.

A really good example of a creed would be the Westminister Confession of Faith.  Normally, I try to avoid direct comparisons of one particular denomination's doctrine in a negative way.  We are constantly the targets of such "analysis" by non-Mormons, but in this case, there is a useful point to be made.  
 
The Westminster Confession contains a lot of language on many different points of doctrine which are at odds with revealed religion in general, but this one statement is illustrative of the attitude that makes such creeds an abomination to God.
 
"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."
 
Note the very last sentence in that declaration.  Nothing is to be added--ever--to scripture "whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men."  In one breath, they declare any future revelation from God to be invalid.  If God chose to speak again, they are bound by their creed to not listen to God.  In essence, they forbid God to speak.  It is man telling God, "If you speak again, we won't listen to it because it's not in the Bible."
 
That is an example of an "abomination" to which the Lord referred.  It is man telling God that, don't bother to talk again because we're not going to listen.  You gave us the Bible and that's all we're going to believe.  If you didn't think to put it in the Bible to begin with, we're not going to hear of it.
 
The Westminster Confession is the foundation of the "reformed" churches, particularly Presbyterianism.  This creed is filled with such statements that actually try to limit God.  If a person believed the doctrine taught in the creed, he would forever ignore "new revelations of the Spirit."  Compare that to the Bible's teaching that the "...testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10).  The creed would deny individuals the chance to obtain the "testimony of Jesus" because "new revelations of the spirit" are to be rejected outright.
 
The creeds are an outgrowth of the spirit of Phariseeism.  Each of them is an attempt to lock God into a box or a contract of some kind.  It sets limits on what God can demand and what the believer can expect. They get in the way of personal contact with God.
 
Joseph Smith's experience in the First Vision tells us that God is not limited by the creeds.  He defines the terms of our existence--we don't define the terms of his existence.  He is real.  He reveals himself as he sees fit.  He commands and we are to obey.  He is a personal God.  He answers prayers and reveals truth to those who ask in faith.
 
There are those who have tried to compare our 13 Articles of Faith to the sectarian creeds.  A careful reading of the Articles of Faith show that none of them limit God.  They don't limit God's interaction with man.  We believe that God will reveal whatever he will, whenever he wills it, to whomever he chooses to reveal it.  In contrast, all the sectarian creeds draw a line that says, one one side of the line is orthodoxy and on the other is heresy.  The Articles of Faith don't do that.
 
The Athanasian Creed ends with "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved."  That's exclusionary language.  It tells you that you're going to hell if you don't believe every point of it.   The 2nd Council of Constantinople in 533 A.D. had a whole page worth of curses upon those who didn't believe every single point.  You can read that document here.  
 
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/2Constantinople.htm
 
It was this kind of stuff that led to all sorts of atrocities that became prevalent in Christendom of the Middle Ages.  For example, in 891 A.D., Formosus, a conspirator who had been excommunicated for the murder of John, was elected pope.  Five years later, Boniface VI becomes pope despite his being deposed as a deacon for his immoral and lewd conduct. Stephen VII, his succesor, had he body of Formosus disinterred, clothed in papal robes, and tried before a council. The indecent scene ended with cutting off three of the deceased's fingers and the corpse being cast into the Tiber River. Stephen was ultimately deposed and thrown into prison where he was strangled to death.
 
You can read a whole timeline of the Great Apostasy here:  
 
http://spamldsarchive.blogspot.com/2010/05/great-apostasy-timeline.html
 
I could continue to elaborate, but suffice it to say that a study of the creeds by a person knowledgeable with the Bible will turn up numerous conflicts that are the products of men who denied the spirit of prophecy and revelation.  The history of what happened to the Christian Church due to the rejection of contemporary, living prophets and apostles is a sad story of corruption and vice clothed in the garbs of religiosity.  
 
The Lord called the creeds "abominations" because they stood as a centuries-old barrier between people who sought God and those who sought to limit God's ability to communicate with man by threats of violence, trial, hanging, burning at the stake, torture, and death.  The glory of the First Vision swept all that away forever.
 
We know God lives.  We know he speaks today.  We know he can speak to us.  We know he speaks to living prophets.  The Church is connected to the "home office" in heaven once again.

Before I joined the Church 35 years ago, there was an impression that had formed in my mind from attending many and various Protestant and Catholic services and Sunday Schools.  If you've been raised in the LDS Church, you don't understand this narrative.
 
The narrative is this:  God created Adam and Eve in a perfect world.  They were like joyful naked children running around, innocent.  Then they "discovered their nakedness."  I remember a little old lady who held Bible class for children in her home awkwardly trying to explain this.  I figured out later on that most Christian sects believe that sex was the original sin.  They believe that Adam and Eve suddenly discovered one another and did the "wild thing."  This displeased God and he cast them out of Eden and cursed them.  In other words, it's all their fault.  I've had some of the pastors of these denominations explain to me that Eve actually had sex with "the serpent" first, then went and did it with Adam.  Seriously.  This is what I was taught by many of these learned pastors.
 
Original sin comes to all of us because we are Adam and Eve's posterity, according to their doctrine.  The fact that you have sexual desire as a mature person is the taint of original sin.  That's why Calvin taught that man is fallen and degenerate. 
 
All through the teaching of the Old Testament, these churches taught that God was vengeful and punishing.  Then, he got a better idea.  According to their creeds, the Father (the One God of Aristotle and Plato) came down and became a mortal, died for our sins, and then transformed himself into the Holy Ghost.  Because he went through the mortal experience, he knows what it is like for himself.  From that point on, he became merciful and forgiving, not vengeful and punitive.
 
Thus, in the sectarian mind, the "fear of the Lord" comes of the Old Testament, but the new covenant of the New Testament is kindness, mercy, and love.  Over the centuries, much of the persecution that was focused on Jews by Christians came because of resentment that the Jews rejected mercy and kindness offered by Jesus and thus, they merited the vengeance of God upon them. 
 
Most latter-day saint converts come into the Church from other Christian denominations and they struggle to harmonize what they once were taught with what they now understand.  When we understand the fall properly, as taught in Genesis, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham, and of course the temple ceremony, we understand how the Lord is both to be feared and respected and, at the same time, trusted for mercy and forgiveness.  When the false precepts about the fall and original sin are corrected, we see that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  We see that Jesus wasn't "Plan B" for a "Plan A" that failed.  We understand that God loves us, that he created the world for us, and that he gave us agency to choose.  We see how it all fits together. It is difficult for lifelong latter-day saints to understand the amount of false teaching that has to be unlearned and how much new truth there is to drink in after conversion.
 
This allows us to understand situations like the one in which Jesus cursed the fig tree and it withered because it bore no fruit.  Jesus had the power over life.  He could raise people from the dead.  He could raise himself up from the grave when the time came.  But he also illustrated that he had power to judge and condemn.  He sometimes corrected people with sharpness.  He overturned the tables of the money changers.  He called the lawyers "vipers" and the Pharisees hypocrites.  His disciples were afraid to ask him questions sometimes, fearing his rebuke.  Yet they loved him and they were willing to lay down their lives for him.  They endured persecution for him.  When I read Peter's words in his epistles, written near the end of his life, the gravity of the reverence he has for Christ really stands out to me.  He knows, like Joseph Smith said, that "God is not trifling with you and me." 
 
In the culture of the Church we strive to show this reverence and fear of God, even though we love him.  For example, in the Church Handbook of Instructions, there are seeminly small details that show this reverence.  For example, if a ward or stake puts on a gospel-oriented play or skit and Jesus is portrayed in it, the scripted lines of the character that plays the Savior can only be scripture.  No ad libs are allowed.  Aside from the temple movie and the First Vision movies made by the Church, God the Father is never portrayed in any church play or skit.  As Jesus was careful to always honor the Father, how much more should we be careful to show him the ultimate in reverence?
 
The Lord represents the ultimate fairness in judgment.  He knows us and he has borne our sins.  He lived the live of a mortal.  Yet he felt the unwavering demands of justice upon his own flesh and he did not quit.  He has power to create, to sustain, and to destroy.  He obtained that power at great price.  He bore the ultimate in suffering.  For that reason alone, the fear of God should be upon us, as well as a loving trust in his offer of mercy, conditional upon sincere repentance and faith.

It's both, in my opinion. God is our Father. He is a God of love, compassion, and mercy. But He is also a God of justice and cannot tolerate sin. Anyone who does not fear the wrath of God is a fool. But anyone who does not know that God loves his children is missing the complete picture as well.
 
Frankly, I think the fear of God is missing a bit in the church nowadays. We need to be more fearful of Him.

I think every missionary asks this question decades down the road.  You can't help but ask the question.  When you think how much wisdom and experience you accumulate in life AFTER living another 30 years, you naturally look back and wonder how much more effective you could have been.
 
I can liken it to my experiences as a musician.  I sometimes go back and listen to old recordings of myself from 20 or 30 years ago.  I played guitar as a soloist and occasionally with bands.  I have a recording of a radio show I appeared on in 1987.  My technique was very powerful--even better than it is today--but I was lacking a depth of musicality that I possess now.  I cringe to hear parts of that recording now, because I can hear the flaws, not so much on a technical level, but of interpretation and finesse.  
 
I regard my mission like that sometimes.  If I could go back, knowing what I know now, I would have done some things very differently.  Yet the Lord accepted my offering because it was my best effort at the time.  I'm satisfied with it because he is.
 
It's sad when people we brought into the gospel don't make it.  I've had several close friends whom I baptized outside of my mission who eventually fell away.  Living the gospel is hard and it involves making hard choices sometimes.  Some of them chose education and career over serving the Lord.  Others succumbed to loneliness because they didn't find a mate and married outside the Church.  One of them had his wife--a lifelong member--cheat on him and then divorce him and it broke his heart.
 
In the end, each situation was a test that asked believer "Lovest thou me more than these?" (John 21:15)  They faced having to follow Jesus despite the pain that continued faith would cost them.  The choices they made took them away from the pain and away from the Lord.  They could have continued to carry the cross, but they lost hope and despaired.  
 
To me, it is significant that I've heard old men, particularly general authorities, express the hope that they would remain faithful until the very end.  You'd think that they'd feel really confident in their abilities by that time in their lives.  Instead, the reality of God's chastening has made them humble and reliant upon the Lord because they are acquainted with the pain and trouble that can come from God's chastening hand.  
 
I look back on my mission and I see it as the beginning of that process.  I went out into the field as a new convert of 20 months.  I was so inexperienced!  Yet it is the trials of my mission that gave me the first lessons in enduring faithfully that have kept me going for over three decades.  For that alone, it was worth it.  I hope for the strength to maintain that faith through whatever comes.

To Latter-Days Guy:
 
Here's an article I wrote a few years ago that you will probably enjoy.  
 
http://spamldsarchive.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-temples-esoteric-teachings-and.html?q=esoteric+teachings
 
When i taught the Temple Prep class in a ward where we used to live, i used to stress to the members in it that we have to keep in mind that temple ordinances are full of symbolism.  Mormons tend to be very literal about our understanding of spiritual things.  When it comes to ordinances, like baptism for example, that they are assigned meanings by the Lord.
 
Think for a moment of a stop sign.  It is so common (like baptism) that we automatically know what it means when we see an octagonal red sign anywhere in the world.  However, there is nothing about the octagonal shape or the color red that inherently means "stop."  We have assigned the symbol a meaning and it has become commonplace now.  
 
Baptism is an example.  Aside from the imagery of bathing, burial, and resurrection that we might see with our eyes, the dunking of a person in water has been assigned a specific meaning by the Lord and taught to his servants.  It symbolizes a covenant to always remember Jesus Christ, take his name upon us, and keep his commandments.  Likewise, the Lord elegantly used the common symbols of bread and wine to remind us of a covenant.  He could have used something else, but he used things that were commonplace.  It would have been novel when it was first instituted, but now it's a generally accepted symbol.
 
When you go through the temple, the ordinances are given specific meanings by the Lord and we learn them as he has designated them.  Like a stop sign, they are abstract.  They only have meaning because the Lord has assigned them those meanings.  If they resemble something else familiar to us or anything outside the temple, we need to remind ourselves that we need to understand the Lord's assigned meaning.
 
Here's another example.  We all have a strong emotional reaction to the swastika because of its association with Nazi Germany.  However, the swastika is an ancient symbol that was sacred to Native Americans.  There is no connection between Native Americans and Nazis separated by an ocean and thousands of years.  The symbol means different things to them.
 
Likewise, there have been some people who have tried to connect the endowment to other traditions or sources, like Freemasonry.  That trouble some people unless you realize that the meanings are different because, regardless of any similarities, the Lord has assigned the signification of temple ordinances. 
 
When you go to the temple, keep an open mind, expect to see commonplace things that are given spiritual significance by the associations with the temples.  It is a beautiful experience.  Its meaning is only understood through revelation.  That revelation comes little by little with repeated visits.  As you'll see in the linked article, the temple has long been a part of the Christian faith.

To Latter-Days Guy:
 
Here's an article I wrote a few years ago that you will probably enjoy.  
 
http://spamldsarchive.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-temples-esoteric-teachings-and.html?q=esoteric+teachings
 
When i taught the Temple Prep class in a ward where we used to live, i used to stress to the members in it that we have to keep in mind that temple ordinances are full of symbolism.  Mormons tend to be very literal about our understanding of spiritual things.  When it comes to ordinances, like baptism for example, that they are assigned meanings by the Lord.
 
Think for a moment of a stop sign.  It is so common (like baptism) that we automatically know what it means when we see an octagonal red sign anywhere in the world.  However, there is nothing about the octagonal shape or the color red that inherently means "stop."  We have assigned the symbol a meaning and it has become commonplace now.  
 
Baptism is an example.  Aside from the imagery of bathing, burial, and resurrection that we might see with our eyes, the dunking of a person in water has been assigned a specific meaning by the Lord and taught to his servants.  It symbolizes a covenant to always remember Jesus Christ, take his name upon us, and keep his commandments.  Likewise, the Lord elegantly used the common symbols of bread and wine to remind us of a covenant.  He could have used something else, but he used things that were commonplace.  It would have been novel when it was first instituted, but now it's a generally accepted symbol.
 
When you go through the temple, the ordinances are given specific meanings by the Lord and we learn them as he has designated them.  Like a stop sign, they are abstract.  They only have meaning because the Lord has assigned them those meanings.  If they resemble something else familiar to us or anything outside the temple, we need to remind ourselves that we need to understand the Lord's assigned meaning.
 
Here's another example.  We all have a strong emotional reaction to the swastika because of its association with Nazi Germany.  However, the swastika is an ancient symbol that was sacred to Native Americans.  There is no connection between Native Americans and Nazis separated by an ocean and thousands of years.  The symbol means different things to them.
 
Likewise, there have been some people who have tried to connect the endowment to other traditions or sources, like Freemasonry.  That trouble some people unless you realize that the meanings are different because, regardless of any similarities, the Lord has assigned the signification of temple ordinances. 
 
When you go to the temple, keep an open mind, expect to see commonplace things that are given spiritual significance by the associations with the temples.  It is a beautiful experience.  Its meaning is only understood through revelation.  That revelation comes little by little with repeated visits.  As you'll see in the linked article, the temple has long been a part of the Christian faith.

I think every missionary asks this question decades down the road.  You can't help but ask the question.  When you think how much wisdom and experience you accumulate in life AFTER living another 30 years, you naturally look back and wonder how much more effective you could have been.
 
I can liken it to my experiences as a musician.  I sometimes go back and listen to old recordings of myself from 20 or 30 years ago.  I played guitar as a soloist and occasionally with bands.  I have a recording of a radio show I appeared on in 1987.  My technique was very powerful--even better than it is today--but I was lacking a depth of musicality that I possess now.  I cringe to hear parts of that recording now, because I can hear the flaws, not so much on a technical level, but of interpretation and finesse.  
 
I regard my mission like that sometimes.  If I could go back, knowing what I know now, I would have done some things very differently.  Yet the Lord accepted my offering because it was my best effort at the time.  I'm satisfied with it because he is.
 
It's sad when people we brought into the gospel don't make it.  I've had several close friends whom I baptized outside of my mission who eventually fell away.  Living the gospel is hard and it involves making hard choices sometimes.  Some of them chose education and career over serving the Lord.  Others succumbed to loneliness because they didn't find a mate and married outside the Church.  One of them had his wife--a lifelong member--cheat on him and then divorce him and it broke his heart.
 
In the end, each situation was a test that asked believer "Lovest thou me more than these?" (John 21:15)  They faced having to follow Jesus despite the pain that continued faith would cost them.  The choices they made took them away from the pain and away from the Lord.  They could have continued to carry the cross, but they lost hope and despaired.  
 
To me, it is significant that I've heard old men, particularly general authorities, express the hope that they would remain faithful until the very end.  You'd think that they'd feel really confident in their abilities by that time in their lives.  Instead, the reality of God's chastening has made them humble and reliant upon the Lord because they are acquainted with the pain and trouble that can come from God's chastening hand.  
 
I look back on my mission and I see it as the beginning of that process.  I went out into the field as a new convert of 20 months.  I was so inexperienced!  Yet it is the trials of my mission that gave me the first lessons in enduring faithfully that have kept me going for over three decades.  For that alone, it was worth it.  I hope for the strength to maintain that faith through whatever comes.

I think every missionary asks this question decades down the road.  You can't help but ask the question.  When you think how much wisdom and experience you accumulate in life AFTER living another 30 years, you naturally look back and wonder how much more effective you could have been.
 
I can liken it to my experiences as a musician.  I sometimes go back and listen to old recordings of myself from 20 or 30 years ago.  I played guitar as a soloist and occasionally with bands.  I have a recording of a radio show I appeared on in 1987.  My technique was very powerful--even better than it is today--but I was lacking a depth of musicality that I possess now.  I cringe to hear parts of that recording now, because I can hear the flaws, not so much on a technical level, but of interpretation and finesse.  
 
I regard my mission like that sometimes.  If I could go back, knowing what I know now, I would have done some things very differently.  Yet the Lord accepted my offering because it was my best effort at the time.  I'm satisfied with it because he is.
 
It's sad when people we brought into the gospel don't make it.  I've had several close friends whom I baptized outside of my mission who eventually fell away.  Living the gospel is hard and it involves making hard choices sometimes.  Some of them chose education and career over serving the Lord.  Others succumbed to loneliness because they didn't find a mate and married outside the Church.  One of them had his wife--a lifelong member--cheat on him and then divorce him and it broke his heart.
 
In the end, each situation was a test that asked believer "Lovest thou me more than these?" (John 21:15)  They faced having to follow Jesus despite the pain that continued faith would cost them.  The choices they made took them away from the pain and away from the Lord.  They could have continued to carry the cross, but they lost hope and despaired.  
 
To me, it is significant that I've heard old men, particularly general authorities, express the hope that they would remain faithful until the very end.  You'd think that they'd feel really confident in their abilities by that time in their lives.  Instead, the reality of God's chastening has made them humble and reliant upon the Lord because they are acquainted with the pain and trouble that can come from God's chastening hand.  
 
I look back on my mission and I see it as the beginning of that process.  I went out into the field as a new convert of 20 months.  I was so inexperienced!  Yet it is the trials of my mission that gave me the first lessons in enduring faithfully that have kept me going for over three decades.  For that alone, it was worth it.  I hope for the strength to maintain that faith through whatever comes.

I think every missionary asks this question decades down the road.  You can't help but ask the question.  When you think how much wisdom and experience you accumulate in life AFTER living another 30 years, you naturally look back and wonder how much more effective you could have been.
 
I can liken it to my experiences as a musician.  I sometimes go back and listen to old recordings of myself from 20 or 30 years ago.  I played guitar as a soloist and occasionally with bands.  I have a recording of a radio show I appeared on in 1987.  My technique was very powerful--even better than it is today--but I was lacking a depth of musicality that I possess now.  I cringe to hear parts of that recording now, because I can hear the flaws, not so much on a technical level, but of interpretation and finesse.  
 
I regard my mission like that sometimes.  If I could go back, knowing what I know now, I would have done some things very differently.  Yet the Lord accepted my offering because it was my best effort at the time.  I'm satisfied with it because he is.
 
It's sad when people we brought into the gospel don't make it.  I've had several close friends whom I baptized outside of my mission who eventually fell away.  Living the gospel is hard and it involves making hard choices sometimes.  Some of them chose education and career over serving the Lord.  Others succumbed to loneliness because they didn't find a mate and married outside the Church.  One of them had his wife--a lifelong member--cheat on him and then divorce him and it broke his heart.
 
In the end, each situation was a test that asked believer "Lovest thou me more than these?" (John 21:15)  They faced having to follow Jesus despite the pain that continued faith would cost them.  The choices they made took them away from the pain and away from the Lord.  They could have continued to carry the cross, but they lost hope and despaired.  
 
To me, it is significant that I've heard old men, particularly general authorities, express the hope that they would remain faithful until the very end.  You'd think that they'd feel really confident in their abilities by that time in their lives.  Instead, the reality of God's chastening has made them humble and reliant upon the Lord because they are acquainted with the pain and trouble that can come from God's chastening hand.  
 
I look back on my mission and I see it as the beginning of that process.  I went out into the field as a new convert of 20 months.  I was so inexperienced!  Yet it is the trials of my mission that gave me the first lessons in enduring faithfully that have kept me going for over three decades.  For that alone, it was worth it.  I hope for the strength to maintain that faith through whatever comes.

Here's my take on this topic.  I keep faith and an open mind.  There are certain things I know for myself by the Spirit.  I know that there is a God, that he reveals truth through various methods, and that he is intent on making us grow through faith.  Evidence doesn't test us.  It doesn't challenge us.  It doesn't make us grow.
 
God gives us sufficient revealed knowledge to keep the most faithful moving forward towards exalation.  That doesn't mean that we get the "high-def" version of all truth.  He also gives truth in ways that it can be understood by people in different times and circumstances.  Genesis comes to us from ancient people whose situations were far more different that ours today.  In many cases, God gave visions to people and they strained to write what they saw.  Millions, maybe billions of years of the creative process were presented as days.  John saw fighter planes and tanks and could only describe them as locusts and armored horses.  Other prophets saw cars and called them chariots.  Joseph looked into the celestial kingdom and saw people with a "white stone" that reveals information to them.  Around our house, we call the iPhone the "iStone."  
 
So when I read of Adam and Eve, I know that Joseph Smith saw and heard Adam/Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna River (See Section 128).  Adam was a real person.  The name Adam means "many."  Does that tell us that there were more than one at the beginning and that the one who was Michael the first mortal man on earth?  Possibly.  My mind is open to that possibility because it doesn't change the essence of the gospel.
 
Were the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life literal or figurative?  I think it was probably both.  I believe there was probably a real tree, but the symbol of it (like the cross) took on greater metaphorical meaning.  There was a real cross upon which Jesus was crucified and there is a symbolic cross that his disciples take up when they follow him.  In the recent debate over Kate Kelly and the Ordain Women movement, one LDS writer made a beautiful metaphor that called womanhood the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and the priesthood "the tree of life."  Both are necessary to exaltation.  One has the power to admit souls into mortality and the other to admit them into eternity.  
 
Another beautiful metaphor that is literal and figurative is what we call the "veil" between mortality and immortality.  Every woman is the "veil."  No one passes into mortality without passing through the body of a woman.  
 
So to me, the gospel is filled with marvelous richness both literal and in metaphor.  There are literal things and spiritual things that are bound together.  Moses' name meant "waters" because his adopted mother drew him from the water.  Yet the Lord makes a play on words with his name when he tells Moses that he will make him mightier than "many waters."  Then Moses later parts the Red Sea.  Literal and figuratively, the narrative goes together.
 
Such narratives are not done haphazardly.  They are inspired and they are thoughtful.
 
I don't need all the "facts" to line up when I read the Book of Abraham.  When I read it, it fills me with the Spirit.  Too many people get hung up on Kolob without seeing the powerful syllogism the Lord teaches through the metaphor of Kolob.  Is there a real Kolob?  Yes, and I expect that it is probably Sirius, a heavenly body that was significant to the ancients.  But beyond literal, the most important message is what the metaphor of Kolob teaches us about eternal progression and exaltation.
 
Don't get hung up on details.  Search the scriptures and enjoy them. Savor the truths, the language, and the inspiration that comes.  Then you'll know for yourself everything the Lord wants you to know at every moment along your progression back to him.

I was a gospel doctrine teacher for many years in two different wards.  In one of them, the "disruptor" was a counselor in the bishopric!  It was as if he coveted the calling of gospel doctrine teacher and tried to use his supposed "clout" to dominate the lessons and steer them the way he thought they should go.  Every other gospel doctrine teacher before me had quit because of him.  It was only with a lot of diplomacy and humor that I managed to teach the class and keep him "pacified."  He meant well, and he didn't go off with false doctrinal ideas, but he constantly interfered with where the Spirit was directing the class and caused a lot of tension for everyone.

I was a gospel doctrine teacher for many years in two different wards.  In one of them, the "disruptor" was a counselor in the bishopric!  It was as if he coveted the calling of gospel doctrine teacher and tried to use his supposed "clout" to dominate the lessons and steer them the way he thought they should go.  Every other gospel doctrine teacher before me had quit because of him.  It was only with a lot of diplomacy and humor that I managed to teach the class and keep him "pacified."  He meant well, and he didn't go off with false doctrinal ideas, but he constantly interfered with where the Spirit was directing the class and caused a lot of tension for everyone.