I realize you wrote this a while ago and have likely long since decided Mormonism is wrong based on your discussion with 19 year-olds (talk about the weak things of the world).

If you would like to reopen your investigation of this I would be happy to talk to you about it.

Per you comment about points in the bible that clearly show a shift in revelation. There are simple examples.

1. Law of Moses where animal sacrifices are offered, then no such thing accepted after Christ’s atonement.

2. Gospel initially only goes to Jews, then Peter receives a revelation that the Gospel can go to the Gentiles.

3. Abraham, Saul, David and Solomon have many wives, this policies appears to be done away with after Christ. (by the way, I’m not defending polygamy here, just showing there was likely a change).

I suggest the following talk given by a Mormon Apostle not long after you wrote this post: http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-30,00.html

I think that give some direction on the point.

Lastly, you suggested there have been changes in Mormonism’s core doctrines. This is false and suggests you do not understand Mormonism’s core doctrines. They are simply that we can return to God only through accepting the grace of Christ. Accepting Christ implies obedience to laws and ordinances of His Gospel (otherwise, why would we need baptism).

Certainly, policies have changed, but such policy changes were not unlike the points I mentioned in the examples above. Do not confuse changes in the organization with changes in the doctrine.

Thanks!

You’re overall theme seems to be one of claimed circular thinking on our part. But this conclusion is discovered on faulty reasoning.

To demonstrate this I turn to your seemingly obvious adherence to the Bible as the Rule by which to judge. I would then ask how you arrived at the conclusion that the Bible was what you were to use? Is it because of what the Bible says abbout itself? If so, what differentiates that from your claims of circular reasoning on our part (I will address the falacy of that claim against us in a moment) If not then what do you base that standard on? And so on and so forth? Basically what is your fundamental factor in discerning truth? Is it ultimately subjective or objective? If it’s objective how do you prove such when we are all finite beings with finite minds and finite capacities to sense and discern and fathom?

Ultimately we are all effectively using subjectively based methods of discernment at our core.

Regarding the ciruclar reasoning claim against us it doesn’t hold water. We openly attribute our allegiance in our faith to subjective personal experience. The foundational center is the reception of divine communication that is not fundamentally communicable on an inter-human level nor empirically quantifiable. This is precisely what God praises Peter for–

commentary added by me]

15 He saith unto them, But whom say aye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (revelation from the Father through Peter, the one that would be prophet of the church after the ascension of Christ) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

–Matthew 16:15-18

BTW I was supprised to hear you’d ordered the book. You’re the first one to actually take a recomendation from me (and tell me about it) of all the time I’ve been commenting on the internet. It’s refreshing as I’ve gone out many times and procured and read recomended books by others, only to have them not respond in kind.