Anyone else notice anything interesting in the comments?

Also, I really like Starfoxy’s post.

Here’s what I had to say:
There are two approaches to questions like this–doctrinal & spiritual. The former can make some sense to non-believers, but it is the latter that matters.

Approaching it doctrinally: God covenanted with Abraham, and while Ishmael was his firstborn son (the line through which Muslims arise), Isaac was the firstborn to him after the covenant with God, and therefore that holy authority runs through his line leading to the Jews and the law of Moses, etc. In Jesus Christ the looked-for messiah came and fulfilled the law, leading holy authority, or the ability to speak on earth in the name of God down the Christian branch. Christ appointed twelve apostles who were martyred before proper channels could be established for passing on that authority to speak for God on the earth, also called priesthood authority. While faith was kept alive for many centuries with the information thus far imparted by prophets up to those twelve, the nature of worship and faith shifted slightly bit-by-bit until it varied such that the Lord restored that priesthood authority to the earth, and opened the prophetic line of communication again by calling a young man named Jospeh Smith. The Lord, by way of Jospeh then called twelve apostles as well, and they were each given the same kind of priesthood authority as well as a means of passing it on. Therefore, when Jospeh Smith died, the role of prophet was able to be conveyed to another, on through Brigham Young, passed down again and again thorugh the years to Gordon B. Hinckley today.

So, that is the straight narrative of the logic by which is see the authority. Of course, it presupposes that prophetic right is something given of God and that much be handed down appropriately and can not be assumed at will or by virtue of just calling on the scriptures, etc. It is not particularly telling, though, is it? It’s kind of flat.

How did I decide that that train of logic was the right one? How did I discern the true from the fals prophets? Alas, to an unbeliever’s mind the answer is somewhat dull. Prayer. I know; how anticlimactic is that??? Fact is, though, when we set our shell of doubt aside, and open ourselves for just the briefest possibility that He might really be there, we find out for ourselves. I can no more tell you what it feels like than I could describe the the color fuschia in terms of the sense of taste. You have to use the right sense.

In our modern modes of thought, we look at everything as if it were an experiment. It’s all scientific method, observation-hypothosis-test. There are aspects of various experiences in life, though, that simply defy that subject-object duality. So long as they are observed as opposed to experienced they can not and will not be understood. This is one such thing. It must be experienced. Once it has been, though, it is as evident as any object ever examined. The experience is palpable, real, and testifies unmistakably to even the most analytical mind that it is just plain true. It is by the Holy Spirit that we can know the truth of all things, but, as I said before, you have to use that sense.

It seems illogical to rely on a feeling, but the feeling and the experience can’t be denied, and once they have been felt, the logic of the decision is as evident as any physical observation. Spirit is no less valid than matter in the evidence it can yield, but it can’t be accessed with sight, sound, taste, touch, or smell.