Posted on 10/23/2013 11:12:44 AM PDT by Colofornian
A former Brigham Young University professor is sharing the story of how she and her husband, along all of with her children, left Mormonism for Christianity through God’s work of grace in their life.
Lynn Wilder is the author of the book Unveiling Grace: The Story of How We Found Our Way out of the Mormon Church, released in late August of this year. Until March 16, 2008, Wilder was a professor at Brigham Young University and a dedicated member of the Latter-Day Saints.
In a recent article in the Daily Beast, Wilder provided a condensed overview of her personal testimony, which occurred over a two-year period as God worked in the hearts of her family members.
Wilder states that in 2006, she and her husband Mike decided to visit a Christian church, but were careful to choose a gathering two hours away where no one would recognize them.
“We were paranoid, worried that if someone from Brigham Young University saw me at a non-denominational Christian church, I would lose my ecclesiastical clearance and my job as a professor,” Wilder wrote. “Only at BYU would someone lose their academic position for finding salvation outside the Mormon church.”
During this same time, Wilder’s son Micah became a born-again Christian. He announced to his fellow Mormon missionaries that he did not believe that men are saved by the works that Mormons require, and was sent home as “unworthy” to be a missionary. Just days later, Micah began serving a Christian organization in missions instead.
In the time that followed, Lynn Wilder began searching the Scriptures for answers. She states that the word of God opened her eyes to the truth.
“I read my Bible, sometimes hours a day, and truly felt I was being washed,” Wilder explained. “In its pages, I met a Jesus who was able to save me from my life of working to be ‘good.’”
Writer Sharon Lindbloom of Mormonism Research Ministry also notes that Wilder’s was impacted when she read 2 Corinthians 11:4, which states, “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another Gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”
“Another Jesus!” Wilder said to herself. “That’s exactly what we have.”
The movie Luther, which focuses on the life Protestant reformer Martin Luther and his repudiation of the requirements imposed under the Roman Catholic religion, hit home for Wilder as well. She knew full well of following man-made requirements under Mormon rules.
“I was simply overwhelmed by the Spirit,” she said. “I went face down in surrender to Christ.”
The Brigham Young professor then set out to buy herself a cross necklace to show her love for Christ, but there was one problem—crosses were taboo at the university.
“Mormons don’t revere the cross. They see it as an instrument of death, not the place where Christ became the savior,” she stated. “[I]f I was caught, I would be called in by my superiors and lose the ecclesiastical clearance I needed to work there.”
So, Wilder hid it under her clothing with the hopes that no one saw.
Months later, Wilder requested a leave of absence and took another job in Florida. On March 16, 2008 (3/16/08), she submitted her resignation in honor of John 3:16. Both Wilder and her husband had renounced Mormonism and turned to Christ.
“We lost a religion, but we gained Christ,” Michael Wilder stated in the 2011 documentary Unveiling Grace. “And that’s a good trade.”
When word broke, Wilder says that she received a lot of criticism, but states that her joys outweigh her sufferings.
“I was stupid, a liar, an adulterer, a drug addict, and had committed gross sins,” she said. “Despite the rejection I faced from 30 years of friends, despite the fact that I lost status, position, money, might lose children and our home, I walked away and never feared again.”
Now, Wilder is sharing her story with the world in spoken word and pen, and several of her children are likewise sharing the Gospel through the music ministry Adam’s Road—including her son Micah.
“Words cannot describe the feeling of finally knowing the Lord Jesus Christ in a way that you’ve always wanted to,” he said, becoming tearful. “Reading His word for the very first time and being washed clean by that word and understanding what his Gospel really was–that’s what changed my life. … I’ll never be the same.”
Don’t be so condescending, I reject your opening statement out of hand. Claiming title to something doesn’t make you one...
But, an interesting hypothesis nonetheless 10, especially since theirs is a jesus of vengeance and not salvation...
Tell me, since you’re all knowing, where in the Bible one can find any example of this “...by far the authentic Christ.” of which you speak destroying numerous cities and killing 100’s of thousands, possibly millions of people in order to save the world from sin?
Well, ironically, there's this quote by one of the top three-ranking Mormons during Brigham Young's reign -- a counselor as part of The First Presidency -- Heber C. Kimball:
"Many of this people have broken their covenants by speaking evil of one another, by speaking against the servants of God, and by finding fault with the plurality of wives and trying to sink it out of existence. But you cannot do that, for God will cut you off and raise up another people that will carry out His purposes in righteousness, unless you walk up to the line of your duty." (JoD, vol 4, p. 108, 1856)
You see, 1010RD...by these words (& the words of the 2nd-->5th Lds "prophets" below)...those who sought to "sink...[plurality of wives] out of existence" would -- if they cont'd on such a route...became -- and become -- Mormon schismatics who would be "cut...off" ... and that the Mormon god would then "raise up another people" to carry that out...
Seems to me then that the fundamentalist Mormons alone qualify as adhering to these teachings of Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, etc.
You see, 1010rd, in the 1850s, 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s ... the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, & 5th Lds "prophets" acknowledged specifically that polygamy was a "doctrine" of the church taught for 40+ years...and that those who couldn't abide in it would be
(a) damned (plainly spoken by 2nd, 3rd & 5th "prophets" of church);
(b) cannot become "gods" like the polygamous Mormons (per Brigham Young);
and (c) that the fullness of exaltation blessings were "conditional" upon practicing polygamy -- that it was "a necessity" in order to receive "the highest exaltation" (per the 5th "prophet" & also part of the amnesty petition to the U.S. govt under the 4th "prophet's" admin);
Now you acknowledge that ALL of these Mormon "prophets" were "orthodox" on Mormon doctrine, do you not? They weren't false prophets in directing their flocks' marital lives as they did, right?
So, if THEY were right from a Mormon doctrinal perspective...
...if THEY were right from a Mormon revelational perspective...
...if THEY were Mormon-orthodox...
...then guess what?
...The 1800s Mormons were all "mainstream" -- including on polygamy -- and the 1900s & 2000s fundamentalist Mormons join them as being the ONLY "orthodox" Mormons...
You mainstream polygamy hiders (by "hiding" I mean you colonize it to Kolob but don't want to openly practice it on Planet Earth) are "cut off" schismatics!!!
************************
And, if you don't believe me...here's the quotes anybody can read as to what those Lds "prophets" in the 1800s taught...I picked out one citation per decade to show you how saturated it was...
* 1850s: Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned"
Direct source: Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266, 1855
* 1860s -- Brigham Young: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866)
* 1870s -- eventual 5th "prophet" Joseph F. Smith: "Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878)
Same Joseph F. Smith message on same date: ... As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does, nor can he secure to himself the fullness of any blessing without he fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the benefit of the law he obeys. ... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. ... (p. 31)
* "Epistle from the Presidency" (John Taylor & George Q. Cannon...third member of Presidency, Joseph F. Smith, didn't sign 'cause he was on a mission): "We did not reveal celestial marriage. We cannot withdraw or renounce it, God revealed it, and he has promised to maintain it and to bless those who obey it. ... Upwards of forty years ago the Lord revealed to his church the principle of celestial marriage. The idea of marrying more wives than one was as naturally abhorrent to the leading men and women of the church … but the command of God was before them in language which no faithful soul dare disobey, ―For, behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant, and be permitted to enter into my glory. ... Damnation was the awful penalty affixed to a refusal to obey this law. It became an acknowledged doctrine of the Church; it was indissolubly interwoven in the minds of its members with their hopes of eternal salvation and exaltation in the presence of God." (AN EPISTLE FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY, 10/6/1885, Millennial Star, Vol. 47, p. 711; read in General Conference)
* Acknowledgement in the 1890s under 4th "prophet" Woodruff's administration: "We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or Celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a NECESSITY to MAN'S HIGHEST EXALTATION IN THE LIFE TO COME. That DOCTRINE was publicly promulgated by our president, the late Brigham Young, forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter day Saints up to September, 1890." [Lds Petition for Amnesty, Dec. 19, 1891. Reprinted in Proceedings (Washington D.C; Government Printing Office, 1904), vol. 1, p. 18. ]
I am well read, but not all-knowing, that's reserved to God.
Here's where it gets dicey. You know the OT and the stories of the deaths of the first born of Egypt, the story of Jericho, 1 Samuel 15:2-3 (Saul and Amalek), slaughter of the Canaanites, etc. you can look up the amount of killing in the OT. Jehovah is Jesus Christ, so he's ordering all this killing. God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone as they've all sinned and failed in righteousness.
It gets worse though if you don't believe that salvation is available to the dead because as far as the Bible reads most people who ever lived from Adam to the Oct. 2013 never ever had the Gospel preached to them in any form. That's an estimated 100 billion people.
That's a lot of lost souls. We're lucky to live in the modern age, no?
End part one.
The more interesting part is the “authentic” Jesus part. You guys got me kicking this around a lot lately.
This is even worse because:
Jesus is born a baby,
has a body,
eats after his resurrection,
ascends bodily up to heaven (a specific place),
we are all made in the image and likeness (better outline) of God,
and all look forward to a resurrection,
plus we’ve got the testimony of Stephen who sees Jesus at the right hand of God (seated).
That’s an awful lot of “physicalness”, no?
Yet, the LDS pick that up right away. It’s wholly Biblical, but not Catholic. So if you’re a schismatic Catholic you have to choose between what the Catholic Church teaches about the nature of God and what the Bible says about God.
End Part 2 of 2.
Thanks for that dense read which had nothing to do with being a schismatic Catholic. Why find just the thorn in the eye of Catholic Doctrine? I mean Luther didn’t want to abandon the Catholic Church, just reform it.
He accepted whole hog the Trinity, which is unbiblical and not a saving doctrine. Why?
The rare exceptions are that the Catholic Church doesn't recognize baptism by the Moonies, JW's, Unitarians, or Mormons. The reason why, is that their doctrine about who Christ is differs radically from the understanding of historic, Biblical Christianity.
Please explain why in June of 1828 Joseph Smith was taking membership classes to join the local Methodist church [if it was part of the heritage of "schismatic Catholics"]...
Quite interesting 1010 that you would absolutely endorse Stephen's testimony when Stephen's very words run 100% counter to prohibitions made by your Mormon leaders.
Your Mormon leaders have carefully & repeatedly instructed NOT to pray directly to Jesus, but rather ONLY to heavenly Father.
Yet what does Stephen's testimony show?
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. (Acts 7:59-60)
ALL: See, we can -- and do -- pray DIRECTLY to Jesus.
And for you Mormons still not convinced that your Mormon leaders are AWOL on this subject matter...read how the Nephite disciples characters in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 20) REPEATEDLY prayed directly to Jesus and were in no wise rebuked, but rather encouraged, for doing that.
I don’t think he wants info; just wants to rail at those who dare to challenge anyone else’s faith.
They’re more HERETIC than most Christian offshoot denominations and you know that.
You’re well read, eh?
Well then; are you going to be a GOD someday or not?
#1, 1010 we're Christians...not JWs ('tis JWs who believe Jesus was resurrected spiritually -- vs. bodily)
#2, the incarnation fleshes out God's original intent of God living "in fellowship" with man...And, that such-a-man in perfect fellowship with God can be perfect, after all...
#3...Yes, Jesus was/is physically man, but no mere man...'cause Psalm 49:7-8 precluded any atoning Savior from simply being only man: br>7 NONE of them can BY ANY MEANS REDEEM HIS BROTHER, NOR GIVE TO GOD A RANSOM FOR HIM; 8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)
So stop the nonsense that Jesus started out his pre-existence as a mere anthropological species...
Our Lord God doesn't appreciate the reduction of Him (Father, Son & Holy Ghost) to such a depreciated level.
1010 isn’t the lone one reading these exchanges...I dialogue personally; but realize that at times it’s the lurkers who gain the most from such discussions...
You’re fun and funny. How should I know?
But the Reformation is a known schism from the Catholic Church. That’s undisputed history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
What were they breaking away from, if not the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the Protestant Reformers didn’t reject the entire doctrine just bits and pieces. That makes them schismatic Catholics.
It’s obvious, no? So the Reformation is simply an attempt to “reform” Catholicism into a religion more palatable to some. Instead of going back to the Bible with pure intent and open minds, they chose and picked like you would at a smorgasbord, swallowing some doctrine whole and rejecting others.
Not even close. Their doctrines insult Christ and are contrary to the Bible. Not Christian.
Can we have celestial glory without the LDS church? ( a Mormon will answer no)
If not that means Joseph Smith trumps Christ and Christ died and resurrected in vain.
I love Stephen’s testimony.
People should read it for themselves: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+7&version=KJV
He’s accused of blasphemy and hauled before the apostate Sanhedrin who killed their own Messiah. I’m not calling you a Pharisee, but see.
Acts 7:2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
How did the God of glory appear? What did he look like, since the word appear in Acts 7:2 is to see with your eyes.
The same as Acts 7:30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
Here is the powerful conclusion:
54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
So Stephen see’s Jesus standing on the right hand of God, the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. He then calls out to God and says, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
Simply beautiful.
Old bill,
You are displaying your ignorance as to what Christianity is. Name call all you want, but you are the one in the dark.
Old bill,
You are displaying your ignorance as to what Christianity is. Name call all you want, but you are the one in the dark.
Excellent and true, Mrs. Don-o. That’s my entire point. The Protestants are schismatic Catholics, thus the Catholic church recognizes their baptisms (when they still do that), even though they don’t have a priesthood or that they don’t see baptism as a sacrament.
The only thing, and it’s not trifling, is that the reason is not Biblical, but one of interpretation. Keep in mind that with the same vigor Catholics embrace, the Reformers reject. I remember the good old days when every Protestant knew that Catholics aren’t Christians and are doomed to hell.
Nostalgia...there really weren’t any good old days were there?
I couldn’t agree more. I needed a little exercise and this is just right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.