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.”
There are lots of examples but let's just deal with one at a time. You made the following conclusion:
Peter is an apostle and we should expect apostles in God’s True Church.
This is apparently deduced from Peter's statement: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ..."
The first part "Peter is an apostle" is sound exegesis - clearly that is what the text says. The second part "and we should expect apostles in God's True Church" is not. How can you deduce that from what Peter said? This isn't even implied by the text nor in the rest of the verses that follow. Your conclusion certainly wouldn't be clear to anyone who comes to the text without that position already formulated. In other words, you where using eisegesis. Logicians would call it confirmation bias.
BTW have you ever posted on the Free Republic under a different screen name? Your argumentation style is similar to a Mormon defender who hasn't posted for a while.
Peter is an apostle and we should expect apostles in God’s True Church isn’t derived from a single verse or even a part of a verse, but the entire Bible. As you know, the Bible from Gen. 1:1 to Revelations 22:21 is a continuum. You can’t leave something out. At no point in the Bible does God have an anarcho-church, one without some formal hierarchy. Even apostate Judah in the New Testament continues to run things using the same pattern God set out at first. The Apostles are called, they replace missing members, etc. All that is evidence that they belong in the Church.
If Peter were to hand you a copy of an epistle with the express intent of reaching the saints in Pontus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontus#Roman_province) or Cappadocia to whom do you deliver Peter’s letter?
Why would it be eisegesis to expect God’s house not to be a house of order? The economy of God is order. Those are what the text says, not my preconceived notion of it. It’s how I learned that the Trinity isn’t Biblical or even a doctrine of Salvation.
No, I didn’t used to post as anybody else.
You were expositing 1 Peter 1:1-2. You paused to form conclusions on the text. You mentioned no other texts to support your conclusion. That's what you were being called on - you jumped to a conclusion unsupported by the immediate text which fit your preconceived notion - which is eisegesis, pure and simple. It wasn't the only example of eisegesis in your exposition, just one of the most obvious.
Why would it be eisegesis to expect God’s house not to be a house of order?
This question is troubling. When you come to God's Word with expectations, you're vulnerable to eisegetical analysis of Scripture. We need to come to God's Word without preconceptions and let Him tell us the truth. We need to remember that God doesn't always work the way that humans do. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)
We agree on the above.
Your definition of eisegesis appears wholly subjective as you apply it to my comments. I was not simply expounding on a single text, nor reading into it. Shouldn't we take the Bible as a whole and not simply as a series of disjointed, unconnected verses? The context matters and the entire Bible gives context.
This specific example is perfect for purposes of illustration:
"Peter is an apostle and we should expect apostles in God’s True Church" isn’t derived from a single verse or even a part of a verse, but the entire Bible.
That is something you already know to be true. If you don't then step back and see the Bible as a whole. God's True Church always has a formal hierarchy and a priesthood. In the NT, apostles are replaced as needed. It is silent on that ending or being stopped. That's the reasonable conclusion, then. We should expect apostles and order in God's True Church.
I am not forcing that on the text, that is its plain reading.
Let me ask again a question that you haven't answer, perhaps it is troubling: To whom in Pontus would you deliver the Epistle of Peter?
I don’t disagree with Paul, but I don’t believe you have divine power or authority. By your postings and behavior you show yourself to be a monomaniac focusing attacks on a single minority group. The posse that supports you and delights in this contains known and admitted bigots. Perhaps they’re the exception and perhaps you’re not a bigot.
Would you vote for a Mormon for President? Any office?
Is your goal to destroy the LDS Church?
Your answers to the above questions will lead me to either beg your forgiveness or demonstrate clearly that you’re a monomaniac to be condemned and pitied.
Jesus Christ of the New Testament is Jehovah of the Old Testament. Are you saying that God is changeable from one book to the next or that Jesus is not Jehovah?
Remember we’re discussing the Bible. Remember that Jesus clears the temple... using violence.
(Matthew 23:13)
That's interesting because a Mormon friend once discussed this very thing. You likely know that hundreds of billions of people have been born and died outside God's Old Testament covenant with Abraham and without ever hearing of or knowing Jesus Christ. Are those people, per your beliefs, barred from Heaven?
Also, as a clarifier, what's your definition of Heaven? Is it an actual place?
As an aside here, 1010, how could one possibly have a multiplicity of "only true gods"...
This is a question that intrigues me. It used to disturb me about the LDS, that they didn't accept the Trinity. Your constant posting about this issue helped me to explore more fully both the Trinity and the LDS belief about the nature of God, His goal for us and our potentiality.
As you know we're made in God's image and likeness. Did you notice that the reference to makers is plural?
Then we read in 1 Corinthians 13:12 NIV - For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
That's the "glass darkly" scripture. In Genesis the making of man in God's or the gods' image is more like an outline, that's the better translation. We then fill that in via our beliefs and actions based on those beliefs (Jefferson got it wrong).
God expects growth, no? That's Christ's example. He grows from grace to grace. He started as a baby and grew up, etc. Christ goes on to state that we'll be full heirs, full heirs with him.
As I read with an open mind, not bringing any preconceived notions to the text I learned for myself that the Trinity is an invention of men. It isn't in the text. It is forced and nonsense. It isn't even a doctrine of salvation. Why must Christians believe it?
They are wholly compatible. I would be, then, that you, the pseudonymous Godzilla of FR, are in a tiny minority of Christians and an even smaller number of the world’s population to even know that there are Christian doctrines of Deification/Theosis/Divinization.
That the LDS have this doctrine is itself Christian. What you object to and find incompatible with your belief and the distinguishing differences for Lutherans/Protestants, Catholics and the Orthodox stems only from your and their definitions of the nature of God and the “mystery” of the Trinity.
Here are the definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deify
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian) [Read the whole thing it is very interesting]
See also the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Article 3
“HE WAS CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WAS BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY”
Paragraph 1. THE SON OF GOD BECAME MAN
I. WHY DID THE WORD BECOME FLESH?
460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”79 “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”80 “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”81
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis
One would expect there to be theological differences between Christian churches, particularly between a Christian church that rejects the Trinity and one that accepts it. Nonetheless, all Christian churches have the concept of divinization/theosis/deification via the actions, life and salvation of Jesus Christ.
I don’t know who is being intellectually dishonest in this discussion. I’ve often given you the very references I used to conclude this. Read it for yourself.
You may disagree, but you cannot accuse me of being intellectually dishonest:
1. Jesus Christ promises us full heirship with him.
2. Jesus Christ has a body and took it with him into Heaven.
3. We get a resurrected body, are judged and go to Heaven all without losing said body.
The above are all Biblical and all the Bible has to say on the matter. Don’t believe me. Use your own eyes, reason and faith.
At which point does the New Testament become the New Testament? After Jesus’ resurrection? So are all Jesus’ comments Old Testament until that point?
You’re really stretching it with this novel approach. No one is saved by their own works. No one is justified of themselves, but only by the salvation and grace offered by Jesus Christ. That said, God does expect work of us. God does expect us to keep His commandments. They’ve never been withdrawn. God will judge us by our works.
You must recognize that the verses you quote are not a rejection of works, but the recognition that nothing starts or progresses in the life of a believer without first faith in Jesus Christ.
That is what the Bible teaches.
Were you ever in Military Intelligence? You must always consider the counterfactual before making a determination. You must consider the whole, along with the parts, and not just one to the exclusion of the other.
With the Bible as your guide are there or does there exist a counterfactual to your Isaiah 44:8 claim? Could another reasonable, logical person conclude from other Bible verses something different?
As a place, yes.
The simplest definition would be the place where the greatest degree of God's glory dwells. Indeed, He's omnipresent; fortunately for us, much of that glory is shielded from us, lest we be even more "undone" than Isaiah was in His Holy Presence (see Isaiah 6).
Btw, given the day it is...Here's a relevant comment on that:
Reformed pastor R.C. Sproul has at times describes various radio programs of the 1940's…The scariest of all scary (allegedly; certainly well before my time) was a radio program called: Inner Sanctum...
Sproul points out how the program's intro would bring awe, dread, fear. What does "Inner Sanctum" mean? Within the Holy.
Anyway, a place where Heavenly Father doesn't dwell is NOT heaven...
Therefore, Mormonism attempts to skirt that reality by claiming He doesn't even dwell in most of Mormonism's "ghettos".
#1, my goal is to be used of God to liberate those from legalistic bondage by way of the cross that functions thru God's grace operating thru faith.
#2, Per 2 Cor. 10:3-5, the precedence we have as "sent-ones" is to demolish arguments, pretensions, and strongholds.
* Arguments and pretensions is more both in the apologetics realm...destroying arguments & pretensions is hardly destroying people. Certainly arguments & pretensions also falls under the umbrella of spiritual warfare vs. the forces of darkness -- as especially does "strongholds."
* Taking on strongholds is a power encounter involving spiritual warfare vs. the forces of darkness.
#3, I define "church" as flesh-and-blood. People. (In Christ's true church, the Greek word is ecclesia, which means "called-out" ones).
Even with "counterfeit" Christians in Christian churches, Jesus says to not "weed" the tares out of the church. And even in counterfeit churches (cults who use a "Jesus" front), they are still people -- "flesh and blood" -- and the apostle Paul clearly says:
2 For our struggle is NOT against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph. 6:12)
So...am I out to destroy people spiritually? No! Eph. 6:12 directs us that our struggle is NOT vs. flesh and blood!!! And the Mormon church, beyond its legalistic hierarchy, is certainly that (people)!
Am I out to destroy the "ISM" within MormonISM! Yes! This "ism" -- along with many others in our various cultures of the world -- sets itself up as knowledge against the God of the Bible. It presents counterfeit 'realities' (arguments/pretensions). Hence, my Biblical warrant for this is 2 Cor. 10:3-5.
#4, Finally some Bible interpreters look at passages like Eph. 6:12 and Col. 1:16...the latter being: For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities
... and they think that thrones, powers, rulers, authorities/principalities, all represent various levels of dominion with various demons at the helm.
You should know by now that I deem the cults to be part of the "disinformation" campaign that these principalities have embarked upon over the centuries. I include Mormonism in that.
Hence, if these doctrines are indeed what the apostle Paul told Timothy are the "doctrines of demons"...then who am I to think I could "bring down" an entire work of dark ex-angels?
You: I don’t disagree with Paul, but I don’t believe you have divine power or authority.
Well, the only authorization we have is to be His children (John 1:12). Beyond that to your comment, who cares? Jesus said:
"ALL authority has been given unto me." (Matthew 28:18)
What part of "ALL" does Mormonism have trouble dissecting???
Even if you claim Jesus gave the Mormon priesthood some authority, means that you still don't think Jesus has 100% authority...because if He did, since you think He's a "different god" than Heavenly Father, that would mean that Heavenly Father has no authority here...since Jesus has it all!
Anyway, Jesus has all authority. I am not on some "power trip" to yank it away. He hasn't abdicated His authority on earth. He still has it. He said in the same Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) that He would be with us always. He hasn't left.
Mormonism is the one which has an "authority" problem.
Where does Mormonism claim they got their authority from? Oh, they say a bunch of visions paraded before Smith...John the Baptist, Elias, Peter, etc.
Where did these characters get their authority? Oh, Mormons will then point to members of the Godhead (JC/Heavenly Father).
Well, then, you ask...Where did the once-upon-a-time-a-man-turned-god get his authority?
Well, per Joseph Smith, this counterfeit "elohim" got his authority from a "council of gods."
Well, then where did this "council of gods" get their authority?
Mormons can't answer that. Unlike the God of the Bible, and Christians who worship Him, Mormonism has no ultimate God. Which means, in turn, it CANNOT point to ANY Ultimate Authority. Mormonism doesn't know from whence its Authority comes. Every "authorized" figure that Mormonism points to has to ultimately "pass the buck" on Ultimate matters; because if such a lower-level god attempted to master an Ultimate Matter, they would stealing the decisiveness, the glory, and the Authority that resides with the Ultimate God alone!
And I don't use "glory" here lightly. The very Biblical word for "glory" is wrapped up in a meaning that includes weightiness -- as in the gravity of a decision. (ya know, like the Supreme Court making a weighty decision)
We Christians worship the Supreme Ultimate God. Which gods do you worship? (Most Mormons say two)
When it came to the OT mosaic covenant, Jesus was compliant with those standards. He taught the impending NT covenant changes, but those changes had to wait until his death and resurrection to be implimented. Very clearly taught in the nt.
Hebrews 9:15-17
“And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.”
No one is saved by their own works. No one is justified of themselves, but only by the salvation and grace offered by Jesus Christ.
Come on 10 - full disclosure of mormon doctrine eh - no 0bamaesque partial disclosures. Grace is only available after works ("all you can do") and is confirmed by your AoF 3 - "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Ummmm no presentation of 'grace' at all - only works mentioned as the vehicle for the salvation of all mankind.
God will judge us by our works.
God will judge us (salvation / damnation) based upon our relationship to Jesus Christ, he will reward us by our works (not godhood - out of luck there 10).
You must recognize that the verses you quote are not a rejection of works, but the recognition that nothing starts or progresses in the life of a believer without first faith in Jesus Christ. That is what the Bible teaches.
Sorry, mormon not telling the truth about their doctrine again - see earlier. Mormon doctrine again places works before grace. That is not what the bible teaches.
How could anyone read the following and not conclude that you were expositing on 1 Peter 1:1-2?
Your original post (reformatted to save space): Let’s look at First Peter 1:1-2. “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.” So we have a some establishing facts: 1. Peter is an apostle and we should expect apostles in God’s True Church. 2. His audience isn’t everybody, but he addresses himself to the elect. The elect are both blessed by the grace of Christ (sprinkled with his blood) and, here’s the kicker - they’re obedient. Let’s continue. 1 Pet 1:3-9 reads:...End of this portion of your post.
Shouldn't we take the Bible as a whole and not simply as a series of disjointed, unconnected verses? The context matters and the entire Bible gives context.
Yes which is why many of your dogmatic positions will be very difficult to support. However, if you are drawing upon other verses to support your conclusion, it is customary to cite them.
I am not forcing that [apostles and order in God's True Church] on the text, that is its plain reading.
How do you deduce this from 1 Peter 1:1-2? From this verse, you can deduce that Peter was an apostle (he states so) and that he had communication with churches (which may or may not be associated with his apostolic position - he doesn't say). There is no harm in saying that a verse doesn't teach a particular point but there is no way that you can use this passage to support your conclusion unless you read it into the text. I have no problem with someone drawing an inference from Scripture provided there is reasonable support for it. But apostolic succession is just not anyway to be seen in this verse.
In the NT, apostles are replaced as needed.
You keep mentioning this like it is some Biblical truth that everyone must accept. How about some evidence? I assume you are referring to the replacement of Judas with Matthias in Acts 1. While the event, apparently to fulfill the Scripture Peter cites, was reported, where is the command (direct or implied) that this practice is to continue? Just reading the text, it would be logical to conclude from what the passage says that this office of Apostle is a special case office. Verse 22 tells us that the purpose of a big-a Apostle is to be a witness of the resurrected Christ. To fulfill this role, Justus and Matthias needed to meet specific requirements: followers of Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to His ascension. In other words, they needed to be eyewitnesses to these events. Verses 22-23 seem to indicate that specific requirements were in place to assure a physical eyewitness. Obviously, physical eyewitnesses to these events are a limited pool which in all likelihood became non-existent with the death of John.
Let me ask again a question that you haven't answer, perhaps it is troubling: To whom in Pontus would you deliver the Epistle of Peter?
I didn't answer it because it didn't seem germane to the issue. However, you answered my off-topic question (which I didn't mean as a hostile question but to satisfy my curiosity), so I'll answer yours.
If I were a small-a apostle given responsibility to deliver Peter's letter, I imagine I'd deliver the letter to a leader in the Church at Pontus. Based on the NT evidence, in all likelihood, he would be called an elder.
I could vote for Mitt Romney for local dogcatcher...
Well, wait...on second thought...anybody who puts a dog on top of a station wagon for a cross country trip doesn't exactly "qualify" for that...
But, yes, I could vote for a Mormon in certain circumstances...but not POTUS.
Somebody who is gullible in the most important area of their life would be vulnerable due to lack of discernment...hardly who you want as Leader of the Free World.
Have you seen the polls thru the years? Like how more than 50% of voters (probably HIGHER among conservatives) who have said they would NOT vote for a Muslim presidential candidate?
So you would label them all "bigots?"
Would YOU vote for a Muslim POTUS? If not, why not?
Sorry but both the Bible (Matt. 28:18-20) as well as the Mormon standard works all talk about baptizing in the NAME (singular) -- of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jesus insist His Composite Name is singular. Why do you insist it's plural?
Jesus even insists that a 2-in-1 marriage is singular ("you shall no longer be two" -- Matt. 19:5-6). If that's the case, why would you insist upon defining marriage as "two" -- when Jesus defines it as "one."
If Jesus is more united with His Father and the Holy Spirit than any marriage...more bonded than any marriage...who are you to say that God is less "one" than any mortal marriage?
The Mormon "scripture" Book of Abraham does this same thing...as I believe the Book of Mormon does as well...
Here's an example: Moses 7:11: "And he gave unto me a commandment that I should baptize in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, which is full of grace and truth, and of the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son."
What's interesting when you read a Mormon General authority commentary on the Pearl of Great Price (Pearl of Great Price Commentary, Milton R. Hunter, Bookcraft, 1952/1971, pp. 52-53...Hunter cites this verse and prefaces it with:
* "The three Gods constituted the Holy Trinity" (p. 52)
* "...all three of these personages are one in purpose and unity; and they constitute the Holy Trinity" (p. 54)
Sandwiched in between those two comments, Hunter quotes Moses 5:6-9 and 7:11...and uses the heading that's in the Book of Abraham right before v. 11: "God's commandment to Enoch, and the Trinity"
You see, Mormons will use "the Trinity" like this to sound Christian to potential proselytes and for PR/image purposes...but when we get into more nitty-gritty discussions like those on FR, we get Mormons like yourself and Teppe who come out of the woodwork to diss "the Trinity." IoW, the real teeth are bared!
Hence, Mormons have their own "pseudo-'trinity'" -- what they more commony reference as "the Godhead."
Mormons and Christians all believe in "three persons"...Mormons just don't want to seem to concede that these three Persons are more unified than simply in "purpose and unity." Hey, Christians and Mormons alike are more unified with their spouses than simply "purpose and unity"...Hence, LdsISM has the untenable position of defending a "godhead" whose unity is even less unified than any mortal marriage committed in Christ's Name!
Simply wow!
Catholic, Orthodox Jew, would you vote for them for POTUS?
What’s your definition of the Trinity?
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.