Ex-LDS Micah Wilder, Saved by Jesus Christ

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to Ex-LDS Micah Wilder, Saved by Jesus Christ

  1. grindael says:

    These kind of conversions to real Christianity are becoming more and more common, especially among ex-missionaries. It is also my story and I can really relate to this story. What is also happening now with the advent of the internet is the free exchange of these stories and how many are leaving smith’s cult.

    There was no “great apostasy”. Jesus set up his church and told Peter the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Not even for a minute, let alone 1800 years.

    Micah’s words about reading the New Testament with an open mind are really key, because when we do, we see the gospel is SIMPLE, and that it is all ab out Jesus, not smith and his cult of works.

    He makes an important point that works flow out of faith, not faith out of works. That is why the mormon GA’s are so afraid of members having a personal relationship with Jesus, (as McConkie scoffed at years ago) because the focus then becomes HIM, not the works of the smithians.

    The five points his Mission President told him are interesting:

    smith as a prophet
    living prophets
    LDS only true church
    Jesus the Saviour

    Notice Jesus is LAST on the list, and that he said this:

    Believing in Jesus Christ alone is not enough!

    It is EVERYTHING, and Micah goes on about how his personal relationship with Jesus is everything…exactly what the ‘living prophets’ are trying to keep members away from!

    Micah’s testimony of Jesus is compelling, and HE is all we need.

  2. jackg says:

    It’s amazing to see how the Holy Spirit is working within the hearts of Mormons to lead them to the truth about Jesus Christ. A humble Baptist pastor who trusted in the Word of God, for whom the Word of God was authoritative.

    Micah is evidence of a regenerated life. His testimony matches up with God’s Word, and I can’t see how any Mormon could possibly deny the Spirit-empowered testimony that Micah shares.

    What he says about his mission president is very revealing regarding the thinking of Mormons. For them, Jesus Christ isn’t enough. What Jesus did, according to their belief system, is make it possible for us to be saved based on our works. Mormon theology defies the basic teachings of the Bible as well as the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

    It’s exciting to see a Mormon respond to the Holy Spirit as Micah did. And, I suspect such stories will only increase as the power of Jesus Christ to call men to Himself and redeem them is REAL!


  3. Rick B says:

    I think it’s great that he left, but the problem I see, if you want to call it a problem is, LDS are going to post video or point out people who were christians that converted to the LDS belief claiming they were duped until finding Smith. Rick b

  4. setfree says:

    amen guys

  5. liv4jc says:

    Rick, I agree that this is a problem. I have met on several occasions with a JW woman who claims that she left the Christian church for the Watchtower Society after being unable to defend her faith against the JW pioneers. There is a huge problem in the modern church with the focus on watered down gospel messages meant to tickle the ears of potential “church members”. Inevitably God will use even these messages to convert those He calls, but they are left sitting in churches where Christian doctrine is not taught, and they hear the same weak-knee’d life application gospel messages week after week that are meant only to keep the “members” satisfied, keep the tithing pouring in, and create more “members”. When confronted with a Mormon or Witness these pew sitters are defenseless because they don’t know even the basics of Christian doctrine.
    The Trinity and the deity of Christ are as fuzzy to most Christians as they are to Mormons and JW’s.
    Paul sums it up perfectly in Romans 10 when he says in verse 14, “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?”

    How can a Christian defend himself against the false christ of Smithism if he doesn’t even know who the true Christ of the Bible is? This is the failure of the modern Christian church. The Smithian christ is a very poor copy of the Christ of the Bible and His true gospel easily destroys the false gospel of Smithism when scripture is used. Paul follows up in verse 17, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” It was the word of God that converted Micah.

    The reliability of the Bible far outweighs the reliability of the LDS “scriptures”, which have been changed numerous times to keep up with the churches’ changing doctrine on God and the nature of salvation. I think it is important first of all to train Christians, so they can refute false doctrine when they see it.

  6. iamse7en says:

    Mormons believe that they are saved by grace, the mercy of Jesus Christ. It is not enough to treat others with kindness, do good works of righteousness, or help and serve others. When one has true faith in Christ, he will do all those works of righteousness. But if you claim to have faith in Christ, and you are not willing to treat others with kindness or serve and help others, then you clearly don’t have true faith in Christ.

    As was written in James, faith without works is dead.

    Mormons believe, wholeheartedly, that scripture in Titus. And for you to insinuate otherwise is false and wrong. A devout Mormon doesn’t believe he is worthy of living with God in the Celestial Kingdom because he is kind, loving, and in service to his neighbor. A devout Mormon believes is saved because of the power of the Atonement, which is his grace and mercy. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by..” what? By “the washing of regeneration [baptism by immersion performed by proper authority], and renewing of the Holy Ghost [the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those with the priesthood].” Don’t forget those principles. Born-agains love to stress the mercy part, but sometimes don’t stress how that mercy comes by. Clearly, one must be baptized by water and the Spirit to receive that mercy. That’s what the scripture says, and is also confirmed by the Lord himself in John 3. Clearly, you must do certain things to be eligible to receive that mercy. Sure, faith is foundational, and comes before repentance and baptism, and is increased through works of righteousness.

    You clearly misunderstood the tenets of Mormonism, or the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, when that Baptist minister spoke to you. You clearly didn’t understand the doctrines of justification, salvation, and sanctification. I feel sorry that you have rejected the true Gospel and the covenants you made in the Holy Temple. May God have mercy on your soul.

  7. Rick B says:

    The problem is, LDS teach another gospel and when confronted with the facts they refuse to look at them and simply say we believe the same things.

    Many an LDS on this web site have fought tooth and nail to not admit that they teach another gospel, but after much debate I have gotten many to admit they teach another gospel, even if they think their gospel is the correct one.

    Also one thing LDS seem to hate is, I say if we have the same gospel, then how come If I say, I will put on an elder badge, call my self LDS, But give the gospel I believe of Grace alone no works, The trinity, not LDS godhead, that Jesus and lucifer are not brother etc, LDS get bent out of wack saying I cannot do that.

    Why not? arn’t we brothers in the Lord? Dont we teach the same gospel? No were not and no we dont thats why they get mad at me for saying I want to do that. Rick b

  8. iamse7en says:

    Rick B

    I’m not saying we teach the same Gospel. The lost soul in the video was insinuating that we didn’t believe in the doctrine of salvation by grace as described so well in Titus.

    We clearly teach different gospels. That’s the first thing missionaries will say when they teach you about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. We believe we teach the true Gospel as revealed from Heaven, which is confirmed by the word of God. We believe you teach a distorted form of the Gospel, as you interpret from the Bible. You believe the opposite about us and yourself. You can’t account for several teachings in the Bible, but that’s another story: e.g. Christ preaching to spirits in prison who lived in the days of Noah, or Paul rebuking the people at Corinth for not believing in the Resurrection, yet they practice the ordinance of baptisms for the dead, or his teaching about the resurrection of the dead comprising of 3 different types of bodies or about his recollection of a man caught up to the third heaven, also to the people at Corinth… I could go on forever…

    But my comment was not trying to say we preach the same Gospel as you, but attacking his interpretation of our own doctrine of the salvation by grace as described in Titus. When it comes to the Bible, we have different interpretations. We believe our tenets comprise the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and every doctrine is confirmed by the word of God.

  9. setfree says:

    just wondering how you, personally, are doing with all those covenants you made in the temple?

  10. Rick B says:

    Funny how you say their is a lot in the bible we cannot answer or account for. Their is so much stuff that proves LDS are teaching a false gospel that it’s not even funny.

    The 7-9 different first vision accounts.

    The many many wives of the prophets.

    The prophecies that Joseph claimed were of God but have failed.

    the contradictions that LDS cannot explain between the 4 standard works, Like you, I could go on.

    Sharon, Bill, Aaron,
    As I wrote Sharon, I cannot reply as much as I like because I am back in school for a 2 year degree. I still follow the blog. But can I leave a suggestion for a topic.

    iamse7en and other LDS have claimed we dodge questions or cannot answer questions. I maintain that I was striving to do my best to answer every question ever asked of me. I know a few LDS felt I still dodged questions, but I went back to them and asked what I missed, they sometimes never answered me, Maybe they missed me asking again.

    But I think you should have one or to post that simply allow us to have a question free for all as it were. Yes keep rules, no swearing or fighting etc. But allow both sides to ask questions of the other side and allow us space to answer and go off on any rabbit trail it takes us.

    other wise if thats not going to work, then leave a blank topic as it were allow us to pose questions to you guys that we would like to see turned into topics. Just a thought. Rick b

  11. Andy Watson says:


    Congratulations! You are saved by grace…and so is Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hindus, Scientologists, Wiccans, Jehovah’s Witnesses and on and on according to Mormonism. Ah yes…that’s right – defining the terms. Mormonism has done like all the rest of the false movements calling itself a religion and that is redefining the terms starting with who God is all the way down to the healthy green tea that you won’t drink that would help your arteries after a serving of unhealthy biscuits from Brigham Young’s recipe that was recently advertised in the Mormon Times.

    Yep, the whole world is saved according to Mormons. How is that? Well, “saved” in Mormonism means nothing more than all the people of the world getting a physcial resurrection – big deal – nothing special.

    “All men are saved by grace alone without any act on their part, meaning they are resurrected” (“What Mormons Think of Christ”, LDS tract, p.28)

    “Jesus did come and offer himself as a sacrifice, just as the people had been taught he would. Because of his sacrifice, everyone will be saved from physical death by the Resurrection”(Gospel Principles, page 171&173)

    Please, can’t you come up with something better than “You [Micah] didn’t understand the tenets of Mormonism”? He was born and raised LDS, was a temple worker, trained at MTC, etc. He knew what the tenets were.

    Please show me tenet no.1 of Mormonism in the Bible = God is an exalted man who once wasn’t God, but eternally progressed to become what He is today after being born from his unknown/unnamed parents at an undisclosed location.

    Second, if the epistle of James was in conflict with the inspired writings by Paul, James’ epistle wouldn’t be in the canon. James was in agreement. No? What did James mean in James 2:23? What does “dead works” mean in Hebrews 9:14?

    Please do – tell us what justification, sanctification and salvation mean to you. I want to see if your definition matches up with the LDS institute in my city.

  12. liv4jc says:

    Iamse7en said, “A devout Mormon believes is saved because of the power of the Atonement, which is his grace and mercy.” Once again we have an example of smithian double speak, or lying for the Lord. This sounds very Christian until you dismantle all of the smithian doctrine contained in the statement. According to lds.org online glossary, the definition of the Atonement is:

    The suffering and death of Jesus Christ, through which resurrection is provided to all mortals and eternal life is offered to those who have faith in Christ and repent of their sins.

    In reality, when the investigator digs deeper, Christ’s atonement did not make salvation actual, it only grants the offer of eternal life to those who have faith in Christ and repent of their sins. That is just the first step that makes the attainment of “eternal life” possible; Eternal life being smithian code for “becoming a god”. Words have meaning in the rest of the world, but in LDS speak, words are merely routes to general ideas and are not to be taken specifically, and no specific answer will be given by an acolyte of Smith’s unless presented with the facts, forcing an admission. So let’s take this definition apart in light of LDS doctrine: The suffering and death of Jesus Christ actually means Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane meditating on the guilt that is placed upon him by the sins of the world. That is how he “paid for our sins”, by feeling guilty. The blood that was shed was shed in Gethsemane while he was sweating great drops of blood. It was not shed on the on the cross, as the cross is an offense to smithians (incidentally, the text, Luke 22:44 actually reads that “the sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” It does not say that Jesus sweat blood.

  13. liv4jc says:

    (con) Also the account in Luke occurs nowhere else in the gospels, except as a floating variant, and both verses 43 and 44 have been shown to not be original to the text, but were added by a later scribe. This is fitting for a religion that claims the bible is unreliable, but bases a whole false doctrine on an actual unreliable portion of scripture!

    Next we’ll move onto the resurrection portion of the definition. In truth, the resurrection that all mortals experience is still eternal life, but it is not exaltation to the CK (that is the meat that must be hidden so as not to scare the crap out of the uninitiated person who is born with a conscience and knows that hoping to become God is blasphemous). Jesus’ atonement raises all men to eternal life, just in a lower kingdom. But wait, you can still hear smith’s false gospel and progress in the afterlife, so there’s really nothing to worry about.
    Next, to obtain all that is offered a person must repent. This, too sounds very Biblical until you determine what it actually means. This is a hijacked Biblical word that to the follower of Smith means to rid oneself of all ungodliness, thus becoming perfect by following all of the laws and ordinances of the smithian church. Smithians will deny this, because they know that it is impossible, but it has been proven that this is actual doctrine.

  14. liv4jc says:

    (cont) And finally you have to have faith in Christ. Well we can all agree to this, cant we? Yes, until we find out who the smithian Christ is. He is not the Christ of the Bible, but is the Christ of JS, who is not the second person of the Trinity, as much Yahweh as the Father, but is the firstborn of Eloheim’s spirit children, the brother of another of Eloheim’s spirit children, Lucifer, also known as Satan, and in his physical manifestation was the product of the physical act of sexual intercourse between Eloheim in bodily form and Jesus’ mother Mary. Somehow this Jesus is the Jehovah of the OT, and attained godhood by progressing in the spiritual realms, bypassing a first incarnation to live the gospel principles and follow all of the laws and ordinances of the Mormon god, something that not even Heavenly Father was able to do. (This doctrine is also confused depending on which smithian prophet you get the story from)

    So we see iamse7en, that your doctrines are not Biblical, and they are not Christian. I’m sure someone else can show you where your belief that Titus 3 speaks of physical baptism by a smithian priesthood holder is false also.

    Of course, I know that I have no authority to tell you any of this, so disregard all that I have written.

  15. setfree says:

    hope you don’t feel picked on. you just gave lots of conversation fodder, and we want to discuss 🙂

  16. iamse7en says:

    Okay, I list some principles taught in the Bible that I feel your interpretation of the Gospel cannot account for. You answer it by attempting to list some points concerning Joseph Smith. Rather than ignoring the point at hand and listing more inconsistencies, like you did, I’m actually going to comment on each of these points.

    Visions. Okay, this is an easy one. Did Judas die by hanging himself (Matt 27:5), or did he fall onto some rocks and his body burst open (Acts 1:18)? Did Jesus’s ascension into Heaven occur near the town of Bethany (Luke 24:50)? – or a full day’s journey from Jerusalem, possibly Mt Olivet, as that is from where the disciples returned after witnessing the Ascension (Acts 1:9-12)? What of the number of events mentioned in some/one of the four gospels, but not mentioned in the others/other three? The point is, that all the accounts complement each other, not contradict each other. Once account of the vision mentions angels, others don’t. One account mentions the Lord telling Joseph his sins are forgiven, others don’t. If you want to know what happened with a certain event, you read all the available accounts. There are no outright contradictions in the accounts – just some omissions. This is a non-issue.

    Wives. Hmm. You sure you want to try this one? When so many of the prophets you love in the Bible were polygamists as well? Should I name a few for you? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even Moses. Many of the Israelites, when the husband died, the widow was taken by husband’s brother in many cases. Just think of how many Israelite men left their wives in death throughout all the disease and war they faced those thousands of years. That’s a lot of polygamists. Whatever you criticize Joseph Smith for concerning multiple wives, you’re also criticizing many of the holy men in the Bible. Be careful there.

  17. iamse7en says:

    Prophecies of Joseph. Try listing these. That’s such a sweeping generalization. What of his many prophecies that came true? Willard Richards in bullets, civil war in SC, LDS church filling whole earth, just to name a few.

    Standard Works contradictions. Again, a very sweeping generalization. List them, and I’d be happy to explain plainly that there is no contradiction. And again, theologians have found many quote-unquote contradictions between the different accounts written throughout the Bible, (I mentioned a couple above) – the point is they are different accounts written by many people, and of course you’re going to extrapolate in assuming they’re contradictions. There are no contradictions, especially in terms of doctrine and explanation of the Gospel.


    I’m doing the best I can, thanks for asking. I like to believe I’m doing a decent job, but I’ll always fall short of the glory of God. But that’s why there is the Atonement of Christ.

    I haven’t read all the above comments yet, and it’s late right now. I may comment tomorrow. And although I haven’t read them, I won’t ever feel picked on. I’m happy to defend the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  18. Enki says:

    McConkie scoffed at a personal relationship with Jesus? Where did he do that? What exactly did he say?

    Jesus last on the list? Sometimes people do make lists, and place the most important item last for emphasis. “Last word” means the final statement in a verbal argument. A conclusive or authoritative statement or treatment.The latin language often uses the device of placing the most important word last. Its easier to do in latin, because word placement is less restrictive than in english.

    A lot of Americans use the term ‘low man on the totem pole’, I suppose meaning pretty low on the heirachy. However, I recall that this position actually is the most important. Its the supporting position for all other elements in the pole.

  19. Enki says:

    Why do LDS people put so many restrictions on the power of the divine? For instance, baptism by authority, and receiving the holy ghost by laying on of hands.

    I just read an article about how the entire universe is guided by the principle of love. This goes well beyond any organization, or any particular philosophy. The statement is far reaching, going beyond what most people understand or are willing to accept.

  20. liv4jc says:

    iamse7en, the gospel accounts and the epistles were written by different men from different vantage points. The same thing often occurs when investigating crimes. Witnesses may get vehicle type, color, etc. wrong, but that there was a vehicle present is the one consistent theme. We can account for the differences in accounts from multiple people, but Smith’s acccount comes from one man, is contradictory, and changes over time. If I interview a suspect and his account keeps changing in the major details, that means he is lying, not that he is recounting his own different views of the event. Remember, a contradiction is the basis for a lie unless more information comes up explaining the contradiction.

  21. Andy Watson says:

    I think McConkie sums it up pretty well on how the Mormons view a personal relationship with the real Jesus of the Bible that they don’t know:

    “There are yet others who have an excessive zeal that causes them to go beyond the mark. Their desire for excellence is inordinate. In an effort to be truer than true they devote themselves to gaining a special, PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with Christ that is both IMPROPER and PERILOUS. (LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “What is our relationship to members of the Godhead”, Church News, March 20, 1982, page 5)

    What? McConkie’s words don’t mean anything? Your prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, went to him for answers on DOCTRINAL issues. Imagine that…the prophet who supposedly receives revelation from the Mormon god FIRST ends up going to one of the apostles for guidance on doctrine. Sorry, but not really, you can’t “blow off” McConkie. At his funeral he was called a “preacher of righteousness” (Ensign, June 1985). That’s right – the same title given to Noah and Enoch by Mormon GA’s (Pearl of Great Price Student Manual Religion 327, page 26).

    The Mormon jesus is nothing but a “half-pint”:

    “There was in Palestine a couple, Joseph and Mary. She, heavy with child, traveled all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give birth to a HALF-Deity. He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth HALF-Divine and HALF-mortal.” (The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, page 10)

    That doesn’t reconcile with Isaiah 9:6 that labels the Messiah as “the Mighty God” (El Gibbor) in the Old Testament and at the Incarnation.

    Mormons, I’d do what Micah in the video did = give back your temple card, read the Bible alone and discover the real Jesus. Eternity in outer darkness is a huge price to pay for someone else’s mistake and heresy (Joseph Smith).

  22. iamse7en says:

    liv4jc, I realize that, but your explanation doesn’t account for the Luke-Acts discrepancy, which is the same author. (I’m sure there are many more.) The point I was making is obvious and hard to refute.

  23. Olsen Jim says:


    I commend your efforts to answer questions and interact with the good folks here. Hang in there.

    The responses to your statements demonstrate very well what happens on just about every thread when the EV critics hear something they don’t like- especially from new folks. There is a list of talking points that is rattled off at the slightest provocation. The list includes all kinds of topics fired out at machine-gun pace. Realize that it is impossible to answer so many questions in a methodical, rational manner on such a forum. It is so much easier for them to go around with matches lighting fires than it is for you or other LDS to put those fires out.

    What they do not recognize is that it is possible for scripture to be interpreted differently. They operate with the huge assumption that their interpretation of the Bible is of course the correct one. Nothing else matters.

    There is an answer for 99.9% of their questions. But they will not hear those answers. Truth is that there is absolutely no foundation for their position. They have one of many interpretations of the Bible and nothing more.

    Again- you are doing great. Keep it up.

  24. Andy Watson says:


    Have you been reading Bart Erhman’s books? Your questions about the death of Judas and the physical sight of the ascension of Jesus come right out of his playbook. I’ll tell you what the talk is in the Christian world regarding Ehrman: We wonder how he got a Ph.D in religious studies and somehow not be able to answer these first-year seminary questions. I also wonder how Jeffrey Holland got a Ph.D in religious history from Princeton, but somehow wasn’t required to read the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers that talk repeatedly of the Trinity and Jesus being God. Anyway, if you’ve been reading Ehrman I’d keep that to yourself. The Mormon GA’s and the BYU spin doctors like Millet and Robinson wouldn’t think highly of you.

    Did Judas die by hanging or falling in a field (Matt 27:5; Acts 1:18)? ANSWER: Both! I’d recommend catching the next flight to Jerusalem and see the location. The place where Judas hanged himself was on top of a cliff outside of Jerusalem. Apparently, in the course of hanging himself during the act at somepoint afterwards he fell from that spot down on to the field below. Those rocks on the way down to the field below can really open up a person not to mention the impact. I’m sure you get the picture.

    Did Jesus ascend outside of Bethany or from Mt. Olives (Luke 24:50/Acts 1:9-12)? ANSWER: Both! Bethany was on the eastern slope of the Mt. of Olives which is located just east of Jerusalem. You fail to realize that the person who wrote the book of Acts is the person who wrote the book of Luke – Luke! Same person! He was no dummy. He was a physician and a historian. He surely wasn’t going to contradict himself. Jesus likely begun His ascension from the Mt. Olives and then passed over the east side towards Bethany He vanished from their sight.

    By the way, the Mt. of Olives is where He will return (Zech 14:4) – not in Gallatin, Missouri (Adam-Ondi-Ahman). How do I reconcile any of the above stated with the Book of Mormon?

  25. jackg says:


    Once again you reveal how Mormons don’t understand the biblical text. Your reference to John 3 in your effort to argue for the act of being baptized has been addressed ad nauseum on this site. You have to change the meaning of the words “mercy” and “grace” in order to say: ” Clearly, you must do certain things to be eligible to receive that mercy.” You fail to understand that there is absolutely nothing than any of us could ever do to be eligible for God’s mercy and grace–and therein lies the false doctrine of Mormonism. Mercy is not getting what we deserve; grace is getting what we don’t deserve. There’s nothing about eligibility in these concepts which are really one concept. Regarding the gospels, you have to understand to whom the gospel writers are writing, which explains the different emphases.

    When you make such comments like: “By “the washing of regeneration [baptism by immersion performed by proper authority], and renewing of the Holy Ghost [the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those with the priesthood].” you show that you fail to understand that Jesus Christ is our High Priest and that we are a priesthood of believers. Your appendages that appeal to proper authority are not biblical, but the work of JS. Baptism is the response to God’s grace, not the pathway to it.

    I pray you will respond to the Holy Spirit as Micah has. Your eternal destiny depends on it.


  26. iamse7en says:

    Andy Watson

    Thank you for exactly proving my point. I asked the rhetorical question, “Do they contradict each other or complement each other?” That’s exactly my point about the account of the first visions. Did he see angels, or did he see the Father and the Son? ANSWER: Both!

    Also, I did not fail to recognize that Luke and Acts have the same author. In fact, that was my very point to liv4jc.

    Thanks for playing.

  27. iamse7en says:


    Ad nauseum is an understatement. How many hours of time have I spent Bible-bashing about the salvation by grace alone on my mission and throughout my life? Probably too many. I always come away strengthened in my position as I point out the many scriptures that talk about what one must DO to inherit the kingdom of God. Jesus is quite clear: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Catch that? What? Exceptions to the kingdom of God? What are they? Born of water and the Spirit? Oh! Good to know! There’s no context, no cherry-picking. It’s plain and clear.

    Even take the Titus scripture: “…according to his mercy he saved us, by..” BY… BY WHAT? “The washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” Oh, good to know. Thanks for confirming what the Savior taught.

    And it frustrates me that you’d so misrepresent the Mormon view and feeling of salvation. You insinuate that Mormons feel they deserve the Celestial Kingdom, through some good works or acts of righteousness. No. We believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and all the holy words which teach that we are saved by grace after all that we can do. The first thing little children are taught concerning the Atonement in our church, is that there are the laws of Justice and Mercy. Justice requires our banishment from the kingdom of God, because EVERYONE comes short of the glory of God. Mercy is what saves man from that banishment. Again, plain and clear.

    Off to bed.

  28. liv4jc says:

    iamse7en, the bible is very specific about places and events. Your contradiction between Acts 1 and Luke 24 pose no problems. What you fail to understand is that Luke clearly states in Acts 1:12 is the the mount called Olivet is a “Sabbath’s” day journey away, not a full day’s journey away as you assert. Jews weren’t allowed to travel far on the Sabbath (Exodus 16:29), but like the LDS the Pharisees and other rule loving Jews had figured out a way to manipulate the law and by Jesus’ time they were allowed to travel about a mile and a half outside their city limits. This fits in perfectly with the distance mount Olivet is from Jerusalem. In Matthew 21:1-2, Luke 19:29 and Mark 11:1-2 Jesus and His disciples are on the same mount Olivet near Bethany and Bethpage. Mount Olivet is between Bethany and Jerusalem. It is here that Jesus tells the disciples to find the colt that is to carry them into Jerusalem for His triumphal entry. We know that mount Olivet, Bethany, and Bethpage are just a little over a mile and a half outside Jerusalem, which is why Jesus obtained a colt from there instead of a full day’s journey away.

    As for your baptism for the dead reference, Paul was merely asking, “If you don’t believe in the resurrection, why are you baptizing for the dead?! It’s not like they’re going to be resurrected!” He was in no way endorsing the practice. I have heard several explanations for this verse, it is vague, and I certainly wouldn’t build a whole religion around it.

    As for what we must do to inherit the Kingdom of God, are those actions prescriptive or descriptive?

  29. iamse7en says:


    As I said after I brought up this Acts-Luke point, “The point is, that all the accounts complement each other, not contradict each other.” I was merely explaining the point you are proving. When one reads all the accounts of the first vision, one may draw wrong conclusions and miss the boat in that they complement each other, not contradict each other, as some might do with this Luke-Acts instance. Read my comment in it’s proper context: what point am I trying to make with these examples? (Unlike Andy Watson did with McConkie’s quote, which is a whole different discussion.) I wasn’t trying to prove contradictions in the Bible, but I was using the Bible to explain how seemingly different accounts actually complement each other. I also tried to make myself clear in the comment immediately following when I referred to this Luke-Acts instance, as some others, as “quote-unquote contradictions.” (Picture me doing the symbol with my hands.) If I wanted to bring up errors made by translators and scribes, I would mention those corrected in the Joseph Smith Translation, like Hebrews 6:1.

  30. grindael says:


    The only ones teaching a distorted gospel are the current and former prophets of your cult. They claim that their gospel is in harmony, but they contradict each other, have changed ordinances in latter times that former prophets said should not be changed, and basically have watered down the cult in these times to try and convert more people. They have even said that the former prophets “direct commandments from God” were only “their interpretations” of scripture. So much for continuous revelation. Here is a great example of harmony in the mormon cult:

    First lets start with this:

    June 1945 – Improvement Era states: “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.” This is the ward teacher’s message to all members for the month.

    Nov 6,1994 – Apostle M. Russell Ballard tells 25,000 students at BYU that general authorities “will not lead you astray. We cannot.” This claim of infallibility is officially published, and he repeats it to another BYU devotional meeting in March 1996.

    Pretty clear and concise statements, are they not?

    Then we have this:

    Aug 17,1951 – First Presidency statement that church’s restriction on negroid peoples receiving priesthood “is not a matter of the declaration of policy but of DIRECT COMMANDMENT from the Lord.”

    By whom? Brigham Young. smith actually ordained a black man to the priesthood.

    Jan 23,1852 – Brigham Young instructs Utah Legislature to legalize slavery because “we must believe in slavery.”

    Feb 5,1852 – Brigham Young announces policy of denying priesthood to all those black African ancestry, even “if there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before” because “negroes are the children of old Cain….any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the priesthood.” Contrary to Joseph Smith’s example in authorizing the ordination of Elijah Abel, this is LDS policy for the next 126 years.

  31. grindael says:

    In the 1990’s Gordon Hinckley did an interview with Mike Wallace. Here are his comments on the Blacks:

    “From 1830 to 1978… blacks could not become priests in the Mormon Church, right?” Wallace asked.
    “That’s correct,” Hinckley acknowledged.
    “Church policy had it that blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, ‘Cain slew his brother and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin,’” Wallace remarked.
    “It’s behind us. Look, that’s behind us. Don’t worry about those little flicks of history,” Hinckley said.
    “Skeptics will suggest, ‘Well, look, if we’re going to expand, we can’t keep the blacks out,’” Wallace said.
    But Hinckley called that “pure speculation.” (copy of original transcript)

    So much for divine revelation. According to Hinckley, it was just interpretation of doctrine. Why the phony revelation by Spencer Kimball then? All smoke and mirrors.

    I would go into the contradictions between the so-called prophets on Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison, but it is too long for this forum. Needless to say, this is only one small example. smiths cult is rife with these contradictions and outright reversals of the so called commandments and revelations of their god.

  32. Andy Watson says:


    “Thanks for playing”? You’re not welcome. I say that because this isn’t a game show. These are very serious issues that have eternal consequences. Seeing as you are the only Mormon who wants to post I can only assume that you are the one who wants to play. Jim Olsen gave you a “cheer” from the “sideline” to keep “playing”, but couldn’t “play” himself when faced with the simplest of questions asked of him months ago.

    While you may venture on to these kinds of blogs for your own personal amusement, there are others that are out there (LDS) that do have issues with Mormonism and are searching. They can’t reconcile the gospel of Joseph Smith and his “man became a god” doctrine from the King Follet with God as revealed in Holy Scipture – the Bible.

    Mormons in their advertisements on the web proclaim to have the answers to man’s questions. No, they don’t have any anwers. Every question I have asked via the web or at an LDS ward it’s the same reply: “It hasn’t been revealed yet”. The LDS Church has an old man who they call a “prophet” dressed up in a nice suit with make up and shiny, false teeth who stands in front of the world every six months at Conference and continually gives the Mormon world nothing in the form of continuing revelation. When I read the D&C I see a Mormon god who couldn’t stop talking. When Joseph Smith died that god stopped talking except when matters of legal concerns that hit the LDS Church arose (twice: polygamy and the blacks).

    When you try to compare the inspired accounts of Luke with the Joseph Smith fiasco versions of the “first vision” you are desperately reaching and grasping for similarity. That’s a game I’m not going to play or take seriously. The discussion here is about Jesus Christ. McConkie made it clear and the LDS Church praised him for it. You can spin it, but it is my prayer that Mormons won’t be “playing” and will find the Jesus of the Bible.

  33. grindael says:

    smith was no prophet either. Take a look at this prophecy which no mormon will comment on:

    “And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that NOT MANY YEARS shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. The people of the Lord, those who have complied with the requirements of the new covenant, have already commenced gathering together to Zion, which is in the state of Missouri; therefore I declare unto you the warning which the Lord has commanded to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes of my Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable FOR EVERY WORD I SAY, wishing nothing worse to my fellow-men than their eternal salvation; therefore, “Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come.” Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant and flee to Zion, before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are THOSE NOW LIVING upon the earth WHOSE EYES SHALL NOT BE CLOSED IN DEATH until they see ALL THESE THINGS, which I have spoken, fulfilled.” (History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 315-316).

    I posted the comment below a few weeks ago, and I think it bears repeating, so here it is:

  34. grindael says:

    I was perusing Uncle Dans Old Mormon Articles and came up with a tidbit that dovetails nicely with the post I made on the “Prophet-preferred-prophet Test” on smith’s “prophecy” about the mormons “fleeing to Zion” to escape the coming apocalypse before “it overtakes you”, – adding “there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things which I have spoken, fulfilled.”

    This apocalypse would be so great that it “would sweep the wicked of this (smith’s) generation from off the face of the land.

    This in turn would “open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north.” smith was so sure this would happen, he gave his solemn oath, “by authority of Jesus Christ” no less, making the point that “I am accountable for EVERY word I say.”

    Is it any wonder we see articles like this one published in the Liberal Advocate of Rochester NY in April of 1832:

    “Mormonism is said to have taken deep root in the Baptist church, in the town of Mendon, in this county. A number were re-dipped on Sunday last. The preacher said that he should never die, but be translated, after the manner of Enoch, and that in eighteen months Mormonism would be the prevailing religion; and, that in five years the wicked were to be swept from the face of the earth. When we see the degradation to which weak human nature has been reduced of late, we cannot wonder at such fanatical extravagance.”

    Here we have corroboration of smith’s false prophecies, and the “fanatical extravagance” those that believed him went to, to promulgate this rubbish. Not only were the wicked to be swept off the earth ‘within five years’ but faithful mormoms expected to be ‘translated’ like Enoch….

    There is no defense of this, and reports of the time again bear out the lies of smith…

  35. grindael says:

    How does this version of the first vision compliment the others?

    “You will recollect that I informed you, in my letter published in the first No. of the Messenger and Advocate, that this history would necessarily embrace the life and character of our esteemed friend and brother, J Smith Jr. one of the presidents of this church, and for information on that part of the subject, I refer you to his communication of the same, published in this paper. I shall, therefore, pass over that, till I come to the 15th year of his life. “It is necessary to premise this account by relating the situation of the public mind relative to religion, at this time: One Mr. Lane, a presiding Elder of the Methodist church, visited Palmyra, and vicinity. Elder Lane was a talented man possessing a good share of literary endowments, and apparent humility. There was a great awakening, or excitement raised on the subject of religion, and much enquiry for the word of life. Large additions were made to the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches. … Then strife seemed to take the place of that apparent union and harmony which had previously characterized the moves and exhortations of the old professors, and a cry — I am right — your are wrong — was introduced in their stead. “In this general strife for followers, his mother, one sister, and two of his natural brothers, were persuaded to unite with the Presbyterians. … “After strong solicitations to unite with one of those different societies, and seeing the apparent proselyting disposition manifested with equal warmth from each, his mind was led to more seriously contemplate the importance of a move of this kind.”
    Oliver Cowdery continues the narrative in the next issue, on page 78-79: “You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. Smith Jr.’s age — that was an error in the type — it should have been in the 17th. (continued below)

  36. grindael says:

    -you will please remember this correction, as it will be necessary for the full understanding of what will follow in time. This would bring the date down to the year 1823. “I do not deem it necessary to write further on the subject of this excitement. … “And it is only necessary for me to say, that while this excitement continued, he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, IF A SUPREME BEING DID EXIST, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him. “… On the evening of the 21st of September, 1823, previous to retiring to rest, our brother’s mind was unusually wrought up on the subject which had so long agitated his mind … all he desired was to be prepared in heart to commune with some kind of messenger who could communicate to him the desired information of his acceptance with God. “… While continuing in prayer for a manifestation in some way that his sins were forgiven; endeavoring to exercise faith in the scriptures, on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a purer and far more glorious appearance and brightness burst into the room … It is no easy task to describe the appearance of a messenger from the skies … But it may be well to relate the particulars as far as given — The stature of this personage was a little above the common size of men in this age; his garment was perfectly white, and had the appearance of being without seam. Though fear was banished from his heart, yet his surprise was no less when he heard him declare himself to be a messenger sent by commandment of the Lord, to deliver a special message, and to witness to him that his sins were forgiven, and that his prayers were heard;” (Messenger&Advocate, vol.1, pg. 42,78-79)
    This 1835 account was sanctioned by smith and written by Oliver Cowdery. So much for the harmony of the visions. This shows they were claiming the Moroni vision as the FIRST vision. smith invented the 1820 vision.

  37. subgenius says:

    In reality, when the investigator digs deeper, Christ’s atonement did not make salvation actual, it only grants the offer of eternal life to those who have faith in Christ and repent of their sins.
    when anyone digs deeper and reads the whole of even just the NT they realize that Christ’s atonement is as taught in the LDS church. The atonement saves only those who accept it, and to accept it it means it is an “offer”. Christ and Our Heavenly Father clearly give “free-will” to all of us. So, yes salvation is an offer, and it is not for those who reject it or take it for granted.
    Furthermore the notion that the NT EV writers operated from a “vantage point” is a far-cry different excalamtion from those offered in the thread discussing the infamous “chinese telephone”, however, this idea is contrary to widely accepted notion that these writers were also working from existing greek texts.(Gospels were not written until 2nd half of first century AD)

    would you not think that author of Luke was the more scholarly of the writers? Though he is blatant about himself not being a “neutral” writer, he does partake of a rather “careful” study of Jesus, regardless of Paul’s influence. How do you feel about the “sweating of blood” inserrtion to appease those critical of Christ’s suffering?
    For the Ev, who is the only writer to ever use the phrase “My Gospel”?

  38. subgenius says:

    this Mormon will “comment”
    though about 6 or 7 prophecies from JS were either failed or only partially fullfilled does nothing to disprove the many many other prophecies which were proven true. Most mormons do not comment because your point is of no consequence.

    With your logic, how do you reconcile the following “failed” prophecies?
    Isaiah 7:14
    Isaiah 17:1
    Isaiah 19:4-5
    these are just a few of Isaiah’s “failures”, shall we consider him a failure?
    what about Ezekial 29:10-11 or Amos 9:15?
    Matthew 2:23 even speaks of a prophecy that can not even be found in the Bible….even JC missed one or two, right? (see Matthew 24:34)..;)

    as for differences in the accounts of the first vision, those seem to be, first, an issue of understanding – some will see harmony and some will see dischord….i agree with the Apostle Maxwell who states that these accounts should be viewed with a “humble mind” and the issue is resolved…..i won’t even venture into the notion of “mystery” with this crowd.

    btw..brevity is still lost, eh?

  39. Rick B says:

    Sub said

    as for differences in the accounts of the first vision, those seem to be, first, an issue of understanding – some will see harmony and some will see dischord….i agree with the Apostle Maxwell who states that these accounts should be viewed with a “humble mind”

    Your kidding right? Their are years apart between the accounts, and not only years but was it One person, Two people or 3 people in these accounts, No humble mind just a I will believe what I want to believe attitude despite the evidence.

    Just as the Bible says, your heart is dark and your mind is closed because you want to have your ears tickled and you want to believe a lie.

    How is Isaiah 7:14 a failed Prophecy? Mary was the Virgin and Jesus was born. Am I missing something.
    Rick b

  40. Ralph says:

    Just a small interesting news article I think fits nicely in here from the Sydney Morning Herald.


    I will be keeping tabs on this site but I will be very busy over the next few months to about mid-March with writing grants for work. So if I don’t answer questions or respond to blogs I haven’t left, just busy.

  41. liv4jc says:

    Good to see you back, Sub. I see that you haven’t lost your Bart Ehrman/Dan Barker like fervency against the Bible, Christianity, and Christ Himself. Not only is Jesus not God Almighty, He’s also a false prophet!

    Since you quoted me above I’ll remind you that I don’t believe in free will because I take a Calvinistic approach to Christianity, although I think “Calvinism” is a misnomer because it is the clear teaching of scripture, not the teaching of John Calvin. I believe it is the only consistent theology when it comes to making Jesus’ death on the cross actually accomplish what Christ promised to do: Save His people from their sins. Every faith based on the propitiation of Christ limits the scope of Christ’s death. Your faith limits the power of Christ’s atonement by leaving man in charge of making a choice whether or not to accept it. This means that Christ death ultimately accomplished nothing for those that choose not to accept His payment on their behalf.

    I believe that Christ’s death was sufficient for all mankind, but efficient (in that it actually saves) only for those Christ actually died for: His elect. So I believe in the power of the atonement, but limit its scope. This is the clear teaching of scripture, which I have demonstrated with references before.

    As for your free will. The only freee will you have as a fallen man is which sin you choose to partake in. This does not limit your ability to perform morally “good” acts on occasion, but you are pre-disposed to sin, as even your good works are as filthy rags before God.

  42. mobaby says:

    Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for Micah’s testimony. God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures, truly is the voice of Jesus to us today. His sheep know His voice and follow Him. Simply reading the Bible (or hearing it preached) and allowing God to speak to us is how God reveals His truth to us. In many and various ways God spoke to His people of old by the prophets, but now in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son. (Hebrews 1 – 2) God has given us everything we need for salvation in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ – we will be with God eternally because of the finished sacrifice of Christ. If we reject the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement for salvation completely apart from any works of righteousness, we reject the gospel (the good news of redemption) and have no part in Christ. Micah understands true redemption. Micah has no need for worthless idols made in the image of man, worthless temple works and garments, worthless and sinful works of his own self-righteousness. He is baptized in the name of the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and has received the regeneration that comes by faith alone through grace alone. He believes and is saved. There is NO other name under heaven whereby we are saved other than the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing anyone has said here can contradict Micah’s simple testimony, for it is not really Micah’s testimony, but God’s testimony about Jesus great sacrifice for our sins. Praise God for this Baptist minister who took time to share Christ crucified for our sins with these young men and pointing them to the Scriptures. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Wow – how great is that?

  43. Enki says:

    Andy Watson,
    That is an interesting point, where did you hear that Benson went to McConkie for doctrinal advice?

    The part about gaining a personal relationship to Jesus, I never understood that. Why do christians go by words in a book then? Its recorded on paper or other media. Shouldn’t it be limited to something like ‘hey there is a god, why don’t you ask him about all your questions in life?’ and leave it at that. From that point on, couldn’t you just receive direct communications?

    I think what McConkie was stressing the idea of a ‘chain of command’ for unifying the LDS body. That idea sort of makes sense, up until someone above seeking answers from someone below, and not from god directly, as its supposed to be in theory. Why was there ever any apostles if people could directly have a relationship with god? Especially paul, who wrote so much after christ left earth? What was his purpose if people could just establish a relationship?

  44. Enki says:

    “…the gospel accounts and the epistles were written by different men from different vantage points. The same thing often occurs when investigating crimes.”

    Why compare these accounts to a crime? Isn’t that a little suspect? Couldn’t you just say different people often observe an event from a different point of view? This way it would be more neutral, and not compared to a crime.

    I found it so incredibly shocking as a mormon, reading the N.T. that christ would come as a ‘thief in the night’.
    1 Thessalonians 5:2-4, 2 Peter 3:10, Revelation 3:3, Revelation 16:15

    There is some explanation that this means suddenly, but its weird that it was compared to a crime in other passages.
    Matthew 24:43-44, Luke 12:39-40

  45. Mike R says:


    The title of the study mentioned in that article
    you mentioned reminded me of what Joseph Smith
    did, i.e. he created God in his(man’s) image.
    He jettisoned the long held Biblical belief in
    the uniqueness of Almighty God and reduced God
    to merely a more refined version of you and me
    [ Rom.1:21-23 ].

    On a personal note: I hope your work goes well
    and that you accomplish your goals.

  46. Ralph,

    I just quickly read the SMH article. Though I think the research is valuable, its conclusion is already self-evident; we project an image of ourselves onto our image of God. People have been doing this from the beginning, and this behaviour is well documented in the Bible (see Matt 25:24).

    What’s needed in this situation is not more speculation from us, but for God to appear among us and say, effectively, “here I am; this is what I am like”.

    The Christian response is John 1:18, of course,

    No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

    If you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus.

  47. liv4jc says:

    Enki, I was just illustrating a point based upon personal experience. I was in no way equating the gospel accounts to a crime. If I was a reporter I would have used the analogy of interviewing several eyewitnesses to an event, which is what the gospels are, in effect. Luke’s gospel especially was based upon interviews with eyewitnesses, as Luke was a convert, not a disciple.

  48. subgenius says:

    yes, you are missing something…he was not called “Immanuel”….you also missed any comment on the other “failed” prophecies.
    You should also “google” apostle maxwell’s statements on the first vision accounts and then read them. The LDS church has never denied, nor do i, that the many accounts of the first vision from JS, and others, can be troubling, however it is also not an issue without rational resolve and an even more spiritual resolve.

    i do not believe JC is a false prophet. Just applying the logic of some Ev to all the prophets in the Bible.
    i am confused by your statements…
    “choosing” which sin?
    “I’ll remind you that I don’t believe in free will”
    how can i make a “choice” if i have no “free-will”? why does the Ev only cherry-pick their doctine?
    …and for the record, i am not, nor have I ever been, against the correctly translated Bible.

    Deuteronomy 30:19
    Joshua 24:15

  49. liv4jc says:

    Sub, anyone who has to believe that they have power over God in choosing to save themselves has a low view of the sacrifice of Christ and His testimony in the Bible. That doesn’t mean that any Christian who believes in the doctrine of free will is not saved by God’s grace, since God did not choose to save us based upon our morality, good works, or theology. The clear teaching of Romans 8 and 9 and Ephesians 1 and 2 is that God chose His elect before the foundation of the world, not based upon works that he foresaw that we would do (either moral, legal, or faithful), but based upon His purposes and His will for His glory. Jesus’ teaching in John 6 is clear that it is God the Father who draws men to Jesus (God the Son) (John 6:44), it is the Spirit who gives life, human effort counts for nothing (John 6:63), Jesus knew who would believe in Him from the beginning (John 6:64-65), and Jesus chose His disciples, knowing which ones would believe and which would not (John 6:70-71).

    Before the foundation of the world God purposed in Himself a chain of events layed out in Romans 8:28-30: Those who are called according to His purpose are those He foreknew (not knew would accept Him, but “knew” intimately) and predestined that they would be conformed to the image of Christ (not if they work hard enough, but because He would work in them). Those he predestined He would call. Those he called would come to Him. Those who come to Him, He would justify. Those who He justified would be glorified. That is a chain of events that is predetermined by God that is not subject to your will over God’s. Unless you hear the word of God, as Micah did, and respond to it by the faith granted by God through His Holy Spirit, you will not come to God. This is for God’s purpose so that He is glorified, not for your purpose so you can be glorified by your intelligence, good works, or faithfulness.

    Vain and sinful mankind will always attempt to assert the power of their will over God’s will.

  50. liv4jc says:

    Sub, may I also ask why Smith’s church doesn’t use his translation, but continues to rely upon a version of the bible (KJV) that could have been a better reproduction of the original writings had the translators had a greater number of witnesses to work with, and a better unerstanding of the Greek language? The KJV is an accurate representation, but newer translations more accurately reflect some of the more subtle nuances of the Greek text and make note of textual variants contained in the “authorized version”. Please tell us which Bible is the “correctly translated” edition so we can know all that you know.

    Why haven’t your other prophets finished the translation that Smith began (rhetorical question)? Because they haven’t the slightest clue how to read and interpret the original languages nor do they trust the original manuscripts nor do they posses the capabilities to recieve “direct revelation” that Smith and Young so boldly proclaimed they had. They have become impotent stuffed suits that only impress their loyal followers. They are mere figureheads of a faith that is being destroyed from within by postmodern universalism. How about some boldness? Get on national television and proclaim to the world, “I am God’s living prophet! Hear the words of God and obey or be damned!” You know they have the money to accompish this. It’s better to lay low and be satisfied with the money pouring in by spiritual coercion from faithful members and their corporations than expose themselves for the frauds that they are. And they know it. If Smith had radio and television you can bet he would have been on spouting his greatness and stringing together biblical phrases out of context to make himself sound smart and spiritual. He’d finish it up with a hearty, “Thus saith the Lord! I bid you adieu!”

Leave a Reply