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. Rick B says:

    Sub said

    yes, you are missing something…he was not called “Immanuel”….you also missed any comment on the other “failed” prophecies.

    On the first Prophecy, I must have missed something because you never said that it was false because the name “Immanuel” was not their. I dont see how thats makes it a false prophecy.

    Then maybe Someone can do a topic on the Prophecy’s in the bible. I probally wont have time to go back and read the verses in context and reply to you.

    As I said before, I have been gone or have not had time to reply because I am back in college for 2 years. I am really busy between school, being married with 3 kids who are home schooled and work, plus church and life.

    I try and post where and when I can. But I am still busy and at this time I am getting a 4.0 GPA and it is my goal to graduate at the top of my class and maintain my 4.0 GPA.

    Which for me is very impressive for me since I was kicked out of 2 schools and dropped out of a 3rd and only have a GED. Rick b

  2. liv4jc says:

    Sub, unlike the BoM, the bible doesn’t use the name Jesus Christ (which if of late construction and does not belong in an ancient hebrew of “reformed Eqyptian” writing) in the OT. If you will look at Matthew 1:23 the NT writer says Jesus fulfilled the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy, as the name Immanuel means “God with us.” Incidentally the name Yoshua or Yehoshua or Yeshua, which anglicanized is Jesus, is from the construction of the Hebrew word for “salvation”. If you do a OT word study of the word you will find many instances where it could refer to the person of the savior, although it is generally not taken that way. This is exactly what the angel declares to Joseph in Matthew 1:21 when he tells him to name the child Yeshua, because He will save His people from their sins.

    On another note I read Thomas S. Monson’s biography. It seems that he was a very great businessman and publisher before becoming a prophet. Tell me, what theological training does he have, and how has he dedicated his life to spreading the teachings of Christ? In contrast, look at the biographies of two of my favorite Christian teachers, Dr. John Mcarthur and Dr. John Piper. You will see that their entire adult lives have been dedicated to the study of God’s word and teaching people about Christ.



  3. subgenius says:

    The LDS church has made several statements about the inspired translation, and yes, some of the translation has been canonized. Though an inspired work in progress may not be palatable for the typical EV, it is for the more spiritually discerned. Besides, the Ev, according to the chinese telephone debate, accepts all translations of the Bible.
    your other remarks are, needless to say, vitriolic, rhetorical, full of supposition and lack any resemblance to 1 Peter 3:15, so i assume no response is necessary (or rather, i choose not to respond)

    by the way how can you justify this statement
    “translations more accurately reflect”
    with what are you measuring accuracy? are the translators telling you that their translation is “more accurate” or do you have some insight you can share? just curious as to what you base that claim on.

    ?wha? …..and good luck with your studies.

  4. grindael says:

    You have the Judas story all wrong! smith & his followers were “revealed” the truth long ago (smith was gabbing with Peter, he did it all the time, really! (He also said Paul had a whiney voice). Peter told smith the TRUE story. What! You haven’t read it? It’s a real treat:
    In a manuscript written in 1839, Reed Peck said that Joseph Smith claimed he had a revelation in which Apostle Peter told him that he had killed Judas: “He [smith] talked of dissenters & cited us to the case of Judas, saying that Peter told him in a conversation a few days ago that he himself hung Judas for betraying Christ…” (The Reed Peck Manuscript, p.13).
    Although this doctrine was kept secret at first, when the smithians were settled in Utah they began to teach it openly. (Like tons of other stuff) On December 13, 1857, Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, preached in the Tabernacle that:
    “Judas lost that saving principle, & they took him & killed him. It is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out; but they actually KICKED HIM until his bowels came out…. Judas was like salt that had lost its saving principles – good for nothing but to be cast out & trodden under foot of men…. It is so with you, ye Elders of Israel, when you forfeit your covenants…. I know the day is right at hand when men will forfeit their Priesthood & turn against us & against the covenants they have made, & they will be destroyed as Judas was” (Journal of Discourses, vol.6, pp.125-26)
    I shudder at what might happen to me since I left the cult of smith… trembling in me boots…lucky the Danites are only a myth, or are they? Maybe I should request a firing squad to atone for my sin of apostasy before they get me. Perhaps one of the SLC Prophets can conjure Peter & ask him to clear this up? What? They don’t do that anymore? Dang shame. Beck & Fox News would love it.

  5. grindael says:

    I see your disdain for Paul and your inarticulate comments have not changed. I’m not going to go into how far off base you are in bringing up supposed failed prophecies of Isaiah and Jesus except to say that Isaiah was affirmed by God (Jesus) as was the cannon of OT Prophets, & as for Jesus… because you can’t understand Matthew 24 does not mean he ‘failed’ at prophecy. (And I bet you felt so ‘triumphant’ bringing up that passage) He did not ‘fail’ at anything. He is God. smith is a MAN who claimed to be a god here on earth to his cult. (they still sing hymns to him..Praise to the Man, man)

    You might as well be an atheist if you want to go down that road. The focus is on smith, not the Bible, because the Bible IS the word of God. Your tactics of trying to compare smith with any prophet in the Bible, or pick it apart are just a diversion to take the focus away from smith. How big of you to admit that smith had so many failed prophecies!

    I would have as much chance of making a true prophecy today by saying that “not many years shall pass before there is a war in Iran. It will probably arise over the nuclear issue. This a voice (in my head?) declared to me in the winter of 2009 while I was reading the New York Times.”

    Like any con artist, he put MANY things out there, & if some hit the mark (part of his Iran – oops! civil war “prophecy” for example, & there are reasons why it did), all the better for him, it made him look real. He’s about as authentic as Nostradamus & there are men out there still willing to believe the hocus-pocus of his quatrains & smith’s men in the moon mumbo-jumbo.

    Unfortunately, (for smith) history caught up with him & shows what an utter charlatan he was. All the prophecies the smithians put out there are questionable, because the smithians had & still have a habit of making things up & changing them.

  6. grindael says:

    “…What about all the many, many that came true…” …give me a break, will ya… he condemned William Miller(1844) & then did the same thing… 1890 came & went, came & went, came & went…

    smith came along & added to the Bible (I know, only interpretations), hence all of his speeches, diaries, prophecies, & supposed revelations are scrutinized, & to be authentic ALL of his prophecies should have come true because smith said that there was an apostasy, & HE was the chosen instrument to “restore” a gospel that Jesus said the gates of hell would never prevail against; & he said it with the authority of Jesus (God being his right hand man & all), adding he was accountable for ALL his words. (like this means anything to any of you).

    Heck he was having ‘revelations’ left and right, talking to God constantly, seeing him in the woods & temples and conversing with all those angels & other beings comin’ down and ordaining him, restoring keys, giving him temple death oaths, talking to Peter and Paul, gosh, with all that goin’ on it should have been easy for him to get them ALL right, shouldn’t it?

    And all of THEM, including Jesus, FAILED to hold a church together…only smith could do it; why he was better even than God…who came down & established his Church only to have it shrivel away….it took SMITH, MIGHTY JOE SMITH to restore it. Of course it is ALL OF HISTORY that has it all wrong… I forgot, smith was a GOD….& his relatives now rule the SLC church… which has swept the earth…

    If you can see harmony in the 1835 account in the Messenger & Advocate, then you must have your own stone & hat. Hey sub, are you ever tempted to try? c’mon, just between you & me…go down to a gravel pit, look for a choice stone, get an old hat…find out a few secrets? Strike it rich? Maybe then you could clear all this up for us…then again…Maybe not. I’m curious though, is the stone in the hat thing one of those EVERLASTING PRINCIPLES that never change?

  7. grindael says:

    Like garments? That revelation thing sure worked for him at Carthage…didn’t it? Must have forgot his stone..He sure forgot to wear those garments..

    Cowdery says smith was 17(1823)the FIRST time he prayed to know if there was a God, & if he was “ok” with Him. Yeah, I’m sure this “official” church publication had it all wrong.

    smith’s other versions are a mish-mash of different stories: in one account he went to a stump he left an axe in the day before to pray. In another Jesus had blue eyes & looked like he did when he was alive. In another he heard footsteps behind him & twirled about but no one was there… eeeeooooooooeeee mystery!

    What ACTUALLY happened is smith got tired of his ‘God is a spirit, Jesus is God come in the flesh, the HG is the mind of them both doctrine’ he preached up to the late 1830’s,(too boring, not enough WOMEN!) & invented the first vision fable to conform to & bolster his new ‘The Father & Son are immortal men (who have lots and lots of wives & so can I) doctrine with the HG being a Spirit Man.’

    It is another cult tactic to put a matter aside, (don’t worry about it, it is of no consequence,) & the GA’s of the cult of smith are experts at it. (that infallibility claim – must be that god-thing, perhaps they are practicing to be little gods?)

    Like Hinkley, you say these matters are of no consequence, (“don’t worry about these little flicks in history, they were only interpreting”, not COMMMANDED of God like the other First Presidency revealed; Hey! I’m the living prophet now and we’re past all that!)

    It is still the cult of smith pointing the finger at Christians, as they have been for 180 years.(how smith tried to turn that around!) smith made up his mind long before he supposedly “prayed” to God that there was an apostasy, (a Cambellite doctrine) and called all Christians “corrupt” way before the Christians of his time started defending themselves against him.
    Or did he? The accounts are so muddled…

  8. grindael says:

    Neal Maxwell thinks he is infallible,(along with the rest of the GA’s – they CAN’T lead you astray, can they, why they TOLD Y’ALL SO…) so of course you MUST believe anything he suggests. It shows the depth of smithian fanaticism to even consider any man or group of men infallible.

    The cult of smith cannot back up it’s claims, (one told me 15 years and smith’s cult will save the US – shades of white horses!) & you & millions more have fallen right in step with their indoctrination. Come back to Jesus before it’s too late.

    By the way there IS no brevity where smith is concerned…

  9. grindael says:


    Go here for the Bensen answer: http://www.mrm.org/topics/miscellaneous/bruce-mcconkie-respected-general-authority-or-theological-hack

    His belittlement of a personal relationsip with Christ is here: http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6843

    As to your observation on my post that Micah’s MP put Jesus last on the list, it is what they do & have done for years. Joe used Jesus. He was all gung-ho about creating a church in line with the Bible at the beginning; using S. Rigdon to get most of his ideas, but egotism & appetites for women & power took over, & he did a u-turn on The Lord. It’s all about smith, (the true god of mormonism)& the ‘faithful’ followers of Joe don’t question him, (How many statues of him do they have in their buildings? Not to mention shrines!).

    What you see is intelligent people reduced to defending foolishness. Joe had personal conversations with everyone in the bible, saw God on a regular basis, angels upon angels, & had the answer to everything. But if you read his writings & scrutinize his life, it is all just boasting and blather.

    Liv4jc sums up excellently what Joe’s cult has become:

    “ nor do they posses the capabilities to recieve “direct revelation” that Smith & Young so boldly proclaimed they had. They have become impotent stuffed suits that only impress their loyal followers. They are mere figureheads…How about some boldness? Get on national television & proclaim to the world, “I am God’s living prophet! Hear the words of God and obey or be damned!” … 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 & television you can bet he would have been on spouting his greatness… He’d finish it up with a hearty, “Thus saith the Lord! I bid you adieu!”

    For more info I would go to Bill Mckeever’s EXCELLENT site: http://www.mrm.org/

  10. setfree says:

    time for sub’s familiar “brevity” comment.

    grindael and others. I’m just so glad you guys are out here, willing to spend the time and effort to answer the questions that get brought up, and do so in such a thorough manner.

    I’m sure someone reading is benefiting from this. God bless you guys.

  11. Sigh. Micah was sooooooo cute when he was 8 years old.

    Thank you to all the contributors, this thread was very entertaining. Let me just say that in listening to Micah’s story many times, I agree that he didn’t seem to have the same conception of the doctrine of grace as it exists in the modern Mormon Church as I do.

    I add my kudos to iamse7en. I think it would be much more productive if you folks limited your bashing to one or two points as brought up by each post. Then they could be more thoroughly discussed and the arguments more easily followed. Also, I, for one, respond better to kindness and intelligence than ridicule.

    Just sayin.

  12. liv4jc says:

    Sub, I take issue with you claiming that my post was full of vitriol. That was not my intention. I am not the only one wondering why the smithian prophets have suddenly grown dumb. I honestly think with modern technology and the loads of cash the church has that the living prophet of God would create opportunities to proclaim all of the restored doctrines of Joseph Smith and beyond to the world. Hinkley didn’t do much proclaimin’ in his interviews, except when he went back and told the church not to worry about what he said on television.

    As far as my statement about modern translations more accurately reflecting the meaning of scripture, the answer is simple. Bible scholars have learned a lot about the Greek language since the early 1600’s because they have had access to both religious and secular writings that have taught them how to more accurately translate. Also, some modern translations have done away with misleading archaic phrases like “only begotten” translated from “monogenes” that caused men like JS and BY to proclaim that God had sex with Mary to “beget” Jesus. While “begotten” may have worked in the 17th and 18th centure, today it is understood to mean “offspring of”. Translated properly the word more closely means “only unique” and does not have a conotation of creation. The men who work with the ancient manuscripts have real academic training and can actually read and translate ancient Greek and Hebrew. They are not men looking at a rock in a hat or having visions while “translating” from an already translated English version of the Bible.

  13. Just saw Micah’s video – what a great testimony!

    What I liked about it was that Micah appears more concerned about how right Jesus is, than how wrong the LDS “church” is.

    I wonder how those other Mormons felt at his “zone conference” (is that the right term?) when he said that Jesus Christ is all you need. In particular, how would they have felt when Micah handed in his Temple Recommend, which he considered to be worthless?

    I’m also wondering about the “five pillars of Mormonism” – the central theme of the 2 hour sermon from the stake president. Has anyone else noticed the similarity with the “five pillars of Islam”, starting with “Joseph Smith/Muhammad is the true prophet of God”?

  14. subgenius says:

    “It shows the depth of smithian fanaticism to even consider any man or group of men infallible.”
    only the Ev here have the “man-must-be-perfect” standard for Mormons. As a whole, the LDS church seems to recognize that imperfect nature of men, not necessarily the wholesale sinful nature as promoted by some faiths, but the imperfect nature….especially when considering GAs, even the GAs are quick to admit this notion. The only people that seem to hold such a high qualifying standard for the GAs are non-members, and that is only when it is convenient for their arguments.

    Martin from Brisbane
    it is obvious that Micah has some confusion about Mormon doctrine. To assume that LDS doctrine does not believe in the saving Grace is just plain silly and to promote that idea is not only irresponsible but spiritually perverse.
    The 5 pillars?, please…whatever are you trying to imply with the Islam comparison? – clarify your point, if you are capable, please.

    everyone knows that the original manuscripts do not exist anymore. Everyone also knows that ancient translation were, in fact, heavily subject to interpretation. That being said, i am not discounting the validity of a Bible translation that is reasonable and correct. How do we discern this “correctness”?…obviously by the Spirit for me….what about you?

    your otherwise entertaining view on translations simply emphasizes the chinese telephone of modern “takes” on the Bible. But hey, use whatever version “suits” you best, right?…i recommend one with pictures.

  15. liv4jc says:

    Martin, Shawn Mcraney did a Heart of the Matter episode on 11/24/09 on the comparison of Mohammedanism and Smithism. You can watch it at http://www.hotm.tv

    Sub, how Peterlike of you to insult my intelligence. How did you know I was using an emanuensis to write my posts for me? How do you know your spiritual witness leads you to the right conclusion on scriptural meaning? The only proper way to interpret scripture is the grammatical-historical method, just like you would read any other non-fiction work. Without an understanding of the author’s intent you may miss his point entirely. We must first determine how the original recipient would have understood what was being conveyed, determine if it applies only to him or all Christians, and use the principles that apply to us to guide our lives and govern our theology. If we don’t do this (and this applies across the entire religious spectrum) then we make improper interpretation. Baptism for the dead is a good example of this. The information in that one short passage is too limited to create an entire doctrine, but apparently that doesn’t stop anyone from continuing the ritual, which is based upon the “revelation” and spiritual witness of one man. Smith took many liberties with the Bible as I pointed out above with the “only begotten” reference.

    There are still plenty of spiritual messages in the Bible without having to manufacture our own.

  16. grindael says:

    You said:
    “The only people that seem to hold such a high qualifying standard for the GAs are non-members, and that is only when it is convenient for their arguments.”
    Either you are totally naïve, or you haven’t researched very well. It just so happens that I have done my homework on this, so I would like to show you what your own leaders and fellow cult members have to say about this. What is so incredible about this infallibility doctrine, is that the leaders of the cult of smith are so confident in their own infallibility, that they tell members to follow them, even if they lead them astray. Their conclusion: Hey, the Lord will bless you for it!
    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.
    “God will do nothing regarding His work except through His own duly anointed prophets! They are His servants. They are the watchmen on the towers of Zion. They will give us the Lord’s word in no uncertain terms as God makes it known. That is why He has His prophets on earth. THEY ARE FOR THE EDIFICATION OF THE SAINTS AND TO PROTECT US FROM EVERY WIND OF DOCTRINE. LET US FOLLOW THEM AND AVOID BEING LED ASTRAY.”-Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “When Shall It Be?,” Church News, December 12, 1981, p. 16
    “I have NEVER preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” -Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 95

    Aware that the above statement made a stir, Young clarified it with this one:
    “I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind IN THIS PLACE, but IN THE COUNCILS OF THE NATIONS that Brigham Young has said “when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.” I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, AND IF YOU WANT TO READ REVELATION READ THE SAYINGS OF HIM WHO KNOWS THE MIND OF GOD, WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL COMMAND to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there.” -Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 261, October 6, 1870

  17. grindael says:

    So Brigham Young was the ‘Mouthpiece for God’ as this Ensign article affirms in 1983:

    “No man holds divine authority equal to or above the president of the Church. In his position he is pre-eminent! “Let us understand fully the clear identity of the president of the Church. He is the MOUTHPIECE OF GOD on earth for us today.”-“The Certain Sounds,” Church News, October 9, 1983, p. 24

    Do members believe this, that their leaders cannot lead them astray? Most certainly: (that is being infallible)

    “The idea that NOTHING NEGATIVE SHOULD BE SAID about past Church leaders was a natural consequence of the position that nothing negative should be said about present leaders. ‘Sustaining the authorities’ includes the idea, for Mormons, that one does not tear down, criticize, or OTHERWISE RESIST the decisions of the leadership.” -Davis Bitton, “Like the Tigers of Old,” Sunstone Review, September-October 1982, v. 7, p. 47, no. 5

    Here is an argument where they try to justify the infallibility doctrine. Since the prophet of the church has the FINAL word, then yes, HE IS INFALLIBLE:

    “That is, do we believe that Gordon B. Hinckley is final because he is infallible? Is he the last word, the final arbiter of church policy, because he has DIRECT ACCCESS to the mind of God, and with it the MANTLE OF INFALLIBILITY? And do we believe the same of the other members of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, and so forth? Prophets and Apostles are righteous, committed, intelligent people who have shown a knowledge of and dedication to the community — so why not let the buck stop with them? Under this approach, CHURCH LEADERS ACQUIRE INFALLIBILITY not by virtue of a special connection to divinity, but rather in the same manner as Supreme Court Justices. They are not final because they are infallible; rather, they are infallible because they are final. -Times and Seasons, May 17th, 2006.

  18. grindael says:

    This is exactly what Prophet Heber Grant said:

    “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he tells you to do something wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”-Prophet Heber J. Grant, as quoted by Apostle Marion G. Romney in “The Covenant of the Priesthood,” Ensign, July 1972, p. 98

    This caused quite a problem for some members, who were teaching doctrines that Brigham Young taught that the authorities of his time did not approve of. Bruce McConkie wrote to a member about this and what he had to say is quite enlightening. He actually tells this member that God ALLOWS FALSE DOCTRINE TO BE TAUGHT IN THE CHURCH BY THE “INFALLIBLE” PROPHETS but you should NOT BELIEVE IT. This is exactly the opposite of what Heber Grant said above:

    “This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. IF I LEAD THE CHURCH ASTRAY, that is my responsibility, but the fact still remains that I AM THE ONE APPOINTED WITH ALL THE REST INVOLVED TO DO SO…What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of WHICH BRIGHAM YOUNG WILL WE BELIEVE. …I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that HE PERMITS FALSE DOCTRINE TO BE TAUGHT in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. –Bruce R. McConkie, letter to Eugene England, 1981

  19. grindael says:

    If this is true, than why does the church need a prophet? To tell them that former prophets taught false doctrine? Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and Joe Smith and Spencer Kimball is contradicting Brigham Young, and so on and so on.

    This means that they can be wrong, but they cannot lead anyone astray. What kind of sense does this make? (we are NOT infallible, but we ARE infallible) This is the same nonsense told to the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh. (If you die by fire or kool-aid, hey it’s ok, the Lord will bless you for it)
    By McConkie’s logic all the members that believed in their prophet at the time (Brigham Young) are condemned! What happened to ‘God is not the author of confusion?” It goes right out the window with the cult of Smith. The final word?

    Nov 6,1994 – Apostle M. Russell Ballard tells 25,000 students at BYU that general authorities “We 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.

    They cannot lead anyone astray. So which is it? Are these just convenient standards used by non-mormons? Is this Shadow or Reality?

  20. Joheshua says:

    Martin, in answer to your question about how the other missionaries must have reacted to Micah’s testimony I am sure they all thought he had lost his damn mind. Or that he had fallen in to sin. Or that he was weak. Or lazy. Or gay. In fact when I was looking for this video on YouTube I inserted Micah’s name in the search and the first video that came up was a talk given by Bruce R. McConkie where he recounts the story of a return missionary leaving the church to become a Christian. His conclusion was (as was the conclusion of this man’s mission president) that he left because he was gay and had returned to his gay lifestyle. I’m sure he delivered this last bit of information from the pulpit with a smug smurk on his face. Someone out there is trying to insunuate that the same is true of Micah. Having served a mission and been at many a Zone Conference where these testimonies were given I can assure you that Micah’s message was lost on those attending.

    Sub–typical response when a former missionary/active member of the church has left.

    “it is obvious that Micah has some confusion about Mormon doctrine. To assume that LDS doctrine does not believe in the saving Grace is just plain silly and to promote that idea is not only irresponsible but spiritually perverse.”

    You’re kidding right? You must be. You cannot, with a straight face, argue that Mormon doctrine teaches saving Grace the way the Bible presents it. I’ve seen this belief ridiculed and lambasted by many a Mormon. I would argue that he absolutely DID understand Mormon doctrine. In fact, he probably understood it better than you. And that’s the reason he chose Christ over Joseph Smith.

  21. setfree says:

    Thanks for bringing that up (about how the church has handled ex-Mo’s to Christianity)
    It bears repeating that a missionary friend of mine, when he walked into his mission president’s office with the Tanners book on all the changes to Mormonism, and asked “What am I supposed to do with this?”, the authorities in charge marched him back to his place, made him pack up his things, and put him out in a remote place, and cut off his communications with his family and friends. Interesting, isn’t it?

  22. subgenius says:

    “The only proper way to interpret scripture is the grammatical-historical method…”
    so, please, explain the real meaning of the 8th commandment (7th if you are catholic).
    Leviticus 19:11 does not apply according to your method of understanding scripture. if we look at the “grammatical and historical” method then surely you must agree with the conclusion from applying Talmudical Hermeneutics (which is the fancy Hebrew method of what you describe above, that is unless you have a good argument against the applicability of the “historical” and “grammatical” relevance of the Hebrew language with regards to the Scriptures?).
    which is more likely “steal” or “kidnap”?
    remember the context of this decalogue and just as you mutate the meaning of “begotten” so has the meaning of “steal” been mutated…your Amanuensis serves you well.
    p.s. how do you determine which “translation” came from a reputable translator?

    for the sake of brevity, it has become clear that you are lacking in the understanding of what purpose a ‘living’ prophet serves. That being said, cherry picking from 1945 or 1892 or elsewhen is hardly a convincing argument against actual doctrine.
    so, you still believe, as commanded in the Bible, that you shall marry your brother’s wife upon his death? (even JC upheld this one)?….or is this false doctrine worthy of condemmnation?…..see liv4jc and the word “context”.
    p.s. your wholesale cut-and-paste skills are improving, but i am curious what you might actually think sometimes.

  23. grindael says:


    I’ve tried that with you (dialog). Your one or two sentence ‘refutations’ show that you cannot defend anything I ask of you. Along with the questions about obscure Bible events that mean nothing to the discussion.

    What you are not getting is that Joe came along and said ALL the religious sects in the world were wrong & that the Bible can’t be trusted (you do latch on to that one quite well). joe is the one who has to prove his credentials, not the prophets of the Bible. You belittle the quotes because you cannot defend them. I’ll keep on pasting bro.

    It is not cherry picking when Brigham Young taught Adam-God, McConkie admitted he did and said that he taught false doctrine. Then other GA’s say that the Prophet & 12 cannot lead the church astray. Then McConkie says that if you believe false doctrine (as taught by that prophet) you are damned. So all those who believed Young at the time were condemned. That is 2 2=4. With the kind of logic you have about smith & co., you would fit right in with the Davidians or the Peoples Temple.

    Then there is the blacks and the Priesthood. Young taught it, Hinckley said he interpreted it,
    while others still said it was a COMMANDMENT from GOD, and Kimball changed the practice after Young & others said that every white person had to have the gospel preached to them before that could happen. I understand one thing. These men ARE NOT PROPHETS.

    You said those comments did not hold GA’s to such a high standard, only those EV’s who used them out of convienence did. There’s plenty of them, I went from the 1800’s all the way to 1996. If you can’t see that, like I said before, get a stone and a hat.

    By the way, the Law of Moses ended with Christ (he fulfilled it).

  24. grindael says:


    Marriage to a brother’s wife (presumably divorced – as death annulled marriage) is singled out with a special penalty in Leviticus 20:21. This was what John Baptist reproved Herod for in Mark 6:17 and Matthew 14:4.

    The exception: The Levirate Law, from Latin levir, “a husband’s brother”, took precedence if a man died without issue. His brother was required to marry his wife and their firstborn would succeed in the former’s inheritance to preserve his family’s line in Israel. See Deuteronomy 25:5,6

    The Law of Moses is not in force amongst Christians but we are subject to the laws of the country we reside in. (that meant not practicing polygamy like joe did) However, the principles laid out in Leviticus are sound advice. The dangers of ‘inbreeding’ are well documented.

    The law of Christ, requiring us to love God and one another, should be sufficient to keep us from dishonouring one another in the sight of God in the way that Leviticus 18 prohibits.

  25. Mike R says:


    Your first post on this thread sure sums up
    the video of Micah Wilder and his experiances
    well.Micah has found in Jesus what LDS are
    longing for.

  26. liv4jc says:

    Sub, see grindael’s post. What’s it like to serve a god that can change all of the rules of salvation and morality whenever the prophet says so?

    Grindael, excellent posts as usual. I guess if you cut and paste something or copy it from the historical record it becomes untrue.

  27. jackg says:


    Have you ever exegeted the specific pericope in John that you use to bolster your claim that the salvation equation is more than faith in Jesus Christ? The focus of the passage is being born of the Spirit–not about an ordinance–and it points to Jesus Christ as the center of our salvation. I am quite comfortable in saying that you have eisegeted the text to accommodate your works-righteous theology. As for the act of baptism, it is the response of a saved soul–not the requirement to salvation. Again, Mormonism presents a backward theology. How can a human act be more efficacious than the Work of Jesus Christ on the cross? Think about it. It would be great if you would/could present an exegetical paper on John 3:1-21. You’ll find that context is vital. Are you up to it? When you say: “There’s no context, no cherry-picking. It’s plain and clear.” you, again, reveal that you do not understand the principles of biblical interpretation–which is common for Mormons. It’s not your fault. Your church does not promote scholarly study unless it’s tainted with JS fallacies. So, I pray for you because you have been deceived. But, the truth is the truth with regard to Mormons and biblical eisegesis.

    Mormons believe we can earn God’s grace through works, rather than our works being a response to God’s grace. Backward, backward, backward. It’s backward because the foundation for Mormonism is built on the heretical teachings of a false prophet.

    As for me misrepresenting what Mormonism teaches, that’s really a tired accusation that merely tells me you have nothing better with which to defend your position. The problem for you and other Mormons is that I know what is taught in all its ambiguity and double-speak (another thread, I know).

    Praying for you, iamse7en

  28. I really can’t stand when people say “Mormons do this or that; Mormons believe thus and so.” Some Mormons are deeply into scholarly study and some are not. Most Mormons I know put varying emphasis on works, with some believing they are very important, and others not at all. I’m always so surprised that you can allow members of an evangelical congregation to hold disparate beliefs, but not Mormons. If the important thing is to believe in Jesus, then why can’t you be satisfied that we DO believe in him, we trust in him for our salvation, and we love him? Why is there so much picking on Church leaders? There are imperfect Church leaders everywhere, you know.

  29. grindael says:


    No, it’s called ‘cherry-picking’. 🙂 I wonder who is really cherry-picking here? What is really going on is the smithians are cherry picking what to believe and NOT believe from their own ‘prophets’. They want to have it both ways: to believe in prophets, and that they are the ‘mouthpiece of God’, but only when it suits them.

    And of course the classic cult response: WE don’t understand the quotes, the doctrine, what ‘prophets’ are, or we are ‘bashing’ or ridiculing.

    Never mind how many years some of us spent ‘in the deep counsels’ of this cult, we obviously still ‘don’t get it’. If you use quotes, you are ‘cherry-picking’, and if you paraphrase, you have no evidence, it is your ‘opinion’.

    What I would love to do (I don’t live there so I can’t) is go to Temple Square with a camera, and ask passer-by’s if they believe the prophets could lead the church astray and then ask them if they knew McConkie called Brigham Young ‘a teacher of false doctrine WHO LED MANY ASTRAY WITH HIS ADAM-GOD DOCTRINE.’ AND THAT GOD ALLOWS IT TO BE DONE IN HIS CHURCH. What response would you get with that? Probably like sub’s: denial, followed by an attack on the one quoting their own sources.

    This quote from McConkie at the end of the letter to Mr. England sums up how very confusing it is on just WHO to believe:

    “Now you know that this does not mean that individuals should not do research and make discoveries and write articles. What it does mean is that what they write should be faith promoting and where doctrines are concerned, should be IN HARMONY with that which comes from THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH.”

    But wasn’t Young one of the ‘heads of the church?’ Ahhh, but he is not now the LIVING prophet. This is what sub was getting at about understanding what smithians think prophets are. But in the letter McConkie says this about Young:

    “he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us… (cont.)

  30. grindael says:

    “…If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us.”

    This is in direct contradiction to Russell Ballard’s affirmation that: “We will not lead you astray. WE CANNOT.”

    Is it any wonder that the archives of the church are closed? What has worked against them is the fact that in former days these teachings were accepted and promulgated, and now all those documents are out there, and SLC can’t get them back. I find the ‘out of context’ quote I hear from every mormon nauseating.

    Many here who post are hopelessly lost, and happy to be so. They are like the FAIR/FARMS group: great manipulators of the doctrines of the Bible and their own Church leaders to skew what was really taught.

    These apostles and prophets say they have a special connection with God. Proving that (in light of the evidence) is getting harder and harder for them & I won’t stop posting their doctrines.

    You have drug addiction by apostles, suppression of opinion (concerning doctrines taught by prophets that are out of harmony with what is now considered ‘mainstream’) Nepotism: Young ordained one son an apostle when he was twelve, support of prostitution & slavery, changing of ‘eternal’ ordinances and practices to suit the times, in-fighting, and many other things that show this is just a bunch of men without any kind of divine direction at all. Can it all be proved? Without a doubt. Will many mormons ignore the evidence? That is seen here in this forum everyday. They ridicule research and ‘posting their own doctrines’ because there is no defense to it. What they do is damn themselves for they are denigrating the God of this world, Jesus Christ by tearing down the Bible and trying to liken (perceived contradictions in it) to their own disorderly house. It is just a diversion, a tactic to justify what we all know, that smith was a FALSE PROPHET and they have been doing damage control for 180 years.

  31. grindael says:

    Bored in Vernal,
    Maybe you too should read and study your church history. Joe said: “I have the truth and I am at the defiance of the world to contradict me.” That is many years (24 – if you believe the first vision myth) after he called every mainstream Christian church an “Abomination” in the sight of the Lord, and every teacher or preacher in them “corrupt”.

    Now you have your own ‘prophets’ (like Hinkley) trying to cuddle up to mainstream Christianity & the press in an effort to ‘not appear too strange or different’ (while lying and denying) and you know what? We are not buying it.

  32. grindael says:

    Mike R,

    That is also my story, so I can relate. Fortunately for him, smith’s cult did not jade him on God for 20 years. I am continually amazed at the patience and long suffering of God, in my life and the lives of others.

    Yours in Christ,

  33. Mike R says:

    Bored in Vernal,

    You stated that your leaders are imperfect and
    that this should’nt be an issue. I agree.But is
    this really the point? It seems to me that we all
    have a mandate from scripture to evaluate any
    prophet’s or apostle’s claims and teachings. Is
    there a consequence to believing false doctrine?
    Does it really matter as long as we’re nice
    The question, for me anyway, is’nt that LDS
    leaders are imperfect men but are they reliable
    teachers of God’s word? What did Jesus mean by
    the word,”deceive”[Matt.24:11] What about Alma
    13:20 ? Are you aware that it was Joseph Smith
    who threw down the guantlet first when he said
    (supposedly from God) that all others believe
    falsely about God?
    You mentioned that LDS believe in and love Jesus.
    I don’t know your heart and I don’t know where
    exactly you are in your spiritual journey.The
    question I have though is why do LDS here say
    that that Micah Wilder is an “apostate” if he
    has complied with God’s will by coming to Jesus?

  34. jackg says:


    You said, “I’m always so surprised that you can allow members of an evangelical congregation to hold disparate beliefs…” This is not an accurate statement. Heresy is heresy regardless of who holds the heretical view. Please understand that theology is broken up into three categories: dogma, doctrine, and opinion. Dogma are those beliefs which a Christian needs to believe in order to be called a Christian, such as the Trinity for example. Since Mormons don’t hold to dogmatic Christian beliefs, they are not considered to be Christians. Doctrines are beliefs tied into a denomination, such as the doctrine of eternal security. Some Christians believe “once saved always saved” while others don’t totally buy into it. Such doctrines are NOT salvation issues like faith alone in Jesus Christ is, which destroys works-righteousness theology, a theology built on man’s power to play a role in his own salvation beyond responding to God’s grace. Opinion deals with things like baptism (this could also fall into the doctrine category). One group of Christians might preach that you need to get baptized, while others don’t. But, you will find agreement that baptism is an act of faith and a witness to our new walk with Jesus Christ–but in no way is efficacious.
    Speaking in tongues is also in the opinion category–whether one believes in speaking in tongues or not does NOT impact one’s salvation, because we are justified by faith.

    What Mormons teach definitely impacts one’s salvation. To believe in the teachings of JS is NOT to believe in the biblical Jesus.

  35. jackg says:


    You say you believe in Jesus, but you can’t believe in Jesus and at the same time hold heretical views about Him. “Whom do you say that I am?” is the critical question for all of us to answer for ourselves. I’m sorry, but the Mormon view of Jesus which includes Him being the brother of Satan does not display worshiping Him in truth. He is God, has always been God, and there was never a time when He wasn’t God. When you can say you believe this–without a convoluted attempt at double-speak that will include yourself and all other humans as always existing (believe me, I have heard this argument)–then you will no longer believe as a Mormon believes, but as a Christian believes. Then, you will be a follower of the Real Jesus Christ. And, that’s what it’s all about, Bored. Following the Real Jesus Christ, which begins in believing that He did everything that needs to be done in order for you to be saved. Nothing you could ever do could add to what Jesus did for you. You don’t have to work to earn salvation–just believe. Then, you will be free to do all the works that God prepared for you to do–the works of a saved soul that is Spirit-empowered to fulfill God’s plan for your life. I pray that you will be free of the backward theology peddled by JS and his leaders, and come to the truth regarding our LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ, who has always been God.


  36. Andrew says:

    Contact Adam's Road about their leader, Max Blanchard. Demand an explanation of his gifts and an example of how Max has demonstrated each gift. Once you have that, then come back and criticize Mormon beliefs.

Leave a Reply