Testimony of Micah Wilder

[Guest]

Micah Wilder became saved from a man-made religion and was importantly able to profess his SALVATION testimony inside a Mormon institution (in front of a high council) to fellow Mormons making his testimony both historic and profound. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose and yet GOD ministered to him, his family (His mother being a BYU professor and his father highly involved in the Mormon Church), and even his girlfriend became saved through Micah's testimony. Several other Mormon missionaries also left that organization and became Saved by Grace Christians because of Micah's Christian testimony that day. On account of their Christian profession of faith, they were all asked to leave the CJCLDS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D569x5TqtVk

I feel like this was a modern day version of Paul testifying in front of the religious Greeks at Mars Hill.

[_spotlight]

Christian Salvation Makes No Sense: The Muddle of Good Cop/Bad Cop Morality

I’ve often been asked why I am not a believer, particularly in light of the fact that I used to be one (a Christian one at that). Why, when I have plenty of nice things to say about believers, do I rarely have anything similarly nice to say about specific religious beliefs?

Why it is that, in addition to simply having no reason to believe, I no longer find Christian doctrines especially sensible or compelling in their own right? Well, let me spell it out!

Today my subject is the Christian concept of salvation.

Now, plenty has already been written on the pragmatically incoherent concept of someone “dying for your sins.” This idea is, I suspect, largely the product of the merging of several different theological and political needs felt by early Christians, done without serious concern about whether those needs were really philosophically compatible. But this particular controversy is a subject for another time, I think. My problem today is with a different aspect of the doctrine: the uncomfortable marriage between the supposedly irredeemable nature of humanity and the proffered solution of salvation.

For those unfamiliar, a basic tenet of most Christian evangelism is that no one is simply worthy of salvation by their mere existence; no one is without sin (the merest bit of which is, apparently, intolerable), and thus no one is deserving of any forgiveness from God for their failings or of a chance to share in the Christian paradise. Supposedly, human beings are so fallen, so vile, that Mr. Perfect cannot tolerate our continued existence for more than, oh, say 6000-7000 years, at best. After this, we must either simply cease to exist, endure eternal tortures, or receive whatever florid fate theologians decide is inevitable this week: certainly we cannot be allowed to simply share in any place where we could see our loved ones again. We cannot get better enough on our own (no matter how we try to be good) even though it is our responsibility to do so.

This claim is quickly followed up by the promise of a path to salvation: simply believe the correct ideology, and do your best to keep believing in it, and somehow now you’re now acceptable and forgiven, despite still being no less sinful than before.

The implication here is that we should be so amazed and thankful and full of praise that we got something we did not deserve. This emotional theater might have appeal inasmuch as it seems to match up with other human experiences (I didn’t deserve this bagel, but you bought one for me anyway: that’s so sweet of you!), but when presented as a moral philosophy, it’s flatly ridiculous.

If human beings are not morally worthy of whatever “salvation” is, then Jesus’s saving of humanity is simply not a praiseworthy action at all. Either it’s moral to save human beings, or it isn’t. Either God’s original anger at humans for failing to live up to impossibly inhuman demands (again, another topic for another time) is righteous, or Jesus’ scheme for salvation is, but it cannot be both. As much as theologians have tried to avoid this aspect of their story, the doctrine of salvation is morally schizophrenic to its core.

Either we are like a reckless child now drowning in a well who needs saving, or we are like a rapist that never gets caught by the police. Saving the former is moral, even if the child is “imperfect,” but helping the latter escape custody would be is abhorrent and wrong (or at least insofar as catching and jailing the rapist will actually do some good for the world, something neither the Christian visions of eternal torment nor even simple oblivion accomplish: again a matter for another time). Aiding and abetting a criminal so that they can outrun police is not considered an act of justice: so why would Jesus pardon of supposedly unredeemable people be a good thing? Why should anyone praise him for it? And if the proscribed punishment (either eternal torment or oblivion) is so unbelievably horrible that those that might suffer it deserve pity, then it is the punishment itself is what’s wrong.

It’s not my purpose here to argue that human beings really are irredeemable (in fact, I don’t see why the alleged perfect should ultimately be the enemy of the good, the acceptable, or even the depraved), but simply to insist that one cannot have it both ways. Supposed moral principles demand, above all else, consistency. The Christian story of salvation (and damnation, though not all believe in that half) provides none. Jehovah is vengeful to the point of insanity. Jesus, on the other hand, is essentially soft on crime. Likewise, we have the bizarre doctrine that humans are fundamentally incapable of being good… and yet it then turns out that they are capable of of it in what turns out to be the only thing that actually matters to Christian concepts of good and evil: whether people believe the correct things or not (something I’ve argued elsewhere is an inexcusably trivial matter and irrelevant on which to base ones treatment of others).

Of course, I’m not sure the doctrine is really supposed to make any sense. It has, after all, proven to be extremely effective simply as a form of emotional manipulation (both to evangelize new converts and to buttress existing faith). And it’s not hard to see why. The theology begins by attempting to inspire guilt: deep metaphysical guilt (how dare I even exist, detestable creature I!). And then, just when it’s created the requisite amount of misery and self-hatred, it follows it up with an offer of release and restitution. It’s a sort of dramatic roller-coaster: inspiring deep self-loathing in someone in order to win a grateful devotion to whomever proffers a solution. It’s the same psychological technique used everything from basic training to criminal interrogations: break someone’s will, and then build them back up again.

Again: makes for good stories. Or soldiers. But for someone seeking moral wisdom? A disaster.

https://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/03/1 ... -morality/

[_LittleNipper]

Christian Salvation Makes No Sense: The Muddle of Good Cop/Bad Cop Morality

I’ve often been asked why I am not a believer, particularly in light of the fact that I used to be one (a Christian one at that). Why, when I have plenty of nice things to say about believers, do I rarely have anything similarly nice to say about specific religious beliefs?

Why it is that, in addition to simply having no reason to believe, I no longer find Christian doctrines especially sensible or compelling in their own right? Well, let me spell it out!

Today my subject is the Christian concept of salvation.

Now, plenty has already been written on the pragmatically incoherent concept of someone “dying for your sins.” This idea is, I suspect, largely the product of the merging of several different theological and political needs felt by early Christians, done without serious concern about whether those needs were really philosophically compatible. But this particular controversy is a subject for another time, I think. My problem today is with a different aspect of the doctrine: the uncomfortable marriage between the supposedly irredeemable nature of humanity and the proffered solution of salvation.

For those unfamiliar, a basic tenet of most Christian evangelism is that no one is simply worthy of salvation by their mere existence; no one is without sin (the merest bit of which is, apparently, intolerable), and thus no one is deserving of any forgiveness from God for their failings or of a chance to share in the Christian paradise. Supposedly, human beings are so fallen, so vile, that Mr. Perfect cannot tolerate our continued existence for more than, oh, say 6000-7000 years, at best. After this, we must either simply cease to exist, endure eternal tortures, or receive whatever florid fate theologians decide is inevitable this week: certainly we cannot be allowed to simply share in any place where we could see our loved ones again. We cannot get better enough on our own (no matter how we try to be good) even though it is our responsibility to do so.

This claim is quickly followed up by the promise of a path to salvation: simply believe the correct ideology, and do your best to keep believing in it, and somehow now you’re now acceptable and forgiven, despite still being no less sinful than before.

The implication here is that we should be so amazed and thankful and full of praise that we got something we did not deserve. This emotional theater might have appeal inasmuch as it seems to match up with other human experiences (I didn’t deserve this bagel, but you bought one for me anyway: that’s so sweet of you!), but when presented as a moral philosophy, it’s flatly ridiculous.

If human beings are not morally worthy of whatever “salvation” is, then Jesus’s saving of humanity is simply not a praiseworthy action at all. Either it’s moral to save human beings, or it isn’t. Either God’s original anger at humans for failing to live up to impossibly inhuman demands (again, another topic for another time) is righteous, or Jesus’ scheme for salvation is, but it cannot be both. As much as theologians have tried to avoid this aspect of their story, the doctrine of salvation is morally schizophrenic to its core.

Either we are like a reckless child now drowning in a well who needs saving, or we are like a rapist that never gets caught by the police. Saving the former is moral, even if the child is “imperfect,” but helping the latter escape custody would be is abhorrent and wrong (or at least insofar as catching and jailing the rapist will actually do some good for the world, something neither the Christian visions of eternal torment nor even simple oblivion accomplish: again a matter for another time). Aiding and abetting a criminal so that they can outrun police is not considered an act of justice: so why would Jesus pardon of supposedly unredeemable people be a good thing? Why should anyone praise him for it? And if the proscribed punishment (either eternal torment or oblivion) is so unbelievably horrible that those that might suffer it deserve pity, then it is the punishment itself is what’s wrong.

It’s not my purpose here to argue that human beings really are irredeemable (in fact, I don’t see why the alleged perfect should ultimately be the enemy of the good, the acceptable, or even the depraved), but simply to insist that one cannot have it both ways. Supposed moral principles demand, above all else, consistency. The Christian story of salvation (and damnation, though not all believe in that half) provides none. Jehovah is vengeful to the point of insanity. Jesus, on the other hand, is essentially soft on crime. Likewise, we have the bizarre doctrine that humans are fundamentally incapable of being good… and yet it then turns out that they are capable of of it in what turns out to be the only thing that actually matters to Christian concepts of good and evil: whether people believe the correct things or not (something I’ve argued elsewhere is an inexcusably trivial matter and irrelevant on which to base ones treatment of others).

Of course, I’m not sure the doctrine is really supposed to make any sense. It has, after all, proven to be extremely effective simply as a form of emotional manipulation (both to evangelize new converts and to buttress existing faith). And it’s not hard to see why. The theology begins by attempting to inspire guilt: deep metaphysical guilt (how dare I even exist, detestable creature I!). And then, just when it’s created the requisite amount of misery and self-hatred, it follows it up with an offer of release and restitution. It’s a sort of dramatic roller-coaster: inspiring deep self-loathing in someone in order to win a grateful devotion to whomever proffers a solution. It’s the same psychological technique used everything from basic training to criminal interrogations: break someone’s will, and then build them back up again.

Again: makes for good stories. Or soldiers. But for someone seeking moral wisdom? A disaster.

https://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/03/1 ... -morality/

Somehow, the fact that you profess to have been an LDS doesn't surprise me. One isn't saved because one waves his hand or walks forward or jumps in a pool. One is saved when the Holy Spirit baptizes that individual and not just by performing some act. I can only pray that you are confused and searching. You should pray to GOD for an awakening and read the Bible completely and with much prayer for understanding --- which is exactly what Micah Wilder asked his parents to do.

[_Dr. Shades]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D569x5TqtVk

Dear LittleNipper,

Your post constitutes "link-and-run," a direct violation of Universal Rule #10. To avoid being a violator, always explain what's at the other end of the link, why it's important, and what you hope readers / viewers learn from it.

In this case, we can tell by the thread title that the link is to Micah Wilder's testimony. But to avoid link-and-run, we need to know A) who the Hell Micah Wilder is, B) what his testimony is in favor of--or against, and C) why his testimony is somehow more important or should be given any greater consideration than anyone else's.

Please edit the opening post to come into compliance.

[_huckelberry]

Again: makes for good stories. Or soldiers. But for someone seeking moral wisdom? A disaster.

https://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/03/1 ... -morality/

For moral wisdom doesnot anyone have to actually use their head and their heart? Holding a dogmatic formula isn't wisdom. Now I think it is possible to start finding a bit of wisdom if a person actually tries the thinking and living part.

This description of atonement I think is carefully plotted to avoid any such encroachment of thought and experience.

Spotlight , are those your sentences ? They sound a bit chick comix for a Mormon background.

[_LittleNipper]

Lynn Wilder gives her testimony as to how she became saved and forfeited being a professor a BYU --- All very profound and historic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIj-bN_rMK0

[_spotlight]

Again: makes for good stories. Or soldiers. But for someone seeking moral wisdom? A disaster.

https://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/03/1 ... -morality/

For moral wisdom doesnot anyone have to actually use their head and their heart? Holding a dogmatic formula isn't wisdom. Now I think it is possible to start finding a bit of wisdom if a person actually tries the thinking and living part.

This description of atonement I think is carefully plotted to avoid any such encroachment of thought and experience.

Spotlight , are those your sentences ? They sound a bit chick comix for a Mormon background.

It's the text found at the included link, written by a generic Christian, not me. Tit for tat to Nipper's link and run.

[_LittleNipper]

For moral wisdom doesnot anyone have to actually use their head and their heart? Holding a dogmatic formula isn't wisdom. Now I think it is possible to start finding a bit of wisdom if a person actually tries the thinking and living part.

This description of atonement I think is carefully plotted to avoid any such encroachment of thought and experience.

Spotlight , are those your sentences ? They sound a bit chick comix for a Mormon background.

It's the text found at the included link, written by a generic Christian, not me. Tit for tat to Nipper's link and run.

First off, this writer isn't a "generic" Christian. The fact is this man was another of some religion's failure. First off, he claims that the early Christians devised the need of a sacrifice. The fact is that even the Hebrews didn't devise this need. It started with Adam and Eve's sin. They proceeded to cover themselves with fig leaves. It was GOD who slew the animal and covered them with its hide and demonstrated the requirement of a sacrifice. When Cain slew Abel it was over the acceptance of Abel's sacrifice. GOD said that Abel's blood screams from the ground when Cain murdered Abel. The entire Universe is said to groan because of man's sin. I have a suspicion that this individual is trying his best to find an excuse for his own personal demons. This is what atheists attempt to do. They seem to think that if they explain away GOD that they will be somehow free of their evil because evil is only rational if there is a GOD. Otherwise, it becomes simply the survival of the fittest followed by an endless sleep...

[_spotlight]

First off, this writer isn't a "generic" Christian. The fact is this man was another of some religion's failure. First off, he claims that the early Christians devised the need of a sacrifice. The fact is that even the Hebrews didn't devise this need. It started with Adam and Eve's sin. They proceeded to cover themselves with fig leaves. It was GOD who slew the animal and covered them with its hide and demonstrated the requirement of a sacrifice. When Cain slew Abel it was over the acceptance of Abel's sacrifice. GOD said that Abel's blood screams from the ground when Cain murdered Abel. The entire Universe is said to groan because of man's sin. I have a suspicion that this individual is trying his best to find an excuse for his own personal demons. This is what atheists attempt to do. They seem to think that if they explain away GOD that they will be somehow free of their evil because evil is only rational if there is a GOD. Otherwise, it becomes simply the survival of the fittest followed by an endless sleep...

First off, this person's testimony that you linked to wasn't really a true Mormon.
See how that goes?

Yes it's clear that Christians have a story about others that they tell themselves. "You atheists are not good. I'm not good either but hey I accept Jesus." So no real difference between the two with the exception that one believes in nonsense that is contradicted by just about every fact we've managed to uncover as a species. Wow what a great person you are. You denigrate the lives of others and see evil in everything and declare yourself better not because you are any better yourself but because you can make yourself believe in nonsense by remaining in ignorance. Call me unimpressed.

We have the concept of goodness as a species. It exists apart from the invention of gods, spirits, and afterlives. The fact that you invent a god as an explanation for that quality does not make it dependent upon your imaginary magical being. If goodness depended upon a god we could not recognize it. The fact that we recognize it means that it is inherent in our nature. We are good. We define it. We invented it because we are social animals.

The survival of the fittest? Fittest simply means that which does a better job of replicating itself. It has no reference to being physically stronger than another. A religious family that has 12 children is an example of survival of the fittest at least until there are no more fish in the oceans.

[_LittleNipper]

First off, this writer isn't a "generic" Christian. The fact is this man was another of some religion's failure. First off, he claims that the early Christians devised the need of a sacrifice. The fact is that even the Hebrews didn't devise this need. It started with Adam and Eve's sin. They proceeded to cover themselves with fig leaves. It was GOD who slew the animal and covered them with its hide and demonstrated the requirement of a sacrifice. When Cain slew Abel it was over the acceptance of Abel's sacrifice. GOD said that Abel's blood screams from the ground when Cain murdered Abel. The entire Universe is said to groan because of man's sin. I have a suspicion that this individual is trying his best to find an excuse for his own personal demons. This is what atheists attempt to do. They seem to think that if they explain away GOD that they will be somehow free of their evil because evil is only rational if there is a GOD. Otherwise, it becomes simply the survival of the fittest followed by an endless sleep...

First off, this person's testimony that you linked to wasn't really a true Mormon.
See how that goes?

Yes it's clear that Christians have a story about others that they tell themselves. "You atheists are not good. I'm not good either but hey I accept Jesus." So no real difference between the two with the exception that one believes in nonsense that is contradicted by just about every fact we've managed to uncover as a species. Wow what a great person you are. You denigrate the lives of others and see evil in everything and declare yourself better not because you are any better yourself but because you can make yourself believe in nonsense by remaining in ignorance. Call me unimpressed.

We have the concept of goodness as a species. It exists apart from the invention of gods, spirits, and afterlives. The fact that you invent a god as an explanation for that quality does not make it dependent upon your imaginary magical being. If goodness depended upon a god we could not recognize it. The fact that we recognize it means that it is inherent in our nature. We are good. We define it. We invented it because we are social animals.

The survival of the fittest? Fittest simply means that which does a better job of replicating itself. It has no reference to being physically stronger than another. A religious family that has 12 children is an example of survival of the fittest at least until there are no more fish in the oceans.

Micah was a true Mormon. And you are trying to ride both sides of a fence you yourself seems to be trying to pull down. I could say that you were never a "real" christian, but that is something between you and the LORD.