Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[Jea9]

There is no form. You might want to read this:

home.teleport.com/~packham/leaving.htm

You can resign from the Mormon Church, but it’s not easy. I sent registered letters to the Church Membership dept., the stake president and the Bishop.

Thanks for the link! I had seen that it was very difficult and wasn’t contacted by anyone for a couple years so I thought that my local ward had just quietly counted me out. Until I got this phone call. I didn’t thinkt here was a form until the woman made the suggestion that they could send me the form. And in the next breath said, “or we could keep you on the list and you just receive a letter or newsletter every once in a while”. I told her that I wanted them to send me the form, and she said she would do so. Shocker, that they aren’t keeping to their word…

 

[why_me]

I know of several. The Bishop was acting on orders from the Stake President.

Well, let me put it this way. Here I am a non-practicing catholic and I decide to join the mormon church. Now some stake president wants me to resign from the catholic church before I am allowed to become a mormon. Now where do I go to resign? To the parish that I never attended church? Do they give me a paper saying that I have resigned my membership in the catholic church? Is there any proof that I am a catholic?

I see tons of impracticalities and this is why I have a hard time believing you. And what if I were a non-practicing luthern? How do I resign from the luthern church and do I need proof of resignation to be baptized into the lds church? I don’t think so. The wait for proof of resignation may take weeks or months. And why would the luthern church write me a letter saying that I have resigned so that I could join the mormons? Sorry, it just doesn’t make sense to me. No one that I have known that was baptised in the lds faith had to present papers of proof of resignation before they were baptized or after they were baptized…

 

[why_me]

There is no form. You might want to read this:

home.teleport.com/~packham/leaving.htm

You can resign from the Mormon Church, but it’s not easy. I sent registered letters to the Church Membership dept., the stake president and the Bishop.

It is pretty easy. A person just needs to inform his or her bishop and send an official letter to salt lake. The rest is history. Now of course if one just sends a letter to salt lake, the ward bishop will contact the person to make sure that they actually wrote the letter. And once confirmed, salt lake sends the person a letter stating that they have resigned from the lds faith. No problem at all.

 

[why_me]

First, there is no Jewish temple anymore because it was destroyed

Actually, certain jewish sects refer to the synagog as a temple.

 

[why_me]

When I left the Mormon church I wasn’t excommunicated either. I was told something along the lines of “you can’t get rid of us, once you’re Mormon we have you”. In fact I was just recently contacted by the woman who had me on her visiting teaching list. I told her to send me the form to have me formally removed from the list, and I still haven’t received it.

Really, that is what they said? I have never heard of such a thing. I tend to doubt the wording of your post. Sounds like a compound cult to me. And who said this to you? A member? I have been inactive from the mormon church for years and no one has ever told me that I can never leave because once I am mormon, they have me. Have me for what?

If you wish to resign, you need to write a letter to the bishop and to salt lake. The rest will take care of itself. It is not the job of your visiting teacher to do it for you. You must do it yourself. Good luck!

 

[Jea9]

Really, that is what they said? I have never heard of such a thing. I tend to doubt the wording of your post. Sounds like a compound cult to me. And who said this to you? A member? I have been inactive from the mormon church for years and no one has ever told me that I can never leave because once I am mormon, they have me. Have me for what?

If you wish to resign, you need to write a letter to the bishop and to salt lake. The rest will take care of itself. It is not the job of your visiting teacher to do it for you. You must do it yourself. Good luck!

Yes, this is what they said. It was a member, and I agree, it DOES sound like a cult. My wording is correct, and I’m so tired of Mormons on this board (and people like you, why me, who seem to just be sympathizers ) insinuating I am, or flat out calling me a liar because they have never heard this before. That is one of the worst things about the LDS, there is so little that is strict, across the board, the same from ward to ward, stake to stake. I worked in an office where there were 4 other members, they were who brought me into the church. He was probably hoping that I would think it was funny, but it came off as creepy. Like most of what he told me.

I had/ a difficult dynamic in the ward that is in my town, it would be hard to explain, but that is why I did not choose to send a letter to the bishop. I never thought it was the job of my visiting teacher, SHE told ME that she could send a form to me.

BTW, the Jewish sects can call a synagogue a temple all they want, but it is clear that they don’t regard it in the same sense as the Temple was in Christ’s time. I say it is clear because they are not performing regular sacrifices, or other important OT ordinances. And since you were likening what is important in a Mormon temple ordinance to that of the Jewish ordinances, I thought it prudent to point out that they do not hold to the temple ordinances anymore.

 

[why_me]

Yes, this is what they said. It was a member, and I agree, it DOES sound like a cult. My wording is correct, and I’m so tired of Mormons on this board (and people like you, why me, who seem to just be sympathizers ) insinuating I am, or flat out calling me a liar because they have never heard this before. That is one of the worst things about the LDS, there is so little that is strict, across the board, the same from ward to ward, stake to stake. I worked in an office where there were 4 other members, they were who brought me into the church. He was probably hoping that I would think it was funny, but it came off as creepy. Like most of what he told me.

I had/ a difficult dynamic in the ward that is in my town, it would be hard to explain, but that is why I did not choose to send a letter to the bishop. I never thought it was the job of my visiting teacher, SHE told ME that she could send a form to me.

.

I would agree. But people are not perfect. She made or he made a mistake in saying what he or she said. It is not a mormon thing but a people thing. People act in ignorance at times and it is across the board. For example, in my parishes coffee hour, a catholic said something that could be considered racist to an african american and this person got offended. Now all is well because both people know eachother. But things said in ignorance happens all the time. It is a people thing.

Send the registered letter and request his signature from the post office so that you know that he received it. He will then contact you and send a letter to salt lake. Or contact the visiting teacher and renew your request and explain why. All will be well.

 

[LittleDeb]

WOW!! This has to be one of the MOST extreme thread hijacks in the history of CAF!!

As someone who lives in the same diocese as Mr. Fadness, though I do not know him personally, and someone who listened to the entire show LIVE, I would like to comment on the OT!! (That abbreviation means the **original topic.)

Gene’s interview was quite nice. Being that I am a cradle Catholic and grew up entirely surrounded by LDS influence, I was unsure that he would have any new information that could apply to me.

I was pleasantly surprised. He did. He gave his most profound reason for his conversion: he had started asking more and more, “Who is Jesus?” I had always known that I shared a completely different understanding of the very nature of Jesus, than my LDS friends held. But in all of my discussions with them, we just never “went there” that often. It was always about our differing doctrines instead. Gene shared that it was through a deep love for Christ that made him want to know Him more deeply, in His true nature. I found that to be very important information.

As to the topics that came up in the hijack, Gene touched very briefly on the temple and the topic of sacred garments. As a never-LDS who does my best to show respect, I found his treatment of the topic as respectful as possible given the circumstances. It was a ‘call-in’ type show where he had no idea what was going to be asked and no time to reference LDS documents. He did a good job while flying by the seat of his pants.

And actually, I found his treatment of the LDS garment to be fairly good. I can’t remember the entire context, but it basically came down to: if you believe these things are true, then the natural progression would be to embrace these certain teachings.

There is one thing that he slightly chuckled over. He is currently studying for the Diaconate. He found it interesting that he is going to hold a title of Deacon in the Catholic Church after having held the ‘title’ as a 12 year old boy in the LDS church. The contrast, to him, was stark.

On a personal note, I found him harder to listen to than to read his work in the Idaho Catholic Register. He still has some of the timbre, and lilt in his voice that most people in my area associate with LDS men. It was a bit disconcerting hearing Catholic teaching coming out. For those who are not from predominately LDS areas, try to hear, in your head, if a Southern Baptist minister were to suddenly, reverently speak on Transubstantiation. Not the same accent, but it was a little odd to hear.

Overall, he was an excellent guest on Catholic Answers Live. I think he was very respectful of his former faith.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Chances are, he also wouldn’t know who told him. Confessions can be anonymous. If someone was confessing to murder, chances are they would choose that option.

And again, I see a big difference between a secret between two people and a secret between EVERYONE in the religion. Especially if that secret is also kept from people considering joining the religion.

Mary:

You touched on the very serious issue of keeping secrets from people considering joining the LDS Church.

This happened to me and I have written about this a number of times on different threads. I was a member of the LDS Church for a short period of time—until I learned some of the secrets–then I couldn’t leave fast enough.

In all the lessons from the Mormon Bishop and the Mormon Missionaries, I was never told that Brigham Young taught that Adam is god.

I was never told that god was not from all eternity.

I was never told that god is an exalted man.

I was never told that god has a wife and lives on (or near) a star called Kolob.

I was never told that Mormons can become gods. There was a passing reference to "exaltation–but I had no idea this meant men become gods.

I was never told that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity. I was told again and again, that Mormonism is Christianity.

I was never told that the Messiah was a polygamist.

I was never told that God the Father and the Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, were associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife.

I was never told that the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of god the father, and god gave her to Joseph to be his wife while in the mortal state.

I was never told that Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation.

I was never told that the Apostle John never died and still walks the earth today.

The day before my baptism into the Mormon Church, a family member called me and told me about the Mormon belief that God has a wife and lives on another planet (kolob,) and men can become gods. I was so shocked; because none of this was discussed in the lessons-except a passing mention of exaltation-with no clear explanation.

So, I called the Bishop’s house and spoke to one of his daughters. I asked if these beliefs were true, and she admitted that they were. I was really shaken, but I did proceed with baptism (hard to imagine that I actually went through with the baptism.) After the baptism, things became very strange. Every time I tried to read the Book of Mormon, I would feel ill–as if I were in a place of darkness.

Then a friend came to visit, unexpectedly. She told me, years ago, she found one of Joseph Smith’s early books; and that Smith actually wrote that he believed Adam was god.

I did find Joseph Smith’s teaching that Adam is "MICHAEL, the Archangel, and the ANCIENT OF DAYS.

I also, found Brigham Young’s teaching, in the JD Volume 1:50-51, April 9, 1852:

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken–HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. . . .

(Emphasis is mine.)

I was never told that even though I resigned from the Mormon Church, there is still the possibility that they will perform proxy Temple rites on me after I die.

So, I would say there are many, many secrets kept from potential converts to Mormonism–to a degree that is beyond disturbing.

If all these things are concealed from potential converts, I really can’t imagine what goes on in the secret rites of the Mormon Temple.

Anna

 

[why_me]

Mary:

You touched on the very serious issue of keeping secrets from people considering joining the LDS Church.

This happened to me and I have written about this a number of times on different threads. I was a member of the LDS Church for a short period of time—until I learned some of the secrets–then I couldn’t leave fast enough.

In all the lessons from the Mormon Bishop and the Mormon Missionaries, I was never told that Brigham Young taught that Adam is god.

So, I would say there are many, many secrets kept from potential converts to Mormonism–to a degree that is beyond disturbing.

If all these things are concealed from potential converts, I really can’t imagine what goes on in the secret rites of the Mormon Temple.

Anna

I would not call them secrets since the Journal of Discourses are published by the lds church and many members have them in their own home libraries. However here is an explanation about adam-god:

en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God

eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

lightplanet.com/response/answers/isgodadam.htm

Mormons who were around in 1976 heard the then mormon leader spencer w. kimball denounce the adam god theory in general conference. Nothing was secret. Now what should be taught to portential converts is the question. But nothing is secret. Everything is published by the lds church.

 

[why_me]

Mary:

I did find Joseph Smith’s teaching that Adam is "MICHAEL, the Archangel, and the ANCIENT OF DAYS.

Anna

Here is an Ensign article about adam and Michael written in 1994:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=52ad425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Where is the secret? Now should it be taught to potential converts? Maybe. But it is not a secret.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I would not call them secrets since the Journal of Discourses are published by the lds church and many members have them in their own home libraries. However here is an explanation about adam-god:

en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God

eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

lightplanet.com/response/answers/isgodadam.htm

Mormons who were around in 1976 heard the then mormon leader spencer w. kimball denounce the adam god theory in general conference. Nothing was secret. Now what should be taught to portential converts is the question. But nothing is secret. Everything is published by the lds church.

why me:

I understand that these things can be found online. I agree with your statementt, “Now what should be taught to potential converts is the question.” I felt so deceived by the Mormon Bishop and Missionaries for failing to mention such startling contradictions to traditional Christianity, during my “lessons.”

I am also aware that currently, the LDS Church denies the Adam/God doctrine; and refers to is as “Theory.” That doesn’t exactly help the credibility of Mormon Prophets, who supposedly receive revelation from God. Isn’t that where true Prophets receive their revelations–from God?

If Brigham Young, the 2nd Prophet of the Mormon Church, could teach that Adam is God, throughout his service as Prophet and President; how can the Mormon Church claim the Adam/God doctrine was never taught? Brigham Young claimed that this was revealed to him by God and also by talking with Joseph Smith. Did any Mormon attempt to impeach Brigham Young? Or did most blindly follow him?

Remember, in the Old Testament writings, the proof of a true prophet is that all prophesies or revelations must be true. This was so serious, that a false prophet was to be put to death. I am not advocating the execution of false prophets, Mormon or otherwise. I am simply stating how serious it is to claim to be a Prophet of God. There is no margin for error. If you claim a revelation is from God, and it is not true, then you are a false prophet.

Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder and 1st Prophet, made many failed prophecies, that are very easy to disprove. But that is a subject for another thread.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Here is an Ensign article about adam and Michael written in 1994:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=52ad425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Where is the secret? Now should it be taught to potential converts? Maybe. But it is not a secret.

why me:

I did scan this article: Robert L. Millet, “The Man Adam,” Ensign, Jan 1994, 8, at the link you provided above.

Though Brigham Young’s claim that Adam is god, is absent; the ideas in this article are far from traditional Christianity. Adam is elevated to a position not found in traditional Christianity.

Latter-day Saints know our noble mortal patriarch as the great archangel, Michael, who not only helped create the earth but will yet lead the Lord’s armies in casting out Satan and his followers.

Few persons in all eternity have been more directly involved in the plan of salvation—the creation, the fall, and the ultimate redemption of the children of God—than the man Adam. His ministry among the sons and daughters of earth stretches from the distant past of premortality to the distant future of resurrection, judgment, and beyond.

As Michael, the archangel, Adam led the forces of God against the armies of Lucifer in the War in Heaven. Under the direction of Elohim and Jehovah, he assisted in the creation of the earth.

After taking physical bodies, Adam and Eve brought mortality into being through partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. With the fall of our first parents came blood and posterity and probation and death, as well as the need for redemption through a Savior, a “last Adam.” (1 Cor. 15:45.)

To Adam the gospel was first preached, and upon him the priesthood was first bestowed. From Adam and Eve the message of the gospel of salvation went forth to all the world. Following his death, which occurred almost a millennium after he entered mortality, Adam’s watch-care over his posterity continued. Revelations have come and angels have ministered under his direction. Priesthood has been conferred and keys delivered at his behest.

The LDS Church of today has made many changes to the “revelations” of its early prophets. That does little to help the credibility of Mormon Prophets. One Prophet overrules an earlier prophet.

It is always important to explore the beginning of a religion. What did the early founders believe? It is this idea that has caused me to question so much in Protestantism. I’m not a fan of Calvin or Luther, so where does that leave me?

I grew up in Southern Baptist Churches. My one brief membership in the Mormon Church left me distrustful of organized religion, and brokenhearted by the deception of my Mormon friends. The deception and the subsequent harassment that ensued, after I resigned from the Mormon Church, left me scarred in a way that I cannot quite explain.

I continue to search for God’s truth. I respect the Catholic faith, yet I am not at a point of embracing Catholicism. The Mormon experience left a stain on my heart, that I have not been able to fully remove.

So, I pray and study; and pray and study.
Anna

 

[Chris-WA]

Only to you, because you do not respect, or agree with, those religious ceremonies or rituals, and actually have contempt for them. The fact is, though, that it doesn’t matter WHAT the promise is made about; it’s a promise made to God.
It IS, however, sacred–as is the promise we make to respect what happens in the Temple just as you respect what happens in the confessional. I would not respect a priest who broke his promise about confidances recieved in Confession, and YOU should not respect any Mormon (or ex-Mormon) who discusses the Temple ceremony outside Temple walls. Both things represent a very serious breach of a promise one makes to God.

…and it doesn’t matter that you have nothing but contempt for what we promise. WE consider this promise to be every inch as binding as that of the confessional, and any Mormon who has made that promise knows this. Therefore, any person who willfully breaks it knows exactly what he or she is doing; and is dishonorable.

…back to the object of MY question; I have absolutely no idea whether Mr Fadness has done so. I simply ask if he has, because if he has, I would be breaking MY promise to read his stuff. If he has not, I would be interested in what he had to say.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

That is not the point. What dianaiad tries to explain in vain is that this guy has probably talked about something while under a sacred oath not to do that. It is exactly the same thing as talking about contents of someone’s confession. Someone who does that breaks an oath not to reveil certain things from a religious context.
This inability (or unwillingness) to abstract one’s own rituals, habits, beliefs, ceremonies and see the similarities in other religions is really remarkable.

And that is my point. He did NOT state anything at all about what happens in the LDS temple during the show. No specifics. Not even generalities.

 

[maryjk]

The promise is sacred. What we experience when we attend the Temple is sacred to us. We made the promises. In all honor, we keep them.

You have not promised. Until you do promise, there is no problem with you discussing Temple matters, or looking the script up, or checking out the Congressional Record, or whatever. There IS a problem if I do.

I think that’s simple enough.

Okay, let’s say there is a new religion, called “Jones.” As part of this new religion, you promise to pray in secret to the religion’s 3 Gods. Pray to them everyday.

Later you realize that there is One True Church and One God. You leave the Jones religion.

Does that mean you should still pray to Jones’ three gods? Does that mean you shouldn’t warn others that the Jones religion asks you to pray to fake gods?

This is what is happening with Gene Fadness. He has left what he sees as a false religion. And he is trying to save others from falling for their “secrets.” And I see it as simple as that.

I am quoting this again, dianaiad, thinking maybe it got lost in other posts.

I would love for you to respond to this.

 

[dianaiad]

A Catholic is not in danger of sinning if he or she slips during Lent and partakes of whatever he or she gave up.

then why bother?

I think the point that’s being made is that there shouldn’t be such secrets regarding your faith, especially among your own members.

What part of “it’s not secret, it’s in the (W#&%(^% CONGRESSIONAL RECORD AND WE PUT IT THERE” isn’t registering?

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad;5863029:

Oh give me a break. There is nothing dishonorable about ex-Mormons openly discussing the temple ceremonies.[/qoute}

I see…so because YOU don’t see it as dishonorable, I CAN’T?

Sorry, doesn’t work like that. They have the absolute right to discuss anything they please, and say what they wish. I don’t have to believe that they are honorable when they break a promise that they made to God because YOU don’t like the promise they made.
Chris-WA;5884365:

Don’t demonize them for doing what they believe to be the right thing. LDS may not like it, but if one comes to believe that the sacred promises made in the temple were a sham, then that person is no longer obligated to keep those promisses, no matter whom they were made to (even God). To that person, those promisses are false promisses made in vain and you cannot reasonably expect anyone to keep them.

Yes, I can. I can expect that because whether they were made in a complete understanding of truth or not, they WERE made to God. You realize, don’t you, that your argument regarding Mormons not being obligated to keep that promise is JUST as applicable to a former priest not being obligated to keep his promise concerning the confessional, right?

Same/ same, whether YOU want to think so or not; both are promises made to God. I expect priests to keep theirs no matter what happens to their faith after the fact. I expect Mormons to keep theirs, too. Just because you do not believe that the two are equivalent (because of course, you don’t think that the Mormons were making valid promises while the priests are…) doesn’t mean that they are not. I hold my promises in this matter to be as sacred as anything a Catholic priest or nun vows. YOU do not get to decide the level of responsibility anybody else has to keep their promises.

[There is a difference, though, between divulging the secret ceremonies of an institution and divulging the secrets of another individual’s life, as in the case of confession.

Only in content, not as far as the vow/promise/covenant is concerned. The important thing is the promise. I promised God not to do this. A Priest promises God not to do that…the promise remains.

An individual has the right to expect confidentiality of confession, an institution does not

Except…(sigh) we do NOT expect secrecy. What part of WE PUT THE SCRIPT IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD seems to have escaped your attention? If you are talking ‘secret’ vs. ‘sacred,’ try what the Scientologists pull when some of their books and secrets are published. They sue. They threaten. They do many things in order to keep their stuff SECRET…things we do not do. We have never sued to keep the Temple script from being published. How can we, when WE made it a part of the public record?

. Now if an ex-Catholic priest believes his vows were false in the first place, then by his own conscience I cannot expect him to keep those vows if he now believes them to be false vows. Why an ex-priest would then want to go divulging other people’s confessions I couldn’t possibly fathom. This is far different from an ex-Mormon who believes the temple is a sham and in good conscience wants to educate others on the false beliefs associated with it.

There we differ. A priest who breaks THAT particular vow has a major problem…and so does anyone who considers that a promise made to God may be broken on a whim…or a doubt—without consequences.

 

[dianaiad]

That is not the point. What dianaiad tries to explain in vain is that this guy has probably talked about something while under a sacred oath not to do that. It is exactly the same thing as talking about contents of someone’s confession. Someone who does that breaks an oath not to reveil certain things from a religious context.
This inability (or unwillingness) to abstract one’s own rituals, habits, beliefs, ceremonies and see the similarities in other religions is really remarkable.

…and frankly, I don’t have a clue whether Mr. Fadness has done that. I understand, from what others have said, that he has not. You are right, though…I find this to be an incredibly ironic argument, given these same people’s objection to proxy baptism. Everything they see is through the lens of blithe arrogance that is as difficult to quantify as it is to defeat. It is a settled in, almost unconscious bigotry that is darned near monolithic.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Keeping mormon temple secrets is like keeping a corporate secret. It is not to the benefit of any individual, it is to the benefit of the corporation. The mormon promise is like a non-disclosure statement.

Keeping the seal of Confession is to the benefit of the confessor. The ONLY reason to break the seal is to expose what has been confessed. This can impact an individual profoundly.

Further, if mormons are so concerned about the vows that Catholics make to God, they should stop proselyting Catholics. To encourage a Catholic to leave Catholicism IS to encourage them to break their baptismal vows.

But, I think as usual, mormons are only concerned with what is of benefit to themselves.