Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[Marie5890]

(We talked frequently that the spirit of contention was of Satan, infact )

 

[zerinus]

Ok, that makes no sense to me. Either we “have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge” and in essence are equal to God or we are not. I fully understand being children of God and heirs etc., but that, in turn, does not mean that we become “gods” and have the same “powers, knowledge, etc” that God has nor do we become equal to God which seems to be what you are saying.

And I also feel the need to point out that the Bible does not teach nor did the Apostles teach that we will become “gods” in the sense that Mormon doctrine portrays.

I don’t see a problem where you see one. The Bible is full of such apparent contradictions if you wanted to look for them. A good example is Jesus, who in the scriptures is portrayed as God, but at the same time prays to His Father and calls Him His God, and says that He is greater than Him! So a non-Christian looking at your Bible can say the same thing, that it doesn’t make any sense.

As regards people becoming gods, the Bible certainly does teach it, and the early Christians certainly did understand it that way. I have already discussed that at length in my Blog which I had previously referenced, which I will reference again for you here and here.

 

[Jay53]

I don’t see a problem where you see one. The Bible is full of such apparent contradictions if you wanted to look for them. A good example is Jesus, who in the scriptures is portrayed as God, but at the same time prays to His Father and calls Him His God, and says that He is greater than Him! So a non-Christian looking at your Bible can say the same thing, that it doesn’t make any sense.

As regards people becoming gods, the Bible certainly does teach it, and the early Christians certainly did understand it that way. I have already discussed that at length in my Blog which I had previously referenced, which I will reference again for you here and here.

Sorry, but I don’t need to read your blog. I don’t consider you an authority on Christian doctrine, particularly after your discussion of the Mass. The Bible and early Christians most certainly did not understand it nor teach it the way Mormons did. Joseph Smith taught that and then twisted scripture to fit his viewpoint. St. Paul warned us that even if “we or an angel of light” taught another gospel. I think he was warning us of people such as Joseph Smith twisting his and the other Apostles words!!

 

[zerinus]

“Well, this is discussion and debate. What do you expect me to do, roll over and admit that you are right and Mormonism is wrong?”

Well, sure that would be great! But, really, you’re getting to be beyond ridiculous. I was not expecting that you wouldn’t continue to comment on the essentials of what we’re debating – the Trinity and man’s destination – but you seem to find little things not essential to the debate and nitpick at them just because you want to be argumentative. You can defend your faith without being so mean-spirited.

It makes it very difficult to engage in any kind of constructive dialogue with you. When I was in the LDS church, we talked frequently about not having a “spirit of contention.” You don’t seem to follow that very well.

All I can say is that you don’t have to debate with me if you don’t want to. The way I look at it is that you have no answers to give to my criticisms, and the only option left for you is to attack me personally. That won’t work. Other people have tried it before; it has never worked. The real option left for you is to admit that you were wrong, apologize for it, and ensure that you won’t make those mistakes again.

 

[zerinus]

Sorry, but I don’t need to read your blog. I don’t consider you an authority on Christian doctrine, particularly after your discussion of the Mass. The Bible and early Christians most certainly did not understand it nor teach it the way Mormons did. Joseph Smith taught that and then twisted scripture to fit his viewpoint. St. Paul warned us that even if “we or an angel of light” taught another gospel. I think he was warning us of people such as Joseph Smith twisting his and the other Apostles words!!

Thank you for your reply. I don’t think that we have much more to talk about. Have a nice day.

 

[Gene_Fadness]

No, Zerinus, I most certainly did answer you. You just don’t like the answers I gave. And I was not attacking you. I was attacking your mode in responding to my and other responses. This has been an interesting exercise, but I think I shall gracefully bow out from more discussion with you. Be the best Christian you can be and I shall attempt to do the same. God bless.

 

[Xavierlives]

Was that really Gene Fadness?

 

[Xavierlives]

Are you feeling Christ-like Zerinus? Feel worthy of your recommend?
What would Christ think of all of that?
Would Christ be offended?

:flowers:

He is going to have to answer for so many other things, I think this is the least of his worries.

 

[Xavierlives]

/… Continued

Here is another passage that relates to the same subject:

D&C 84:

33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.
35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;
36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;
37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;
38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.
39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.
40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.
41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.
42 And wo unto all those who come not unto this priesthood which ye have received, which I now confirm upon you who are present this day, by mine own voice out of the heavens; and even I have given the heavenly hosts and mine angels charge concerning you.

The highlighted passages (especially the underlined bits) should have helped answer your questions without me needing to add further clarification. If any part of it is not clear let me know, and I will explain it further. The language used in the above passages are not much different from biblical passages such as the folloing:

John 17:

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Romans 8:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Galatians 3:

6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

1 John 3:

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

They all teach the same kind of thing, put in different words.

Throw in John 10:34, Psalm 82:6, and 1 Samuel 28:13.

 

[zerinus]

No, Zerinus, I most certainly did answer you. You just don’t like the answers I gave. And I was not attacking you. I was attacking your mode in responding to my and other responses. This has been an interesting exercise, but I think I shall gracefully bow out from more discussion with you. Be the best Christian you can be and I shall attempt to do the same. God bless.

Thank you Gene, I have enjoyed our discussions too. Have a great New Year.

 

[ricko]

Was that really Gene Fadness?

Yep. In case you missed it he has posted several times on this thread but thanks to Zerinus he won’t be coming back.

Thanks Gene, enjoyed your responses. God Bless

 

[Answersplease]

RebeccaJ;6136099:

zerinus has his own religion going. The new Gospel Principles

manual, recently rewritten and published, enforces mormon belief that they will be gods.

• • What are some blessings that will be given to those who are exalted?

Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).
Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

• 1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).
• 1. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).
• 3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.
• 1. They will receive a fulness of joy.
• 1. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

…]

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

It seems to me that number 3 has been toned down quite a bit, it used to read:

They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

Why do you suppose the second sentence was left out?

(color added)

mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord

The problem of language
Mormonism as a whole seems to be abandoning phraseology which clearly discloses more controversial Mormon beliefs, and adapting language which can both contain the controversial meanings yet obscure them from those outside the group.

 

[soren1]

You have twisted and distorted a lot of stuff to get to this point. The Arian controversy took place at the beginning of the fourth century, which is 300 years after Christ. An awful lot of things, controversies, and councils had taken place until we get to the Arian controversy. The separateness of the Father and the Son was generally acknowledged by the Christians prior to that time, and even by this time. Christians generally considered them to be two separate beings.

The inseparability of the persons of the Trinity can be documented in Christian literature before Nicaea. For instance, the Trinitarian claim that the persons are “distinct but not separate” was coined by Tertullian in the mid-third century. Even in early subordinationist theology, this tends to be the case, as when Justin Martyr compared the generation of the Son from the Father to the lighting of one flame within another. He describes the Father and Son as “indivisible and inseparable.” This is in the mid-second century. While I would not represent Justin as a Trinitarian right out of the Nicene mold, his testimony places the doctrine of inseparability at a very early point, given the scarcity of texts from earlier decades.

It is also worth mentioning that “inseparable” does not mean for Tertullian (as others yet earlier like St. Gregory Thaumaturgos) that the two cleave together as a man might be inseparable from his wife. It means they are united by possessing an indivisible nature.

Even during the Arian controversy they were generally regarded to be two separate beings.

 

[soren1]

The last quote you gave is interesting: “the Word, too, is alien and separate from the substance of God.” The emphasis here should be on “substance” not “separate”. The effect of his teaching basically was that Jesus could not be God. When the orthodoxy argued back that they Father and the Son were of the same “substance,” they did not mean that they were one and the same being. What they meant was that they were made of the “same stuff”—i.e. they were both divine. “One substance” was not originally intended to convey “one being”.

St. Athanasius writes in his Statement of the Faith:

Neither can we imagine three Subsistences separated from each other, as results from their bodily nature in the case of men, lest we hold a plurality of gods like the heathen. But just as a river, produced from a well, is not separate, and yet there are in fact two visible objects and two names. For neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father. For the Father is Father of the Son, and the Son, Son of the Father. For like as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the river, so the Father’s deity passes into the Son without flow and without division.

Physical metaphors for the Trinity are tricky, so it is easy to misread this passage if you take it too literally. One might think he means something modalistic, like the Father and Son are the same thing considered under different aspects, as being a well or as being a stream. This would reduce their relationship to an abstraction. Yet in the same paragraph Athansius specifically denies modalism. Alternatively, one could take it to mean they are different parts, like the beginning and end of a stream. Yet his claim that they are the “same water” undermines this. What Athanasius is saying is that the Father and Son are one being, the selfsame water. Yet they are individuated as persons because one of them confers and the other receives the same act of existence. What the Father gives to the Son in generating him eternally is the selfsame existence whereby he generates eternally. Although the water itself is not an eternal generation, because it traverses time, its act of generation is similar insofar as Athanasius considers the water given and the water received as one identical being conveyed through generation. This is the only interpretation that fits Athansius’s immediate thesis that they are not “three subsistences,” as well as the general doctrine of the text as a whole.

Even a 100 years later, when they council of Chalcedon of AD 451 was convened to deal with the Christological controversies that had arisen at that time, the word homoousios, (of one substance) did not mean that they were one and the same being. It meant that they were made of the “same stuff”. This is clearly shown in the statement put out by the council of Chalcedon:

That homoousios, when said of the divine persons, entails oneness in being was understood in the Church more than half a century prior to Nicaea. In fact, one of the objections to it raised at the Council was that the term had been coined by a heretic. In the early third century, Sabellius believed that because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were fully divine, and since there was one God, they were all the same person. By this reasoning, the Father becomes the Son when he takes flesh and the Son becomes the Spirit when he dwells in our hearts. The Eastern Bishops at the Council vigorously opposed this error, and had spent decades refuting it. They changed their mind, however, because the creed gave clear expression to the fact that the Father and Son were distinct as persons. Sabellius’s error, after all, was not affirming that they were homoousios, but denying on that basis that they were treis hypostases* (three persons).

The same understanding was universal in the hundred years following Nicaea. There were Arian sects that tried to reinterpret it to mean something see (google “homoiousians”), but as for the Fathers who actually defended Nicaea, they are in lock step. I can’t imagine how a person could read Hilary’s or Augustine treatises on the Trinity or St. Ambrose, or Gregory of Nyssa, or Basil the Great, or Gregory Nazianzen or Pope Leo the Great or … well … any of the Fathers who defended Nicaea and make sense of even a word they wrote with such an understanding. I have only cited Athansius, because he had an authorial hand in the Creed itself, but the substantial testimony of the entire century militates against your position. You must literally ignore an entire century of Christian theology to make the claim you are making.*

 

[soren1]

Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance homoousios] with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance homoousios] with us as regards his manhood …

The way in which the words “of one substance” is used in this context makes clear how they were meant to be understood. Jesus is “of one substance” with the Father with regard to His Godhead in the same way that He is “of one substance” with us with regard to His manhood. In neither case does it mean that they become one and the same people.

One of the things that I think makes Catholic theology confusing to Mormons (and vice versa) is that Catholicism is premised at every point on a metaphysical conception of existence, whereas Mormonism is entirely materialist. This makes it easy for Mormons to quite innocently misunderstand our teachings by trying to fit them to a materialist framework. Catholics likewise misunderstand Mormonism because they infer metaphysical implications in Mormon teaching that Mormons do not infer.

I mention that here because at this point your reading of Chalcedon does not recognize, as the Fathers believed, that a category difference exists between finite and infinite nature. Because it is a difference in category, it alters the logical implications of statements regarding the being of each. This means that when you say homoousios with respect to the divine nature, it does not have identical logical implications as when you say if of a human nature.

There are many ways to approach this question, but I will stick the simplest. The basic metaphysical tent of monotheism is not that there is only one God, but that God is one because he is infinite. Monoetheism is about what God is before it is about how many he is. The understanding of the Fathers is that an infinite nature cannot exist in more than one instance, for if there were two beings with infinite nature , they would limit each other (for they could have no power over each other) which is contrary to the notion of infinity. For this reason, if two persons each have an infinite nature, it follows that they have the same instance of that nature and are one in being, since two beings would yield absurdity. So here you turn out to be partly right: homoousios/] does not have to mean one in being in every case. It only has to mean that when said of divine nature. Hence there is no problem with Chalcedon’s statement, since the implication of “one being” that homoousios has for Jesus’s infinite, divine nature need not apply to his human nature, and the Council clearly differentiates the two in the passage you quote.

 

[soren1]

/… Continued
Like I said, the Trinitarian theology of the “three in one and one in three” absurdity was not the original teaching of Christianity, neither does it have any support in the Bible. It was gradual development, and it took many centuries of controversy and debate to be arrived at. The councils of Nicaea and Constantinople and Chalcedon and beyond were stages in that development. And it is a false theology. It is not what Jesus and His Apostles ever taught. Neither is it something that the earliest Christians ever believed. The earliest Christians believed in a Trinity of three separate beings, which is also what the Bible teaches.

The most basic biblical argument (as this is just a basic one) is that all three of the persons are identified as Jehovah, a name which defines God’s identity by its singular existence. There is no point in having a name like I AM if there is another being just like you, for then your existence provides no indication of your individuality. Yet that is just what as a name is for.

What you are saying doesn’t make any sense. Elder Holland has correctly stated the “Trinitarian theology” of present day Christendom. If there is any absurdity in it, it is in Trinitarianism, not in what he teaches.

Even if the Trinity were absurd, it would be absurd for different reasons than the doctrine Elder Holland lampoons, and which I myself acknowledge as unbiblical and contradictory. It could not be resolved even by appealing to mystery or divine infinity. There is no way that separate and distinct persons can be one being, because the nature of separating is to multiple being per se. It is absurd by definition, and that is why we don’t teach it. The correct doctrine is “distinct but not separate,” although LDS leaders are persistent in ignoring that distinction.

Anyone who cannot point out the errors in Elder Holland’s account (and there are three in the opening section alone: “abstract,” “separate,” and “incomprehensible” interpreted as “unintelligible”) is not yet a beginner in Trinitarian theology. If a student of mine wrote all three of those errors in a paper, I would have him or her rewrite it before I gave a grade. Elder Holland’s explanation of the Trinity in the creeds is certainly not the worst I have ever read, but it is the worst I have read from a person of significant academic achievement (former Dean of Religious Studies and former President of BYU).

 

[Gene_Fadness]

Thanks, Ricko for your comment on my responses. I do want to clarify that I will return periodically to follow this thread and am happy to try and answer any questions regarding my appearance on Catholic Answers. But I did tell Zerinus that I felt our dialogue was no longer fruitful in that we both made our points and, after doing so, weren’t really getting anywhere. But that certainly doesn’t mean to I won’t respond to others. It’s true Zerinus has dominated the discussion, but he does not own this thread! God bless,
Gene

 

[zerinus]

Thanks, Ricko for your comment on my responses. I do want to clarify that I will return periodically to follow this thread and am happy to try and answer any questions regarding my appearance on Catholic Answers. But I did tell Zerinus that I felt our dialogue was no longer fruitful in that we both made our points and, after doing so, weren’t really getting anywhere. But that certainly doesn’t mean to I won’t respond to others. It’s true Zerinus has dominated the discussion, but he does not own this thread!

Neither do you! I will be watching this thread just as you are; and if you make any more incorrect statements about Mormonism, I shall have the pleasure of correcting your errors as I have done hitherto.

 

[aquabatix]

Gene,
I wanted to chime in and say that I listened to the entire interview and I thought you handled it well. As an ex-Mormon myself, I found nothing that you stated to be different or outside my experience either.

In your unfortunate exchange with zerinius, the thing that limited the conversation the most was his persistance in only regarding what is in the BoM, D&C and PoGP as what is mormon doctrine. While this may be true on paper in some circles, I as well as many many others can tell you that what the prophet/president says at any time (confrence or otherwise) and also general authorities is taken quite seriously in mormon social standards. Just as when Gordon B Hinkley said that “every young man who is willing and able should go on a mission” got translated as “every young man SHOULD go on a mission.” This social norm was reflected by everyone from the regular ward member all the way to the stake president in my experience.

There is a stark difference here. The history of the mormon church reflects this later attitude despite select few saying that only the mormon scriptures reflect what they believe.

 

[Xavierlives]

Neither do you! I will be watching this thread just as you are; and if you make any more incorrect statements about Mormonism, I shall have the pleasure of correcting your errors as I have done hitherto.

And I don’t own this thread, but i’ll be watching to make sure you don’t make incorrect statements about protestants or Texans.