Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[zerinus]

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, …

LOL! “Unfortunate” for him I am sure, because the errors of his ways have been exposed.

… 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.

Indeed it is, and so it should be. It is taken very seriously by me. But these counsels or instructions that come from the leadership of the Church as General Conference or other occasions do not have the effect of introducing new doctrine into the Church. They are wise and inspired counsels that tell Church member how best to live their lives that they might be in better harmony with the will of the Lord; or they might establish policy decisions regarding how the Church should be governed. They don’t introduce new doctrine into the Church which cannot be substantiated from the standard works.

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.”

Two points to be observed with that: firstly, that counsel does not introduce new doctrine into the Church. It does not even establish a new policy for the Church. It merely emphasizes a longstanding policy of the Church. Secondly, it was not translated into “every young man SHOULD go on a mission.” There was no need to “translate” it into anything. It meant what it said, and everyone understood what it meant.

This social norm was reflected by everyone from the regular ward member all the way to the stake president in my experience.

Absolutely! What comes from the top is taken very seriously, by everyone including me. But they don’t introduce new doctrine into the Church though—by which I mean one that cannot be substantiated from the standard works.

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.

See above. There is a difference between giving counsel, and introducing new doctrine.

 

[zerinus]

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.

Well I hope you have a more useful contribution to make than that.

 

[aquabatix]

LOL! “Unfortunate” for him I am sure, because the errors of his ways have been exposed.

Indeed it is, and so it should be. It is taken very seriously by me. But these counsels or instructions that come from the leadership of the Church as General Conference or other occasions do not have the effect of introducing new doctrine into the Church. They are wise and inspired counsels that tell Church member how best to live their lives that they might be in better harmony with the will of the Lord; or they might establish policy decisions regarding how the Church should be governed. They don’t introduce new doctrine into the Church which cannot be substantiated from the standard works.

This does not seem to be the case. When a prophet/president of the church receives a “revelation”, it is at these events that it is told to the members. Things that are not in the scriptures are “revealed” to the body this way; blacks being able to hold the priesthood, end of polygamy in practice, etc…

Two points to be observed with that: firstly, that counsel does not introduce new doctrine into the Church. It does not even establish a new policy for the Church. It merely emphasizes a longstanding policy of the Church. Secondly, it was not translated into “every young man SHOULD go on a mission.” There was no need to “translate” it into anything. It meant what it said, and everyone understood what it meant.

You completely misunderstood my point. The PRACTICE of the church is what I was getting at. What was “translated” was how it was interpreted. And OBVIOUSLY everyone DID NOT understand what was meant, or there would not have been a problem in the first place.

Absolutely! What comes from the top is taken very seriously, by everyone including me. But they don’t introduce new doctrine into the Church though—by which I mean one that cannot be substantiated from the standard works.

See above. Some things (such as the end of the practice of polygamy) are not a part or can not be sustained by the standard works, but are “revealed” and then put into practice.

See above. There is a difference between giving counsel, and introducing new doctrine.

 

[zerinus]

This does not seem to be the case. When a prophet/president of the church receives a “revelation”, it is at these events that it is told to the members. Things that are not in the scriptures are “revealed” to the body this way; blacks being able to hold the priesthood, end of polygamy in practice, etc…

There is a set procedure for introducing a new doctrine, or a major change of policy or change of direction in the Church; and announcing it at general conference is part of that procedure, not all of it. President Harold B. Lee outlined what that procedure should be as follows:

The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

It is perfectly possible for the Lord to introduce new doctrine into the Church (i.e. one that is not found in, or cannot be supported by, the standard works); but it has to follow the procedure outlined above. Firstly, only the President of the Church is authorized to do it; secondly, when he does so, he declares it to be a revelation from the Lord; it is approved as such by his two counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve; and finally it is put to the vote of the Church at general conference and approved by them. That is the procedure that was followed when the practice of polygamy was discontinued, or when the priesthood was given to blacks. It is also the procedure that was followed when during the administration of Spencer W. Kimball two revelations were canonized and added to standard works of the Church. That is entirely different from when questionable doctrines had been introduced in the Church in the past, such as becoming gods “of your own planet,” or the Adam-God theory, or Jesus having being married, or even Joseph Smith’s suggestion that God was once a man, and progressed to become God. None of these doctrines were introduced following the above procedure, therefore they were speculations and not official Church doctrine.

You completely misunderstood my point. The PRACTICE of the church is what I was getting at. What was “translated” was how it was interpreted. And OBVIOUSLY everyone DID NOT understand what was meant, or there would not have been a problem in the first place.

I didn’t follow that. The counsel that every young man should serve a mission goes back before the time of Gordon B. Hinckley. President Kimball emphasized it before Hinckley did. So I don’t really know what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that some people are overzealous, or misunderstand the message, and pressure their children to go on their missions who don’t really want to? I am sure it happens. It could happen in any religion. And that proves what exactly? I am not really sure what is the criticism you are making.

See above. Some things (such as the end of the practice of polygamy) are not a part or can not be sustained by the standard works, but are “revealed” and then put into practice.

See my previous explanation.

 

[aquabatix]

There is a set procedure for introducing a new doctrine, or a major change of policy or change of direction in the Church; and announcing it at general conference is part of that procedure, not all of it. President Harold B. Lee outlined what that procedure should be as follows:

The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

It is perfectly possible for the Lord to introduce new doctrine into the Church (i.e. one that is not found in, or cannot be supported by, the standard works); but it has to follow the procedure outlined above. Firstly, only the President of the Church is authorized to do it; secondly, when he does so, he declares it to be a revelation from the Lord; it is approved as such by his two counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve; and finally it is put to the vote of the Church at general conference and approved by them. That is the procedure that was followed when the practice of polygamy was discontinued, or when the priesthood was given to blacks. It is also the procedure that was followed when during the administration of Spencer W. Kimball two revelations were canonized and added to standard works of the Church. That is entirely different from when questionable doctrines had been introduced in the Church in the past, such as becoming gods “of your own planet,” or the Adam-God theory, or Jesus having being married, or even Joseph Smith’s suggestion that God was once a man, and progressed to become God. None of these doctrines were introduced following the above procedure, therefore they were speculations and not official Church doctrine.

Just so that I am understanding you correct, ALL revelations of the president are put through these steps and then ALL put into the standard works? (Ie D&C?)

I didn’t follow that. The counsel that every young man should serve a mission goes back before the time of Gordon B. Hinckley. President Kimball emphasized it before Hinckley did. So I don’t really know what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that some people are overzealous, or misunderstand the message, and pressure their children to go on their missions who don’t really want to? I am sure it happens. It could happen in any religion. And that proves what exactly? I am not really sure what is the criticism you are making.

What I was getting at was that not all members, nay most members, do NOT stick to the canonized works as their only basis of what they preach the doctrine of the church to be. They speculate, interpret and put forth a whole lot more disguised as approved doctrine.

See my previous explanation.

 

[zerinus]

Just so that I am understanding you correct, ALL revelations of the president are put through these steps and then ALL put into the standard works? (Ie D&C?)

No, that is not what I am saying. I am talking about the kind of revelation that introduces new doctrine into the church. Most revelation doesn’t. In fact, it rarely does. The Church leaders are full of the spirit of revelation in the day to day running of the Church. Every time a new stake president is called, it is done by revelation. When the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles meet together every week to make important decisions about the day to day running of the Church, they have the Holy Spirit with them, and those decisions are made by revelation. But they do not introduce new doctrine into the Church. Likewise, when they speak to Church members at general conferences and exhort them to diligence and faithfulness in keeping the commandments of God, and avoiding the pitfalls of the world, those sermons are inspired by the Holy Ghost and amount to a revelation; but again, they do not introduce new doctrine into the Church. The doctrines of the Church are fixed in the standard works. If a new doctrine is to be revealed that is not in the standard works, it must follow the procedure previously described.

What I was getting at was that not all members, nay most members, do NOT stick to the canonized works as their only basis of what they preach the doctrine of the church to be. They speculate, interpret and put forth a whole lot more disguised as approved doctrine.

I am not sure that is true. That might exist on a limited scale, but it is not anywhere near as widespread as you are implying. Some speculative theology has got into the Church from the past, and it is not easy to get rid of. Also, most Church members are not theologically inclined, and they can make mistakes in doctrine. That is true of all religions. Are all Catholics experts in Catholic doctrine? I doubt it! As a general rule, most Mormons know their doctrines better than most Catholics know theirs.

 

[aquabatix]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am talking about the kind of revelation that introduces new doctrine into the church. Most revelation doesn’t. In fact, it rarely does. The Church leaders are full of the spirit of revelation in the day to day running of the Church. Every time a new stake president is called, it is done by revelation. When the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles meet together every week to make important decisions about the day to day running of the Church, they have the Holy Spirit with them, and those decisions are made by revelation. But they do not introduce new doctrine into the Church. Likewise, when they speak to Church members at general conferences and exhort them to diligence and faithfulness in keeping the commandments of God, and avoiding the pitfalls of the world, those sermons are inspired by the Holy Ghost and amount to a revelation; but again, they do not introduce new doctrine into the Church. The doctrines of the Church are fixed in the standard works. If a new doctrine is to be revealed that is not in the standard works, it must follow the procedure previously described.

So how is one to know the difference? was the “revelation” to permit blacks to hold the priesthood made a part of the standard works? That seems to be a pretty big revelation of change to let slide by.

I am not sure that is true. That might exist on a limited scale, but it is not anywhere near as widespread as you are implying. Some speculative theology has got into the Church from the past, and it is not easy to get rid of. Also, most Church members are not theologically inclined, and they can make mistakes in doctrine. That is true of all religions. Are all Catholics experts in Catholic doctrine? I doubt it! As a general rule, most Mormons know their doctrines better than most Catholics know theirs.

That is not true, especially as a general rule. I would say that Catholics know more of the general doctrine of their church as to what they believe (perhaps not the theology behind it, but the basics at least). Mormons do not generally know as much of their own specific doctrines, especially the converts. They are brought in way before they learn the facts. A little “milk before meat”.

 

[Marie5890]

That is not true, especially as a general rule. I would say that Catholics know more of the general doctrine of their church as to what they believe (perhaps not the theology behind it, but the basics at least). Mormons do not generally know as much of their own specific doctrines, especially the converts. They are brought in way before they learn the facts. A little “milk before meat”.

Is the baptismal challenge still put forth after the 3rd missionary discussion? That was the norm when I was LDS.

That was the one thing that amazed me when I was going thru RCIA. The much slower pace that they take with people who are investigating the Catholic Church as oppose to the lightening speed of the Mormon Church.

Getting baptisms ASAP for LDS missionaries was the norm

(and I remember many of my RM friends telling me even the pressure that they felt when on their missions…Its why retentions SUCKED the big one…By the time a year was gone after a convert was baptised, they usually were inactive…)

Has any of those kinds of ineffective policies changed much?

 

[zerinus]

That is not true, especially as a general rule. I would say that Catholics know more of the general doctrine of their church as to what they believe (perhaps not the theology behind it, but the basics at least).

If that is true I am glad to hear it. I think that everyone should know the theology of their religion very well.

Mormons do not generally know as much of their own specific doctrines, especially the converts. They are brought in way before they learn the facts. A little “milk before meat”.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I don’t think that anyone is or should be an expert in the theology of their religion before or as soon as they have joined it. A testimony of its truth is sufficient. That is how it was in the early Church. For example, on the day of Pentecost after Peter had preached his great sermon to the Jews, this is what took place:

Acts 2:

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

They were all baptized at the mere preaching of Peter, and at the first expression of genuine faith and repentance. Peter didn’t tell them to go and take an RCIA class! He just told them to get baptized. Another good example is that of Philip and the eunuch:

Acts 8:

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

The only thing that one needs to join the true church of God is at the first conviction that it is true. If you don’t know that a church is true, you would be foolish to join it; if you know that it is true, you would be unwise not to. The deeper knowledge of theology comes afterwards.

The only instruction a convert needs to have before joining a church is knowing what it is expected of him as a member of that church, and make a commitment to comply with it. Now I don’t know what is required of a convert to Catholicism; but I can tell you what is in Mormonism: he is required to attend Church regularly, pray, keep God’s commandments and conduct his life in harmony with it, obey the word of wisdom, and pay an honest tithe. That is the only instruction he needs (and commitment to abide by them) before he is baptized—once he has gained a witness of its truth. That is how it was in the primitive church; and that is how it is in God’s true Church today.

 

[aquabatix]

In both pieces of scripture that you quoted you are reading your own mormon interpretation into them. Both Peter and Phillip taught them with more than just a simple “repent and believe!”. Peter used “many other words” and Phillip taught for an undisclosed amount of time before leaving in their charriot. It could have been a little amount of teaching or much more. But the point is, you can not back up a sole “feeling the church is true” as being based in scripture. It simply doesn’t say that.

 

[Marie5890]

In both pieces of scripture that you quoted you are reading your own mormon interpretation into them. Both Peter and Phillip taught them with more than just a simple “repent and believe!”. Peter used “many other words” and Phillip taught for an undisclosed amount of time before leaving in their charriot. It could have been a little amount of teaching or much more. But the point is, you can not back up a sole “feeling the church is true” as being based in scripture. It simply doesn’t say that.

St Paul himself didnt go and start preaching soon after his baptism…He spent several years learning…

 

[zerinus]

In both pieces of scripture that you quoted you are reading your own mormon interpretation into them. Both Peter and Phillip taught them with more than just a simple “repent and believe!” Peter used “many other words” and Phillip taught for an undisclosed amount of time before leaving in their charriot. It could have been a little amount of teaching or much more.

I never said that no teaching at all is required. I am not even saying that extended teaching in some cases may not be required. Last week a woman in Church told us that she was taught by the missionaries for more than a year before she was baptized. Others have taken even longer. What I am saying is that in those days (as in the LDS Church today) the person was baptized as soon as a level of conviction was reached. How soon that lever was reached varied from individual to individual. With some people it was almost immediate, like Cornelius who is another good example:

Acts 10:

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

I did not say that no instructions were required. I said that once a certain level of faith or conviction was reached the person was baptized. If it was immediate, then baptism also followed immediately. No further instruction was required prior to baptism. Do you think Cornelius was an expert in Christian theology when he was baptized? I don’t think so. He had a lot to learn afterwards. That is what we do in the LDS Church. Once a person reaches a level of conviction that he or she expresses the desire to be baptized, they are baptized. They don’t have to learn everything about the Church to be baptized. The only prerequisite you needed to join God’s true Church at any time in history has been (1) the conviction that it is true, and (2) the commitment to live by its precepts. Nothing else has ever been required to joining God’s true Church. If the conviction was gained immediately, baptism also followed immediately

But the point is, you can not back up a sole “feeling the church is true” as being based in scripture. It simply doesn’t say that.

Those are your own words. They are your inventions. I said nothing about “feelings” at all. You are saying that, and attributing it to me. See above. There is no need to add any more to that.

 

[aquabatix]

Well there is a difference between the conviction of early christians (or later ones as well) and being coerced. Many converts to mormonism are urged and coerced by the missionaries that teach them the lessons. By lesson 5 (in the newer manual or later in older versions) the potential convert is asked if they are ready to be baptised and if the answer is no, they are probed why. The same as the test to get the burning in the bosom, the potential convert may not have a conviction or testimony but are pushed toward what the missionaries’ goal is, conversion.

The RCC has the convert go through RCIA regardless of baptism status. If the person has a true conviction, it does not matter how long it takes, they will do what they need to do to join God’s one true Church. Pushing for an immediate baptism makes the LDS seem as if they are afraid of losing the convert. No matter how much research and learning the person does, the RCC can stand up to the test and has for 2,000 years.

 

[aquabatix]

I’m addition, after rereading our posts, I should note that there is another difference between the practices of the LDS and the RCC. The education of RCIA I am refering to happers AFTER baptism as well. There is a 2 step process in becoming a member of the Church, first Baptism and then Confirmation. In the LDS, once you are baptized, that’s it, you’re in. It would be up to the individual to continue their progression in learning. Sure there are classes and extras that can help, but there is no system of education to ensure the person understands what they are commiting to before becoming a full member of that church and not simply a baptized christian.

 

[Gene_Fadness]

Marie,
In response to your query about the speed in which converts are baptized, you are correct that the sooner the better. In fact, during my mission in Australia, our mission president – who at that time was a General Authority in the church – introduced the Day of Pentecost Discussion. Several missionaries brought people whom they had invited to the chapel. Most had not even had one discussion, we just invited people to a movie followed by a spiritual discussion. We showed them the film “Joseph Smith’s First Vision” and then went through a summary of all the discussions in about 40 minutes. Each set of missionaries then took their invited guests into separate rooms where we bore a strong and emotional testimony and then asked them to pray about the feelings they were experiencing at the time. If they agreed to baptism, we quickly took them through the Word of Wisdom (dietary laws) and the tithing requirements and then took them to the baptismal font, which was filled and ready to go. Many people were baptized that way. ( I write about this in greater detail in my written testimony which can be found on the Coming Home Network Website.) The mission president in Australia said this new way of teaching was inspired by God. It was called “Day of Pentecost” because it was like the Spirit coming on the church when 3,000 converts were baptized in one day. He also said many countries in Latin American were bringing in new converts in this way. This new way of teaching was controversial with the local leadership because they said the new converts just didn’t know enough about the faith and were falling into inactivity. But our mission president said the Day of Pentecost discussion was revealed to Him by the Lord and would always be the way the gospel would be taught in the Sydney mission. Shortly afteward, he was released, a new mission president (the former mission president’s cousin) came in and took us back to the old way of teaching. (The new president had to be released as well because he was promising sister missionaries that if they weren’t married in this lifetime they would be sealed to him in the hereafter, but that’s another story.)
When I was in the mission home in Salt Lake City before going to Australia we were specifically told not to teach the “deeper” things to new converts. Obviously, you couldn’t tell them about the temple ceremony and we were to only hit lightly on the Doctrine of Eternal Progression, about men becoming gods of their own worlds. “Don’t give them the meat before the milk,” was said alot. If they asked about men becoming Gods, we were to say something vague like, “Our Father in Heaven wants us become perfect just as He is perfec.” and then move on to something else. If they persisted or were challenging us, we resorted to bearing out testimony. In the traditional way of teaching, converts could be asked about baptism as early as the third discussion. Setting a bapismal date was key. Often within a month. This was because we knew that “enemies of the church” would be getting to them to try and discourage them or give them “anti-Mormon” literature.
My experience coming into the Catholic church was dramatically different. I attended Mass for nearly three years before joining and took RCIA for one year. There were no evasive answers, no covering up anything, a ready acknowledgement of the scars of our history rather than trying to explain them away or cover them up.
One of the posters on here (I still haven’t figured out how to highlight a section and respond to it, like all of you do!) said something about their being no follow-up after Mormon converts are baptized. Actually, we did work at retention of new converts though that was primarily the duty of the members. In my experience, Mormons are better than Catholics at staying in touch with new members and making sure they are part of the community.
That’s all for now! God bless!

 

[zerinus]

Well there is a difference between the conviction of early christians (or later ones as well) and being coerced. Many converts to mormonism are urged and coerced by the missionaries that teach them the lessons. By lesson 5 (in the newer manual or later in older versions) the potential convert is asked if they are ready to be baptised and if the answer is no, they are probed why. The same as the test to get the burning in the bosom, the potential convert may not have a conviction or testimony but are pushed toward what the missionaries’ goal is, conversion.

You are now changing the subject. Your original argument was essentially that Mormons dishonest with converts because they don’t tell them upfront about the dark secrets of Mormonism; and that they are left to discover that for themselves after they have joined the Church. That argument was shown to be false. Now instead of admitting that you were wrong you are trying to wriggle your way out of it by changing the subject to some other criticism you have invented for yourself. The answer to your new subject of criticism is that it is equally false. We don’t coerce anybody to join the Church. In fact the number of those who join our Church is a small proportion of those who are taught.

The RCC has the convert go through RCIA regardless of baptism status. If the person has a true conviction, it does not matter how long it takes, they will do what they need to do to join God’s one true Church. Pushing for an immediate baptism makes the LDS seem as if they are afraid of losing the convert. No matter how much research and learning the person does, the RCC can stand up to the test and has for 2,000 years.

The idea of committing them to baptism is simply to invite them to join the Church. The whole idea of teaching them is to eventually get them to join the Church. That is why we send out missionaries to teach them in the first place. So it is perfectly natural that after a period of teaching we should invite them to join the Church. There is nothing to be ashamed of in doing that. But they are not baptized if they don’t have a testimony, or if they don’t repent of their past sins, or if they don’t commit themselves living by all the commandments of the gospel.

You seem to have quickly forgotten the scriptures I had quoted. Peter in his great sermon on the day of Pentecost urges his listeners to be baptized with greater force than we do. If we are “coercing” them, then his exhortation amounts to twisting their arms!

Acts 2:3

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In reality he is doing what we do: he is inviting them to join the Church. That is what our invitation amounts to, except that we don’t do it as forcefully as he did. We use a much milder tone to issue the same invitation.

 

[zerinus]

I’m addition, after rereading our posts, I should note that there is another difference between the practices of the LDS and the RCC. The education of RCIA I am refering to happers AFTER baptism as well.

So it is in the LDS Church. We have a special Sunday School class for converts called the Gospel Principles class which lasts a year, in which they are taught the basic tenets of the Church.

There is a 2 step process in becoming a member of the Church, first Baptism and then Confirmation.

So it is in Mormonism. We have baptism as well as confirmation, which is the rite of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In the LDS, once you are baptized, that’s it, you’re in. It would be up to the individual to continue their progression in learning.

Not true, see above.

Sure there are classes and extras that can help, but there is no system of education to ensure the person understands what they are commiting to before becoming a full member of that church and not simply a baptized christian.

You have got too many errors combined in one sentence to be worth commenting on. Your conversation is beginning to become boring.

 

[zerinus]

My experience coming into the Catholic church was dramatically different. I attended Mass for nearly three years before joining and took RCIA for one year. There were no evasive answers, no covering up anything, a ready acknowledgement of the scars of our history rather than trying to explain them away or cover them up.

We prefer to do things the way it was done in the early Christian Church. See all the explanations I have given above.

 

[aquabatix]

Despite your insistance that your church only does “what the early church does”, if you hold to the scriptures you quoted, ANY church of ANY denomination could say they do that because they are inviting the person to join. MY point and problem is that in the LDS church, as I have pointed out as well as Gene, there is pressure to gain a “testimony” and to get baptized. If the person does not automatically have a testimony from praying about the bom, then they did not have enough faith. They are not exposed to all the teachings and what doubts they express are put aside. Just as Gene expressed from his mission as well as I can say from what I was taught to do in the MTC, the contacts doubts are to be given a simple side answer, and if that doesn’t work, one’s own testimony is to be used to reassure them. My argument has stayed the same, it is yours that keeps getting defensive and not addressing the topic. “We only do what the early church did” does not cut it. The scriptures are vauge and you are comparing yourselves to the apostles themselves who were given the spirit by Christ to go out to all nations with the gift of speaking tounges. 19 year old boys with name tags are not the same thing.

 

[zerinus]

Despite your insistance that your church only does “what the early church does”, if you hold to the scriptures you quoted, ANY church of ANY denomination could say they do that because they are inviting the person to join. MY point and problem is that in the LDS church, as I have pointed out as well as Gene, there is pressure to gain a “testimony” and to get baptized. If the person does not automatically have a testimony from praying about the bom, then they did not have enough faith. They are not exposed to all the teachings and what doubts they express are put aside. Just as Gene expressed from his mission as well as I can say from what I was taught to do in the MTC, the contacts doubts are to be given a simple side answer, and if that doesn’t work, one’s own testimony is to be used to reassure them. My argument has stayed the same, it is yours that keeps getting defensive and not addressing the topic. “We only do what the early church did” does not cut it. The scriptures are vauge and you are comparing yourselves to the apostles themselves who were given the spirit by Christ to go out to all nations with the gift of speaking tounges. 19 year old boys with name tags are not the same thing.

Not true. All your points have already been addressed. No need to rehash the same thing all over again.