Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[Marie5890]

Cant speak for what the LDS church does now when it has an investigator who has some serious questions and is looking for serious answers. Back when I was LDS, those concerns were, like others have said, given short, almost dismissive answers, and never really addressed.

When I went thru RCIA, ANY question I had, ANY doubt, was taken seriously and was never marginalized. We talked clearly, openly about all of the controversies and history of the Catholic Church, the good, the BAD, and the VERY UGLY. None were afraid to take bright spotlight to any issue and discuss it. There was no rushing, there was no glossing over etc.

There was no pressure. Ever.
And before any of us when thru the Easter Vigil and the rest of the Sacraments, our leaders made sure that we knew exactly what was going on, and why, and its significants.

Every question was taken seriously. Every single one.

 

[aquabatix]

Marie5890,

Thank you. That was exactally my point. Zerinius will never admit it and only dodges the question with attempts to make the practice the same as the early church, which is no surprise, he does that with many topics.

 

[Marie5890]

Marie5890,

Thank you. That was exactally my point. Zerinius will never admit it and only dodges the question with attempts to make the practice the same as the early church, which is no surprise, he does that with many topics.

Sort of like defaulting to bearing one’s testimony if you dont know what to say or dont have an answer.

I remember being taught that when I was LDS, “Just bear your testimony”

Never found it to be very effective actually. When I did that was usually the time when the person who was asking questions of me about Mormonism ended up dismissing me and whatever I had to say.

When people have questions, they are looking for answers, not a witness of “truth” or a “testimony”.

They are wanting answers. Period.

 

[LittleDeb]

Not to change the subject, but I did have a question I wanted to address clear back at the beginning and something said by our friendly neighborhood LDS defender reminded me. This is directed at anyone who might answer with actual LDS doctrine. I particularly wanted to ask here since Gene might be able to give me his personal take on it and if it affected his conversion.

Where are the *new *doctrines that are taught in the temple actually written? Zerinus keeps saying that only what is written in the four scriptures is actually considered LDS doctrine, that everything else is merely speculation. I don’t want the script of the temple. I don’t want to know the sacred actions that happen. I want to know where in LDS teachings these things are actually recorded.

I ask this question because there is a particular (temple?) teaching that was very disturbing to me and I wanted to research it to find out if it is really doctrine or merely speculation. Ironically it isn’t the doctrine of eternal progression, because I can see how one set of beliefs could lead someone to make that leap. No, this one is much more disturbing to me, and I have even read it referenced, by LDS, in threads here on CAF.

From what I understand, it is LDS teaching that the Fall in the Garden wasn’t actually a completely *bad *thing. I have been told over the years that LDS believe that they could not populate the world as God had commanded whilst confined to the Garden. The teaching I have heard is that the Fall was a *necessary step *in the plan of salvation. The reason I even went looking for any temple information in the first place, was to try to verify this as fact or fiction. I had heard that there were blessings bestowed on Eve for her understanding of the “bigger picture” and following through with it, and this was somehow illustrated in the temple ceremony.

Now being someone who loves to study the Theology of the Body, and the goal of achieving a “pre-Fall state” while in this life, this idea sounded very foreign, even repugnant to me. It sounded like the LDS believe that this disobedience of our first parents against God was tolerable, or even good. Or even worse yet that God, our almighty Father, had somehow set up some sort of catch-22 that we had to do evil (disobedience) so that good could result (procreation.)

Where can I find out if this is speculation or doctrine? I don’t want to have to cross the lines and examine what is considered sacred, but on this point I really need to know. How I interact with every single LDS I know, is at stake. None of them seem to know exactly where this idea stems from. To any former LDS, (especially Gene since this thread is about him,) have you had any experience with this particular teaching and if so did it have an impact on your decision to leave the LDS church?

And to the current LDS, if it is totally a bogus idea, please send me the links (non-temple obviously) that will help me set my many LDS friends straight on true doctrine. As I said, it was extremely disturbing to me.

 

[zerinus]

Not to change the subject, but I did have a question I wanted to address clear back at the beginning and something said by our friendly neighborhood LDS defender reminded me. This is directed at anyone who might answer with actual LDS doctrine. I particularly wanted to ask here since Gene might be able to give me his personal take on it and if it affected his conversion.

Where are the *new *doctrines that are taught in the temple actually written? Zerinus keeps saying that only what is written in the four scriptures is actually considered LDS doctrine, that everything else is merely speculation. I don’t want the script of the temple. I don’t want to know the sacred actions that happen. I want to know where in LDS teachings these things are actually recorded.

I have no idea where they are recorded. Wherever it is, it obviously cannot be revealed because it is not meant public consumption; so who cares where it is recorded? And what difference does it make to you to know?

I ask this question because there is a particular (temple?) teaching that was very disturbing to me and I wanted to research it to find out if it is really doctrine or merely speculation. Ironically it isn’t the doctrine of eternal progression, because I can see how one set of beliefs could lead someone to make that leap. No, this one is much more disturbing to me, and I have even read it referenced, by LDS, in threads here on CAF.

From what I understand, it is LDS teaching that the Fall in the Garden wasn’t actually a completely *bad *thing. I have been told over the years that LDS believe that they could not populate the world as God had commanded whilst confined to the Garden. The teaching I have heard is that the Fall was a *necessary step *in the plan of salvation. The reason I even went looking for any temple information in the first place, was to try to verify this as fact or fiction. I had heard that there were blessings bestowed on Eve for her understanding of the “bigger picture” and following through with it, and this was somehow illustrated in the temple ceremony.

Now being someone who loves to study the Theology of the Body, and the goal of achieving a “pre-Fall state” while in this life, this idea sounded very foreign, even repugnant to me. It sounded like the LDS believe that this disobedience of our first parents against God was tolerable, or even good. Or even worse yet that God, our almighty Father, had somehow set up some sort of catch-22 that we had to do evil (disobedience) so that good could result (procreation.)

Where can I find out if this is speculation or doctrine? I don’t want to have to cross the lines and examine what is considered sacred, but on this point I really need to know. How I interact with every single LDS I know, is at stake. None of them seem to know exactly where this idea stems from. To any former LDS, (especially Gene since this thread is about him,) have you had any experience with this particular teaching and if so did it have an impact on your decision to leave the LDS church?

And to the current LDS, if it is totally a bogus idea, please send me the links (non-temple obviously) that will help me set my many LDS friends straight on true doctrine. As I said, it was extremely disturbing to me.

The doctrine that the Fall was a necessary part of the plan of salvation has nothing to do with the temple. It is part of the theology of the Latter-day Saints, and it is recorded in the standard works.

 

[Gene_Fadness]

I have no idea where they are recorded. Wherever it is, it obviously cannot be revealed because it is not meant public consumption; so who cares where it is recorded? And what difference does it make to you to know?

This is a perfect example of the kind of response you get from Mormons when you are start inquiring about the deeper things, though most all the Mormons I know are not this rude.
The temple ceremony is not quoted in LDS scripture. I think most LDS would tell you that the theological underpinnings of what happens in the temple is rooted in their scripture. The temple ceremony has changed substantially since my last visit to a temple (1981). Many of the more dramatic gestures – drawings your hands across your throat, chest and sides as modes of execution – have been removed. As has a fdepiction of a Christian minister as a hireling of Satan.
The LDS do believe that the fall in the Garden of Eden was what was sometimes called “an upward transgression.” Mormons believe that had Adam and Eve not fallen, they would not have become like the gods, knowing the difference between good and evil and, perhaps most important, they would not have been able to have children.

 

[cthulhubryan]

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

You keep saying this, as if repeating it makes it true. You have not responded to the fact that while the early Christian church did teach a doctrine of theosis, the Mormon church teaches one of apotheosis.

 

[cthulhubryan]

The doctrine that the Fall was a necessary part of the plan of salvation has nothing to do with the temple. It is part of the theology of the Latter-day Saints, and it is recorded in the standard works.

True, and as such is a false teaching. The Gates of Hades can include all false prophets. Even water divining ones from New York. However, none of those will prevail against the Church founded by Christ.

 

[zerinus]

You keep saying this, as if repeating it makes it true. You have not responded to the fact that while the early Christian church did teach a doctrine of theosis, the Mormon church teaches one of apotheosis.

That is your invention. It is a figment of your imagination. Mormons believe that men can become gods, and the early Christians believed that men can become gods; and they both meant the same thing by it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’d like to know how the same ECF believe in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Eucharist and somehow believe in mormon exaltation. This mormon doctrine can’t fit into all that the ECF taught and believed. It is only by taking a few quotes out of the context of the whole, ie, the entire deposit of faith, that any mormon can come up with such an erroneous conclusion.

 

[zerinus]

This is a perfect example of the kind of response you get from Mormons when you are start inquiring about the deeper things, though most all the Mormons I know are not this rude.

LOL! It looks like you are not used to having your misrepresentations of Mormonism seriously challenged. Mormon apostates and critics who bump into me tend to get a “rude awakening” very quick, I agree.

The temple ceremony is not quoted in LDS scripture. I think most LDS would tell you that the theological underpinnings of what happens in the temple is rooted in their scripture. The temple ceremony has changed substantially since my last visit to a temple (1981). Many of the more dramatic gestures – drawings your hands across your throat, chest and sides as modes of execution – have been removed. As has a fdepiction of a Christian minister as a hireling of Satan.

As a general rule I avoid discussing temple matters on the Internet, and I don’t see a reason to want to change that now.

The LDS do believe that the fall in the Garden of Eden was what was sometimes called “an upward transgression.”

I hadn’t heard of that expression before. You must be older than I am, or inventing things.

Mormons believe that had Adam and Eve not fallen, they would not have become like the gods, knowing the difference between good and evil and, …

I thought it was the Bible which taught that:

Genesis 3:22 “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: …”

… perhaps most important, they would not have been able to have children.

That is right. We don’t know why they would have been able to have children before the Fall, but that evidently was one of the consequences of the Fall.

 

[KathleenGee]

Had to go for this one because I read about some of them…

It is a scary thing to discuss Temple matters on the internet…

 

[Gene_Fadness]

LOL! It looks like you are not used to having your misrepresentations of Mormonism seriously challenged. Mormon apostates and critics who bump into me tend to get a “rude awakening” very quick, I agree.

Wrong – again. I was responding to the way you were treating another commenter, not me. And, yes, I can tell by your posts that I am much older than you.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am older as well…waiting for the latest developments…

 

[zerinus]

Wrong – again. I was responding to the way you were treating another commenter, not me.

You seem to be obsessed with me. I am not. I am here to talk about other things, such as Mormonism or the gospel. If you have complaints to make about me, you can make it to the board administration. There are rules of conduct for the board, and if I break those rules you will have a legitimate grounds for complaint. I prefer to address the issues rather than me.

And, yes, I can tell by your posts that I am much older than you.

I hope wiser too. I have my doubts.

 

[LittleDeb]

I have no idea where they are recorded. Wherever it is, it obviously cannot be revealed because it is not meant public consumption; so who cares where it is recorded? And what difference does it make to you to know?

Actually part of the reason was because you kept rudely harping that ALL of LDS doctrine is in the standard works, so that got me wondering. But, that is not true. There **are **things outside of the standard works that are doctrine and are **not **speculation. Unless the temple *doctrines *are in the standard works, then it is not true. (Note: I stated *doctrines *not the format or vows.)

I had always just presumed that the temple was more like a fraternal initiation, so there was nothing to be concerned about. I had understood it as making a vow of consecration and such. (Similar to what our Knights of Columbus do.) It didn’t concern me. But then I was hearing contradictory things from the LDS themselves. I never wanted to know what was going on in the temple, because I am not LDS so I really have no interest. I just figured that it was a deeper presentation of public doctrine. But in discussing with non-temple worthy LDS they say that there is “more doctrine” that is only revealed in the temple. And temple worthy LDS people do not contradict that.

So, long story short: All doctrine of the LDS church is in fact *not *public. To search for a deeper understanding of all LDS doctrine is in fact, ***offensive ***to an LDS person since it requires one to search out “sacred information.” That is not sacred, then. That is a secret. Rest assured that I am even more resolved *not *to know what goes on in the temple. But I will strengthen my warnings to those whose family members might consider joining. I will tell them, “Your loved one will have *beliefs *that they are not allowed to discuss with you. They will have to keep secrets from you to be in good standing.”

The doctrine that the Fall was a necessary part of the plan of salvation has nothing to do with the temple. It is part of the theology of the Latter-day Saints, and it is recorded in the standard works.

To believe that disobeying God was a *necessary *thing, is completely and totally against all of Judeo-Christian principles. The Early Church Fathers would have been appalled by that idea, as are modern day Christians.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thank you, Deb. I had read some things after I ran across some materials in their bookstore…I can see their devotion to Christ in some ways that bears the same fruit as ours…but I am divided if I can call them Christians beyond a mutual devotion to Our Lord…and the secrecy…always this makes me suspicious…and also see it as a sign to be most limited in any debates with Mormons now…I do see alot of good in these people, and on a certain level in civil matters trust their good will and compassion.

 

[cthulhubryan]

That is your invention. It is a figment of your imagination. Mormons believe that men can become gods, and the early Christians believed that men can become gods; and they both meant the same thing by it.

Okay. Well if you are not interested in serious discussions then why post here? Early Christians (who were not proto-mormons) believed in Theosis, becoming one with God, not Apotheosis which is becoming a god.

Get serious with your discussions or go away.

There is no serious scholar who believes that the early Church (which never saw apostasy) taught that men can become gods.

Just as Christ taught that His church would be forever. Forever does not mean a few years, as you seem to imply. There was no apostasy, there was not apotheosis in the Christian church.

Even in the crazier gnostic works (apocalypse of Paul, for example) there is a heretical implication of reincarnation but even that was to grow closer to God, not to become a god.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Would you expect a Catholic priest who leaves Catholicism to keep his vows respecting the confessional?

I understand your beliefs. I understand that you do not respect mine. However, what makes you think that someone who breaks a promise made to God (even regarding a religion you don’t respect) would not break one made in relationship to Catholicism?

A vow taken can always be broken for the truth. There is no problem there. Easy to understand.

Mormon missionaries speak of the great apostasy, that the Catholic Church went evil, lost its priesthood. This is where the respect that you are speaking about creates problems with you speaking about respect. The Catholic Church was built by Christ because of the fall of man. The LDS Church was built on the fall of another church. Think about it. It dives into pride.

God Bless

 

[zerinus]

Okay. Well if you are not interested in serious discussions then why post here? Early Christians (who were not proto-mormons) believed in Theosis, becoming one with God, not Apotheosis which is becoming a god.

Well, that is what they said. They said becoming gods. It is your words against them.

Get serious with your discussions or go away.

LOL! I am not going anywhere. You can go away if you like.

There is no serious scholar who believes that the early Church (which never saw apostasy) taught that men can become gods.

Sorry, that is what they said—and there are lots of scholars who recognize that.