But anyone can walk into a confessional & talk to a priest. Everyone knows what happens in a confessional. Heck, the RCC has no problem with TV shows showing scenes involving someone going to confession. Imagine the LDS outrage if a TV show with a LDS character showed him going through any Temple rite, as innocuous as it is.
Irrelevant. The question is whether one should learn about a religion from its adherents – as opposed to, say, former members. The fact that Scientology charges money is interesting, but it has no relevance to the topic at hand.
Oh. Well, that was what I thought you were saying. And I was just pointing out that in order for that to be a good state of mind, you’d need to treat all other options exactly the same; there wouldn’t be much point in looking at one religion with the potential for goodness in mind without doing that for all other religions and atheism. Otherwise you’d end up with a viewpoint just as biased as if you’d kept a totally closed mind in the first place.
You have heard of Jack Chick, haven’t you?
FriarTed, anyone can walk into a confessional booth and talk to a priest. But not anyone can walk into a confessional booth and watch another person confessing to their priest. Everyone doesn’t know what happens therein. We just know what we’re told happens therein. Now, I trust my mother’s relatives and their clergy as to what goes on in a confessional but I have no personal knowledge of it. I finally do have personal knowledge of what happens in the LDS temples, but before that I trusted my Bishop, Stake President, and other members of the Church.
Revenant Threshold, that’s pretty much what I gathered that Bishop’s point of view to be: approach all examinees that way.
Oddly enough, that loon slipped my mind, BrainGlutton.
Or, you could go with the group posting the rules, and say that it’s a lead-in to charges of forgery.
But the RCC doesn’t have secret handshakes and give you special underwear in their confessionals. The Mormons have their Bishop interviews which is a closer analogy to confessionals. What does the RCC have which is close the the secret ceremonies of the Mormons?
The Secret Initiation Ceremony of the Knights of Columbus?
(Not really a Church ritual, I know. And it invites comparison to that whole Freemason thing.)
To tell the truth, I don;t think they do have such secrets (although, if they did, I probably wouldn’t know it anyway. They do have things that they keep restricted and out of sight, but that’s not quite the same.
I think I have a pre-Chick edition of Charles Chiniquy’s The Priest, the Woman & the Confessional somewhere. I know I have his 50 Years in the Church of Rome.
That only means that the intimate, private details are withheld from the public… appropriately so. The general goings-on are very much public. Everyone knows that the penitent go there to confess their sins, and that the priest offers absolution.
Moreover, while the clergy are prohibited from divulging whatever happens to the public, the penitent are NOT. They are under no obligation to maintain secrecy. This alone demonstrates that Catholic confessions are by no means analogous to the secret temple ceremonies of the LDS.
In your opinion.
How do you know that’s what’s really going on there?
In your opinion.
Note that I personally have no problem with the Confessional (I don’t know the actual name of that particular sacrament) and I obviously have no problem with the Temple.
What are you on about?
Just for fun, here’s a point-by-point refutation of that film’s assertions:
Admittedly so. Now, if you’re of the opinion that a priest should be telling the public about little Johnny’s lustful thoughts toward his teacher, you’re certainly welcome to that point of view.
For one thing, it’s a matter of public record. For another thing, I used to be Catholic. I also have fifteen university units of Catholic theology under my belt. The goings-on in the confessional are by no means secret.
Whereas your perspective is absolute, incontrovertible fact, right?
I’ve given some very specific reasons why the secrecy within Catholic confessionals is NOT comparable to the secrecy of Mormon rituals. You say that’s just my opinion, and insist that the two are indeed comparable. That’s just opinion as well, then… unless of course, your claims deserve to be exalted above those of us mere mortals.
Wow. You’re really doing a great job at missing the point. Where did I say that the priest should divulge what’s in the confessional?
Like someone says:
Allow me to reproduce the relevant part of our conversation, for your convenience.
JThunder: That only means that the intimate, private details are withheld from the public… appropriately so.
Monty: In your opinion.
In other words, you are asserting that it is merely my opinion that it’s appropriate for the priest to withhold the intimate, private details of what goes on in the confessional. Now, perhaps that’s not what you actually meant… but if so, then what part of that statement are you contesting?
Monty-boy, throwing around comments like “In your opinion” is NOT a valid form of logic. As I pointed out, if my views on this matter are merely a matter of opinion, then so are yours. Why should the SDMB accept your viewpoint at face value, while regarding my own as just an “opinion”?
This was unnecessary.
[ /Moderating ]
Let’s try it this way: how is it any less public knowledge what people go to the LDS Temples for? What difference does it make to you anyway what people go there–or to confessional–for?
p.s. I have not indicated my opinions to be anything other than just that. Facts, on the other hand, are facts. The video linked in the OP is not factual.
And, yes, I am asserting that it’s just an opinion that what goes on between the priest and the penitent should be secret. As it so happens, I share that opinion. I am also of the opinion that the ceremonies performed in the LDS Temples is not the general public’s business other than to understand that the LDS conduct sacred ceremonies therein that are not open to the general public. What we’re doing there is not some cabalistic secret. It’s widely known, and even widely publicized by the Church, that we conduct what we consider to be sacred ceremonies inside the Temples.
There’s no way to disprove an assertion (such as the one John Conner makes) about the Temple ordinances without what we consider to be the sanctity of a place that’s extremely sacred to us. It would require permitting people who we believe God considers not authorized to watch them. And, no doubt, if we were to do that, someone would still say that we’re just putting on a pretend ceremony to trick the general public and that we’d still be doing the cabalistic stuff when y’all aren’t looking.
Likewise, there’s no way to actually disprove what’s going on in a Confessional without doing it in public. Note that I do not advocate this. My point is that both religions have a certain ceremony, a different ceremony in each religion, that is not open to the general public.
Hey, how about this for an example: the selection of a new Pope is not open to the general public. How do you really know what happens in the College of Cardinals?
TokyoPlayer,
Care to be more specific? To which link do you refer?