Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[Arandur]

So, without putting too much on the subject, I’d like to know WHY the LDS Church feels that what “happens in the temple stays in the temple.” Are we all just the great unwashed who would not really understand what it is that happens at the veil?

Peace,
Robert

To save her the frustration, I will point out that Dianaiad has explained this. She says it’s all public record, but Mormons won’t discuss it because they want to keep it sacred and avoid contention about it. I can understand that, even if I don’t agree with it.

I agree with you. Whether its done in a house of worship or in a public building or even on a person to person basis, I’ll go on to say anytime you make a promise, take an oath or obligation, you are bound to honor it. Anything else violates your character and Honor/integrity & I would never, ever trust in that person again, especially in a Religious/Fraternal context.

Just my two cents.

I think this is shortsighted and if you really examine situations you’ll find that you don’t support such an absolutist proposition. To illustrate, it helps to start with extreme examples. I tried to give some examples earlier, but perhaps they need to be more extreme (or were just lost on the previous page; you’re new to the discussion). Let’s talk about the general principle of the matter–do not think I am relating this extreme examples to Mormons, just using them to illustrate a point that this absolutist view is not correct.

If you make a sacred vow invoking God, your family, your country, and certain leaders to maintain confidence about the secrets of a particular organization, should you be always bound by them? I believe even the worst dictators or power groups/societies have employed these means. I hesitate to use them because some people can be turned off, but the Nazi’s are such a good example, with all their occultism adding another dimension.

Would you consider such a vow, originally made as a sacred vow before all those beings and ideals I mentioned, to be inviolable?

What if the secrets you are keeping are false, misleading, even dangerous to others, and if the vow and the promise of secrets is used as a lure to bring more people in, wanting that inclusiveness and access to that power and knowledge?

 

[AnAtheist]

I also agreed to give all of my time, talents and possessions to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the building of the Kingdom of God. Am I bound by that oath as well? I think when the LDS Church forced me to terminate my membership with them under duress that they broke their contract with me and their God.

I don’t think you are bound to any oath under any circumstances. In some cases breaking an oath is the only moral thing to do, like the Wehrmacht officers who broke their oath towards Hitler.
But that would apply to an ex-priest as well, wouldn’t it? Imagine a priest having lost his faith, would he be bound to his oath not to reveil what was said during confession?

 

[Catholic20064]

To save her the frustration, I will point out that Dianaiad has explained this. She says it’s all public record, but Mormons won’t discuss it because they want to keep it sacred and avoid contention about it. I can understand that, even if I don’t agree with it.

I think this is shortsighted and if you really examine situations you’ll find that you don’t support such an absolutist proposition. To illustrate, it helps to start with extreme examples. I tried to give some examples earlier, but perhaps they need to be more extreme (or were just lost on the previous page; you’re new to the discussion). Let’s talk about the general principle of the matter–do not think I am relating this extreme examples to Mormons, just using them to illustrate a point that this absolutist view is not correct.

If you make a sacred vow invoking God, your family, your country, and certain leaders to maintain confidence about the secrets of a particular organization, should you be always bound by them? I believe even the worst dictators or power groups/societies have employed these means. I hesitate to use them because some people can be turned off, but the Nazi’s are such a good example, with all their occultism adding another dimension.

Would you consider such a vow, originally made as a sacred vow before all those beings and ideals I mentioned, to be inviolable?

What if the secrets you are keeping are false, misleading, even dangerous to others, and if the vow and the promise of secrets is used as a lure to bring more people in, wanting that inclusiveness and access to that power and knowledge?

I suggest it is a public service to provide people investigating Mormonism with information about what they will be required to do if they actually enter that sect. They are not told what they will be expected to do in the temple prior to being baptized as a Mormon. They should be told.

 

[gamewell45]

I also agreed to give all of my time, talents and possessions to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the building of the Kingdom of God. Am I bound by that oath as well? I think when the LDS Church forced me to terminate my membership with them under duress that they broke their contract with me and their God.

Legally I don’t know; morally yes you are. Your Honor, Integrity & Character are at stake and if you lie or go back on your word, I would never trust that person in a religious/fraternal context.

 

[maryjk]

Legally I don’t know; morally yes you are. Your Honor, Integrity & Character are at stake and if you lie or go back on your word, I would never trust that person in a religious/fraternal context.

So you don’t trust anyone that converts? Because most if not all religions have promises or creeds or something. And if someone converts, chances are, they don’t believe what they said they did.

On the note of what Fadness might have done. It sounds like Mormons want to keep secret the words said during their celebration rather than private, personal information that is shared during confession.

It seems to me like apples and oranges.

 

[Catholic20064]

Legally I don’t know; morally yes you are. Your Honor, Integrity & Character are at stake and if you lie or go back on your word, I would never trust that person in a religious/fraternal context.

So if the Mormon Church comes up to me tomorrow and demands my personal assets, I should give everything I own to them?

When I became a Catholic, these people demanded that I resign my membership or be excommunicated. At the time I became Catholic the Mormon Church said that converting to another church was not grounds for excommunication, but then they changed the rules. My oath in the temple was invalid as soon as they broke the contract.

 

[Arandur]

I don’t think you are bound to any oath under any circumstances. In some cases breaking an oath is the only moral thing to do, like the Wehrmacht officers who broke their oath towards Hitler.
But that would apply to an ex-priest as well, wouldn’t it? Imagine a priest having lost his faith, would he be bound to his oath not to reveil what was said during confession?

Morally, you need a good reason to make or break an oath. It seems you have agreed with some morally-correct reasons for breaking oaths. Regarding what was said during confession, what would be a moral reason for revealing it, for breaking that oath?

The only situation I can think of is admission of a very serious crime against another person, like murder. Now, I am not entirely sure about this, never having had to deal with such extreme circumstances, but there are a few things to consider even in such a case.

1. Crimes can be proven by other means.
2. Is there an expectation that that crime will occur again? If the person is coming to confession, they are supposed to be truly repenting. The Church teaches that absolution is not fully received if you are resisting it by intending willfully to sin again, or not really being contrite. Certainly one cannot “confess” that one intends to commit a sin. Again, I am not certain about this, but I would expect that a priest with a reasonable expectation that other people are in danger would be expected to do something about that.
3. Restitution is supposed to be made for sins (penance). Some sins cannot be made up for (like murder), but some may be serious enough that something must be done in order for the confession to be sincere and true. Again I am not sure, but it is possible that the confidence of the confessional may not be absolute if such a thing is refused. It would be good to get a priest in here I would expect that priests would strongly, if not adamantly, counsel that people turn themselves in to legal authorities for crimes committed, particularly if the law is reasonably fair or just (improper capital or corporal punishment may be reasons not to counsel for this).

 

[gamewell45]

So if the Mormon Church comes up to me tomorrow and demands my personal assets, I should give everything I own to them?

QUOTE]

Its a decision thats not up to me to make; rather thats up to you and your church whether or not you turn over all your personal assets.

 

[why_me]

You’re welcome. Catholic Answers does a great service through its efforts to expose the Mormon fraud.

Wonderful! Unfortunately it has not been very successful since the lds church is still standing and there has not been a news release exposing the fraud. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding seems okay.

 

[why_me]

I expect you to keep them, certainly, but not an ex-Mormon. You are bound by your conscience to keep such promises, but someone who has rejected Mormonism certainly wouldn’t be. Since we don’t believe the Mormon religion is Sacred, a Catholic convert from Mormonism isn’t necessarily going to feel bound to such promises (perhaps they might, but they certainly wouldn’t be expected to).

The promises are subjectively grave and binding, based on the conscience and the belief of Mormons who make them (if we do something we truly believe to be a sin, even if it isn’t actually a sin, we are still sinning), but they are not objectively binding since they don’t pertain to actually Sacred things from our perspective. I realize this is hard to hear, but it is the fact of the matter from the perspective of the Catholic Church; I’m not inclined to cover .

Interesting. But if a priest leaves the catholic faith and converts to mormonism and believes that his catholic hearing of confession was all bunk and certainly not sacred and devulges the confessions of murderers, would you respect this person? Now of course, mormons do not believe that one needs to confess all sins to a priest and certainly not to a catholic priest. So…there would be nothing wrong with him divulging such sins, right? I am just using your logic.

 

[why_me]

What god is regarded to be a true one cannot be the basis of an argument. Your god is a as true or false as theirs.

Well, I don’t see why intelligent people get embarressed over a lot of religious things, like eating pork, taking a host back home, bump into a cow, females becoming priests…
If Mormons want to keep something about their ceremonies secret and as long that doesn’t hurt anybody, I don’t care. It is their business for whatever crazy reason.

Again you have just proven just how wonderful an atheist can be. I have seen this quite often on this forum. I must say that I have more respect for your post than I do for most of the catholic posts on this thread. And in fact, your post is far more christian than the so called catholic posters who posted what mormons would consider sacred.

 

[why_me]

I suggest it is a public service to provide people investigating Mormonism with information about what they will be required to do if they actually enter that sect. They are not told what they will be expected to do in the temple prior to being baptized as a Mormon. They should be told.

What sect? Is mormonism a sect? That is new for me. People investigating the lds church are told about the temple and that the ceremonies or convenants inside the temple are sacred and are not to be spoken of outside the temple. Now if members divulge the convenants to investigators they would be breaking an oath that was made to god. And that would not make any sense.

 

[why_me]

I suggest it is a public service to provide people investigating Mormonism with information about what they will be required to do if they actually enter that sect.

I don’t think that this is your reason at all. You know the lds rules and you had no problem with those rules when you were lds. Now, you just have an axe to grind.

I am not sure if every potential catholic knows what they would be required to do when they join the catholic faith.

 

[PaulDupre]

PaulDupre & Dianaiad:

I thank you both for your answers.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

My pleasure, buddy. Forewarned is forearmed.

God love you,
Paul

 

[Jea9]

I was going to check his program out…but he truly discusses the Temple ceremony?

Why would anyone trust someone who would do that?

There have been a few Catholic priests who converted to Mormonism…and they were NOT considered free to divulge things said to them in Confession as a result of the religion change. This sort of thing is important. Why would anyone trust someone who would break a sacred promise?

I listened to the whole broadcast. I am an ex-Mormon who left the church just as I was preparing to receive my Temple recommend (I personally think that it was God and the Holy Spirit looking out for me, but that’s just me I don’t want to have all that knowledge now!). He did not say anything on the show that went any deeper into Temple ordinances that I had not learned from fellow Mormons as I was preparing to receive my recommend. Mostly talked about how Mormons liken what happens in the Temple to what happened at Temple in OT times. I heard those same comparisons when I was a Mormon.

As a side note, most priests will tell you that by the time the next person enters the confessional, the specifics of the previous confession have already begun to slip his mind.

 

[maryjk]

I am not sure if every potential catholic knows what they would be required to do when they join the catholic faith.

If they don’t know everything there is to know, it is because they are not listening or not learning what they should be. There are no secrets or secret hand shakes in the Catholic faith.

 

[PaulDupre]

why me:

I am not sure if every potential catholic knows what they would be required to do when they join the catholic faith.

Every prospective Catholic is given a bible and a Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). They study them in RCIA and are encouraged to read every page. The CCC tells you everything about the Catholic faith in no uncertain terms. You cannot read the CCC without understanding everything about Catholicism. Nothing is hidden, nothing is occult.

Unlike Mormonism, there are no teachings that are hidden until you have been a member for a year. It is all out there in public for everyone to know and understand.

The bible says that God wants everyone to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Paul

 

[dianaiad]

I listened to the whole broadcast. I am an ex-Mormon who left the church just as I was preparing to receive my Temple recommend (I personally think that it was God and the Holy Spirit looking out for me, but that’s just me I don’t want to have all that knowledge now!). He did not say anything on the show that went any deeper into Temple ordinances that I had not learned from fellow Mormons as I was preparing to receive my recommend. Mostly talked about how Mormons liken what happens in the Temple to what happened at Temple in OT times. I heard those same comparisons when I was a Mormon.

As a side note, most priests will tell you that by the time the next person enters the confessional, the specifics of the previous confession have already begun to slip his mind.

Thanks for the info regarding Mr. Fadness…and I’ll bet you anything that if someone came into a confession booth and talked about having murdered someone, or some other truly troublesome thing (or even if the priest were caught by an unusual or funny…at least to him, if not to the penitent…story) he wouldn’t forget it by the time the next person sat down.

 

[maryjk]

Thanks for the info regarding Mr. Fadness…and I’ll bet you anything that if someone came into a confession booth and talked about having murdered someone, or some other truly troublesome thing (or even if the priest were caught by an unusual or funny…at least to him, if not to the penitent…story) he wouldn’t forget it by the time the next person sat down.

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.

 

[Jea9]

Thanks for the info regarding Mr. Fadness…and I’ll bet you anything that if someone came into a confession booth and talked about having murdered someone, or some other truly troublesome thing (or even if the priest were caught by an unusual or funny…at least to him, if not to the penitent…story) he wouldn’t forget it by the time the next person sat down.

The priest may remember that someone one time confessed that they murdered the family of five down the street and that they had counseled that person to turn himself in, but they probably wouldn’t be able to say “I recognized the way he breathed through his mouth and the way his cowboy boots hit the floor”. If that person was even one of their parishioners (I would imagine someone who is confessing something particularly heinous is going to go to someone other than their regular confessor), they still wouldn’t necessarily remember who it was. If they don’t name the person, or give enough information for people to figure out who the person is, it doesn’t break the seal of the confessional. It’s generalized at that point.