Temple Worthiness Of Public Individuals

[sethpayne]

So as not to derail the other thread I thought I'd open this one up for discussion because I feel it is important and, in the end, may be an important factor in why some people view the Dehlin essay negatively and others positively.

Is it acceptable to discuss the temple worthiness of public individuals? Say, Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin, Joanna Brooks, John Dehlin, Greg Smith, members of FAIR, and others.

Personally, I am turned off by discussions of temple worthiness because it seems that it is used as a rhetorical weapon against the person being discussed. Also, the TR interview is one of the most sacred interactions a leader can have with a member of his flock.

Obviously some here feel differently and I'd sincerely like to understand why.

Seth

[bluebell]

In such circumstances where the person makes their temple recommend worthiness public, and especially if they use it to give some type of authority to themselves or their opinions and actions, then a discussion of such seems relevant.

(to be clear, i'm not following the other thread you mentioned so i have no idea what the discussion there entails, but these are my general thoughts on the subject).

[ksfisher]

It would seem that if someone has publicly stated their status, that it would be acceptable to comment on their statements.

[sethpayne]

In such circumstances where the person makes their temple recommend worthiness public, and especially if they use it to give some type of authority to themselves or their opinions and actions, then a discussion of such seems relevant.

But how do we know this is the motive? I've been different contexts where people talk about having a TR -- not to give themselves credibility but rather, to indicate something quite different.

I mean, in principle I agree with you. When Ed Decker claims to have been a "Mission President" to artificially pump up his credentials by lying. He was never a MP. But isn't the TR different? You either have one or you don't. If you do, then your local leaders have judged you worthy to hold it.

(to be clear, i'm not following the other thread you mentioned so i have no idea what the discussion there entails, but these are my general thoughts on the subject).

Thanks for your input.

[sethpayne]

It would seem that if someone has publicly stated their status, that it would be acceptable to comment on their statements.

But people always talk about their Church callings etc... some of which we know require a TR. For example, Dan often shared experiences about being a Bishop. Obviously he had a TR. Does that mean his calling as Bishop and his TR are fair game?

[Scott Lloyd]

In such circumstances where the person makes their temple recommend worthiness public, and especially if they use it to give some type of authority to themselves or their opinions and actions, then a discussion of such seems relevant.

(to be clear, i'm not following the other thread you mentioned so i have no idea what the discussion there entails, but these are my general thoughts on the subject).

One thing that Seth is not telling you here is that a major element of the discussion on the other thread involves the appropriateness of instructing others on how to conceal or disguise one's true feelings in responding to the temple recommend questions, this for purpose of obtaining the recommend when one otherwise might not succeed in so obtaining it.

[thesometimesaint]

But how do we know this is the motive? I've been different contexts where people talk about having a TR -- not to give themselves credibility but rather, to indicate something quite different.

I mean, in principle I agree with you. When Ed Decker claims to have been a "Mission President" to artificially pump up his credentials by lying. He was never a MP. But isn't the TR different? You either have one or you don't. If you do, then your local leaders have judged you worthy to hold it.

Thanks for your input.

I think that we do a disservice to the Church if we personally claim some type of authority above others based on having a Temple Recommend. The Temple Recommend is a call to service not judgement.

[Scott Lloyd]

But people always talk about their Church callings etc... some of which we know require a TR. For example, Dan often shared experiences about being a Bishop. Obviously he had a TR. Does that mean his calling as Bishop and his TR are fair game?

If a public figure discloses that he is a bishop, I should think that publicly observable behavior that obviously renders one ineligible to serve in that calling (such as, say, public drunkenness) would be an apt subject for discussion.

[Daniel Peterson]

You're fundamentally misstating the issue, Seth.

Come on. You're better and smarter than this.

[sethpayne]

One thing that Seth is not telling you here is that a major element of the discussion on the other thread involves the appropriateness of instructing others on how to conceal or disguise one's true feelings in responding to the temple recommend questions, this for purpose of obtaining the recommend when one otherwise might not succeed in so obtaining it.

Thanks for adding some context, Scott.

Let me add some additional context. John Dehlin held a TR while his writings/statements encouraging others to "conceal or disguise" their feelings in the TR interview. I'm making the assumption his local leaders knew about this and gave him a TR. But maybe his local leaders don't have the internet. I've heard Logan is pretty rural.

Reasonable people can disagree on Dehlin's intent. There is no disagreement, however, that his local leaders gave him a TR.

[awyatt]

Let me add some additional context. John Dehlin held a TR while his writings/statements encouraging others to "conceal or disguise" their feelings in the TR interview. I'm making the assumption his local leaders knew about this and gave him a TR.

This is the entire crux, I believe: Did his leaders know and give him a TR? Without knowing and asking his leaders (or assuming their omniscience), I don't think that assumption can reasonably be made. Perhaps they did know; perhaps they didn't. What, really, should one assume?

-Allen

[sethpayne]

You're fundamentally misstating the issue, Seth.

Come on. You're better and smarter than this.

Dan,

I am honestly trying to understand how people see this because it is so foreign to how I perceive the situation.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that if a local leader deems a member of his congregation worthy of a TR then that's it. Discussion over.

Now, as to whether Dehlin was teaching people how to lie in the TR interview -- reasonable people can disagree. Whether he did or didn't is beside the point because John made this information pubic .... and it has been public for a long time. Unless his local leaders live under a rock I have to assume they knew about John's position given that it was public and that John wasn't shy in sharing this info.

So ... assuming that John's local leaders did know about his writing/statements and knowing they issued a TR, I just don't feel it would be my place to second guess these local leaders. For me, this is the crux of the issue.

Seth

[bluebell]

But how do we know this is the motive? I've been different contexts where people talk about having a TR -- not to give themselves credibility but rather, to indicate something quite different.

In my experience, it's usually pretty obvious. It's like how most of us can tell when someone is just talking about a talent that they have, and when someone is bragging about a talent that they have.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So as not to derail the other thread I thought I'd open this one up for discussion because I feel it is important and, in the end, may be an important factor in why some people view the Dehlin essay negatively and others positively.

Is it acceptable to discuss the temple worthiness of public individuals? Say, Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin, Joanna Brooks, John Dehlin, Greg Smith, members of FAIR, and others.

Personally, I am turned off by discussions of temple worthiness because it seems that it is used as a rhetorical weapon against the person being discussed. Also, the TR interview is one of the most sacred interactions a leader can have with a member of his flock.

Obviously some here feel differently and I'd sincerely like to understand why.

Seth

I must agree, it is such a personal matter, sadly this is sometimes done in Sacrament. Sometimes I feel others are boasting...could be wrong, usually am.

[Calm]

delete for reasons explained two posts from now...

Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[sethpayne]

This is the entire crux, I believe: Did his leaders know and give him a TR? Without knowing and asking his leaders (or assuming their omniscience), I don't think that assumption can reasonably be made. Perhaps they did know; perhaps they didn't. What, really, should one assume?

-Allen

Dehlin doesn't strike me as stupid. It would be like a member posting a blog (under their real name) on the best strip-joints in Vegas and then getting a TR by lying to the Bishop. Perhaps the Bishop/SP wouldn't know about in the first instance but I simply can't believe they wouldn't become aware of it and then, rescind the recommend.

So even in Dehlin's local leaders were unaware of his writings/statements when they issued the TR, they could not have remained ignorant of it for long and could have rescinded the TR.

[bluebell]

Dan,

I am honestly trying to understand how people see this because it is so foreign to how I perceive the situation.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that if a local leader deems a member of his congregation worthy of a TR then that's it. Discussion over.

Now, as to whether Dehlin was teaching people how to lie in the TR interview -- reasonable people can disagree. Whether he did or didn't is beside the point because John made this information pubic .... and it has been public for a long time. Unless his local leaders live under a rock I have to assume they knew about John's position given that it was public and that John wasn't shy in sharing this info.

So ... assuming that John's local leaders did know about his writing/statements and knowing they issued a TR, I just don't feel it would be my place to second guess these local leaders. For me, this is the crux of the issue.

Seth

So, you honestly believe that JD's local leaders felt it was appropriate to give a temple recommend to someone who was teaching people how to be unworthy but get a temple recommend anyway through deception?

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks, Cal.

So only distasteful when I do it but not when it is part of a larger essay? Your distate seems selective unless I'm missing something.

Also, I'm not saying that his leaders did or did not approve of anything. I have no idea. My point is that if local leaders issue a TR then I think we should trust their actions as "Judges in Israel."

Regardless, we may still discuss the broader, theoretical issue about whether it is wrong to dissimulate (conceal, disguise, deceive) when seeking a temple recommend.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

delete for reasons explain in next post

Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[sethpayne]

So, you honestly believe that JD's local leaders felt it was appropriate to give a temple recommend to someone who was teaching people how to be unworthy but get a temple recommend anyway through deception?

I have no idea.

All I'm saying is that local leaders issued a TR as is their responsibility and right. If a local leader issues a TR then I suppose I don't feel comfortable second guessing how the TR was obtained.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thanks for adding some context, Scott.

Let me add some additional context. John Dehlin held a TR while his writings/statements encouraging others to "conceal or disguise" their feelings in the TR interview. I'm making the assumption his local leaders knew about this and gave him a TR. But maybe his local leaders don't have the internet. I've heard Logan is pretty rural.

Reasonable people can disagree on Dehlin's intent. There is no disagreement, however, that his local leaders gave him a TR.

"If" Dehlin did this it inexcusable, an breaks my heart.

[Calm]

Your distate seems selective unless I'm missing something.

My distaste is strong enough that since no one has quoted me on this thread I am going to delete what I've said so it does not lead to it becoming part of the conversation since it appears I misunderstood Seth's point and so didn't need to make this point...still not sure what Seth's position is, but then I haven't had my nap yet. Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I have no idea.

All I'm saying is that local leaders issued a TR as is their responsibility and right.

And all I am saying is this is up for debate according to Bro. Dehlin's own comments.

[Pahoran]

Thanks for adding some context, Scott.

Let me add some additional context. John Dehlin held a TR while his writings/statements encouraging others to "conceal or disguise" their feelings in the TR interview. I'm making the assumption his local leaders knew about this and gave him a TR. But maybe his local leaders don't have the internet. I've heard Logan is pretty rural.

Reasonable people can disagree on Dehlin's intent. There is no disagreement, however, that his local leaders gave him a TR.

And so?

AFAICT, the only person who has connected Mister Dehlin's advice with his own worthiness to hold a TR is Mr Seth Payne. Bill Hamblin didn't, and neither did I.

Perhaps it's a question worth discussing in the abstract, but it's not a conclusion anyone has drawn.

But the simple fact is that a straightforward, plain English reading of Mister Dehlin's published advice at the time was that people with doubts should dissimulate and rationalise in their own minds so that they can give answers to TR that they don't really believe.

The fact that his local leaders gave him a TR at that period of time (if indeed they did) is neither here nor there. Claiming that it somehow implies that they went and googled him before they issued him a TR -- a procedure that is entirely unheard of -- looks remarkably like an attempt to claim that his TR represents some sort of tacit ecclesiastical endorsement of his advice.

And I seem to recall a number of people going ballistic over Greg Smith arguing that that was what Mister Dehlin himself was trying to imply when he kept mentioning it.

Funny, that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[sethpayne]

Regardless, we may still discuss the broader, theoretical issue about whether it is wrong to dissimulate (conceal, disguise, deceive) when seeking a temple recommend.

Agreed, Scott.

Let's take a specific example about the Atonement. The Church's view of atonement is generally aligned with the penal substitution model. Let's say that a member believes in the Christus Victor and Moral Exemplar atonement models (parts of which can be seen in the BoM -- especially Alma). So, when asked if the person believes in the atonement they can, without any hesitation, answer YES!! Are they lying because the person who asked may assume and accept the penal substitution model?

wayfarer posted on the other board how he believes in the restoration of Christ's original Church. However, his view is not the common Mormon view. I don't think anyone is lying when they answer a question where some of the terms can take on several meanings.

Seth