Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... nobody needs to believe my account.  It is nothing more than my experience in talking to my friend.  But, I think the stories are still worth telling, taken with a grain of salt, so that we can hear of each others' experiences.

Sure.  I use stories all the time, though mainly to explain my thought process rather than as evidence.

 The elegance of my thoughts should be persuasive enough. ;)

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've never heard or read any of what John Dehlin may have advised on this (I'm not a big fan of his but also don't have an animosity towards him)....

My apologies about the additional commentary as I prefer original sources without paraphrasing, but the quotes are interwoven and I don't believe the original sources are all online:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf

"The situation becomes more remarkable in light of Dehlin’s long history of giving guidance to disaffected members on how to get a temple recommend despite their disbelief in the basics. In a paper targeted at those with doubts, he included the disclaimer that “I never advocate lying.” “But,” he goes on, “I would encourage you to use extreme caution when speaking to church members—especially church leadersabout your issues regarding church history, doctrine or culture. . . . Be very careful before you open up to your bishop about these matters. Once you do, there is likely no ‘stuffing the genie back in the bottle.’”128 It is not plain, however, how hiding one’s doubts during a temple recommend interview is much different from lying.

Dehlin tells those “disaffected from Mormonism” that “local leaders are strictly forbidden to add additional questions to the interview.”129 He then sets out to interpret the temple recommend questions in such a way as to allow one to “honestly” answer as needed to receive a recommend, even if one doubts the fundamentals.

For example, Dehlin notes that “fortunately” the interview “simply ask if you have a testimony of Jesus as your savior (or something to that effect).” This leads him to a remarkable interpretation of what the question may be asking:

Well, at a minimum, I do believe that a man named Jesus once existed, that his teachings have “saved” me from much trouble, pain, and sadness in my life, and that He ultimately died as a martyr for these teachings. So at a minimum, I accept Jesus as my personal savior in this manner. I’m also very open, and even hopeful, that there is much, much more to the story (italics added).

The first two questions are: “1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost? 2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His 

role as Savior and Redeemer?”130 If one cannot accurately paraphrase the questions, either accuracy is not a priority, or one has not given them much thought.

Dehlin goes to great length to parse what he thinks leaders of the Church intended to communicate in the temple recommend interview: “In my opinion, the brethren have intentionally kept the temple recommend questions very simple, and in many ways quite vague.” But when these simple questions do not permit the degree of leeway he requires, he discards their clear intent.

How, for example, can a question about faith in and a testimony of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, avoid the issue of whether one believes Jesus was divine or not? Or resurrected or not? Or whether he really lived or not? We are not asked simply if Jesus saved us from some trouble in this vale of tears, but whether he is Savior and Redeemer. A redeemer rescues us from sin, suffering, and deaththis view is not comparable to seeing Jesus as author of some mere wise maxims. Of the atonement, Dehlin says, “Who really understands the Atonement? I would argue that no human really does.”131 Members are not asked if they understand the atonement, only if they have a testimony of it. The Articles of Faith are clear: “We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ....We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved...We believe that the first principle...of the gospel [is]...faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” (Articles of Faith 1,3,4).

It strains credulity to claim that Church leaders meant to communicate that one could doubt the divine Sonship of Christ and likewise deny the reality or efficacy of the resurrection and atonement and still answer affirmatively to the first two temple recommend questions. There is nothing more foundational to LDS doctrine than Jesus’s divinity and ongoing redemptive power.

Even in the Missionary Guide that was provided to all missionaries of Dehlin’s era, there are a variety of possible interview questions that could be asked prior to approving an investigator for baptism. One question suggested is: Do you accept Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God?132

Dehlin asks his readers to believe that the Church thinks believing in Jesus as the literal Son of God is important for baptism, but of no relevance whatsoever when participating in its highest and holiest ceremonies. “Please know,” the audience is again told, “that I am not in any way advocating dishonesty or deception here.”

If Dehlin or others are not, at present, in harmony with the temple requirements, that is no obstacle to continued membership in the Church or the faithful fulfillment of many Church callings. What is more significant, however, is Dehlin’s distortion of the interview’s purpose and intent. Believing members regard these issues and concerns as sacred. The leaders conducting the interviews feel a solemn duty to protect members from making promises they will break.133 But, Dehlin urges his audience to hide the truth, and gives them the intellectual tools to justify dishonesty.

He himself was less than forthright when he complained to the German press in mid-2012 about the “cool reception” he gets “on some Sundays he defies his doubts and goes to church in Logan. ‘I am practically the only one in the Ward who is never called to give a sermon.... But I love the singing, and my soul communicates with the Saints.’”134 It seems unfair to act as if a member who expresses disbelief in God, Jesus, and the Restoration should expect to be asked to preach. 

 

 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I said that we act as if leaders are infallible even though we profess the opposite.  I gave just one example.  If I provided more, they would still be anecdotal.  I don't have a survey.

That ultimately is the problem given how many people conflate burden of proof with infallibility. For instance even most "no death before the fall" people I talk with acknowledge fallibility. They just think the number of GAs saying the same thing is compelling reason to think they're right in this instance. I suspect most people accused of "de facto infallibility" are actually just accepting a burden of proof. That is they, like me, give the benefit of doubt to GAs. For those who strongly disagree with GAs or major church positions this then gets labeled unfairly as de facto infallibility.

My experience is that no evidence can change the views of people convinced that the masses think GAs are infallible. They're sure and think the burden of proof is on those accused of proving there actually isn't widespread infallibility belief in the Church despite the large number of quotes saying just that.

At best I can say that if you're accusing such a wide swath of people of something their leaders tell them isn't true that there ought be some level of evidence required.

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... nobody needs to believe my account.  It is nothing more than my experience in talking to my friend.  But, I think the stories are still worth telling, taken with a grain of salt, so that we can hear of each others' experiences.

I think it's also fair, especially if they're to be taken with a grain of salt, to be rather skeptical of such stories. I mean we don't even have the web page under question to see.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, rockpond said:

The SP did not say how he came across my friend's blog.  It's not a particularly popular blog.  I would link to the post that got my friend in trouble but he deleted it to try to keep his recommend.  Didn't work... the SP said they would talk again in a month to decide about additional disciplinary action.

Wow..this is sad.  If one cannot ask questions or infer a difference of opinion, this makes a member a robot...IMO.

Link to comment

When it come to leader fallibility I like Moroni's Approach.

" Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

We can acknowledge faults and imperfections without condemning them and learn from our leaders mistakes

Edited by Danzo
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Gray said:

It's not that liberal by external metrics, but it's pretty liberal by LDS standards. The church itself makes mistakes and there may be valid reasons for leaving the church? Might sound tepid to an outsider but it's almost revolutionary coming from a general authority.

I've  heard (but do not know) that he was also the driving force behind the essays. Another quite radical change for the church.

That's the problem with emotive and inaccurate terms like "liberal."  We always end up asking "compared to what?"  The massive shifts required in application of such terms depend upon shifting historical and socio-political context (diachronic) as applied to some narrow instant in time and circumstance (synchronic) so that we can feel comfortable negatively categorizing our perceived opponents (imagined or real) on the one hand, or celebrating our "heroes" on the other hand.  Sounds specious to me, even though I also have preferences among the Brethren.

Thus, adoption of LDS Gospel Topics Essays, which make excellent logical sense as a response to all the internet nonsense (and fits in tightly with all the work done by Mormon scholars and the Historical Dept of the Church since the 1970s), suddenly becomes a "radical change for the church."  Yet the LDS Church has been in the throes of dynamic (radical) change now for generations, the Brethren moving rapidly to adapt to new situations.  If new ideas are to be automatically defined as "liberal," then  Joseph Smith is the ultimate "liberal," followed closely by B. Young.  Even though the ultimate "conservatism" might be seen as the insistence on returning to and restoring primitive Christianity and OT Patriarchal religion in their entirety.  Is accommodation also "liberal"?  Because that is precisely what took place with the practice of polygamy.  And does that make the FLDS the ultimate "conservatives"?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Dehlin did not advise people to lie in their temple recommend interviews.

Didn't he?

"When they ask about belief in God, they don't ask if you believe in an anthropomorphic God. At a minimum, perhaps you believe in some divine power, force, and sense of meaning or purpose in this life. If so, is it dishonest to label that indescribable power "God," and to then answer this question in the affirmative? Perhaps it's something to consider."

That cute little "perhaps it's something to consider" means that as far as he - the one offering the advice - is concerned, it doesn't matter whether you believe God exists as a personal being, or whether you think there might be some vague "something out there."

He is advocating going into the interview with private definitions of key concepts, and then answering them in a way that is intended to deceive the interviewer.

This is why I have such a really hard time with you, rockpond. Whenever you declare your belief in some LDS principle or other, I can't help wondering to what extent you are taking Mister Dr Dehlin's advice. Since you clearly have no problem with it.

Poster removed: personal insults

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

My apologies about the additional commentary as I prefer original sources without paraphrasing, but the quotes are interwoven and I don't believe the original sources are all online:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf

"The situation becomes more remarkable in light of Dehlin’s long history of giving guidance to disaffected members on how to get a temple recommend despite their disbelief in the basics. In a paper targeted at those with doubts, he included the disclaimer that “I never advocate lying.” “But,” he goes on, “I would encourage you to use extreme caution when speaking to church members—especially church leadersabout your issues regarding church history, doctrine or culture. . . . Be very careful before you open up to your bishop about these matters. Once you do, there is likely no ‘stuffing the genie back in the bottle.’”128 It is not plain, however, how hiding one’s doubts during a temple recommend interview is much different from lying.

Dehlin tells those “disaffected from Mormonism” that “local leaders are strictly forbidden to add additional questions to the interview.”129 He then sets out to interpret the temple recommend questions in such a way as to allow one to “honestly” answer as needed to receive a recommend, even if one doubts the fundamentals.

For example, Dehlin notes that “fortunately” the interview “simply ask if you have a testimony of Jesus as your savior (or something to that effect).” This leads him to a remarkable interpretation of what the question may be asking:

Well, at a minimum, I do believe that a man named Jesus once existed, that his teachings have “saved” me from much trouble, pain, and sadness in my life, and that He ultimately died as a martyr for these teachings. So at a minimum, I accept Jesus as my personal savior in this manner. I’m also very open, and even hopeful, that there is much, much more to the story (italics added).

The first two questions are: “1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost? 2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His 

role as Savior and Redeemer?”130 If one cannot accurately paraphrase the questions, either accuracy is not a priority, or one has not given them much thought.

Dehlin goes to great length to parse what he thinks leaders of the Church intended to communicate in the temple recommend interview: “In my opinion, the brethren have intentionally kept the temple recommend questions very simple, and in many ways quite vague.” But when these simple questions do not permit the degree of leeway he requires, he discards their clear intent.

How, for example, can a question about faith in and a testimony of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, avoid the issue of whether one believes Jesus was divine or not? Or resurrected or not? Or whether he really lived or not? We are not asked simply if Jesus saved us from some trouble in this vale of tears, but whether he is Savior and Redeemer. A redeemer rescues us from sin, suffering, and deaththis view is not comparable to seeing Jesus as author of some mere wise maxims. Of the atonement, Dehlin says, “Who really understands the Atonement? I would argue that no human really does.”131 Members are not asked if they understand the atonement, only if they have a testimony of it. The Articles of Faith are clear: “We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ....We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved...We believe that the first principle...of the gospel [is]...faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” (Articles of Faith 1,3,4).

It strains credulity to claim that Church leaders meant to communicate that one could doubt the divine Sonship of Christ and likewise deny the reality or efficacy of the resurrection and atonement and still answer affirmatively to the first two temple recommend questions. There is nothing more foundational to LDS doctrine than Jesus’s divinity and ongoing redemptive power.

Even in the Missionary Guide that was provided to all missionaries of Dehlin’s era, there are a variety of possible interview questions that could be asked prior to approving an investigator for baptism. One question suggested is: Do you accept Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God?132

Dehlin asks his readers to believe that the Church thinks believing in Jesus as the literal Son of God is important for baptism, but of no relevance whatsoever when participating in its highest and holiest ceremonies. “Please know,” the audience is again told, “that I am not in any way advocating dishonesty or deception here.”

If Dehlin or others are not, at present, in harmony with the temple requirements, that is no obstacle to continued membership in the Church or the faithful fulfillment of many Church callings. What is more significant, however, is Dehlin’s distortion of the interview’s purpose and intent. Believing members regard these issues and concerns as sacred. The leaders conducting the interviews feel a solemn duty to protect members from making promises they will break.133 But, Dehlin urges his audience to hide the truth, and gives them the intellectual tools to justify dishonesty.

He himself was less than forthright when he complained to the German press in mid-2012 about the “cool reception” he gets “on some Sundays he defies his doubts and goes to church in Logan. ‘I am practically the only one in the Ward who is never called to give a sermon.... But I love the singing, and my soul communicates with the Saints.’”134 It seems unfair to act as if a member who expresses disbelief in God, Jesus, and the Restoration should expect to be asked to preach. 

 

 

Roughly the last two-thirds of your post came through on my end as strike-through text. I’m guessing this wasn’t intended. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, USU78 said:

What a silly question.  It is the weaponization of your friend's communication as penitent with his SP that is at issue here.

Or are you saying you aren't weaponizing it?

Oh my.  You thought that was "weaponizing"?  I was sharing an experience.  That is a lot of what goes on here on this discussion board.  We're all adults and can easily tell the difference between anecdotal and scientific, between sharing an experience and citing a scholarly work... then we each make our own conclusions.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But these very comments of yours make my point:  The Stake Pres you refer to is grossly fallible in this case, his actions apparently out of line with Church practice and doctrine.  Naturally I would want a full transcript of that encounter with your friend's SP.  We will never have that opportunity this side of the veil, but it points up the anecdotal nature of our problem:  How are we to know what actually took place in that encounter?  What were the actual reasons applied by the SP?  We only get one side of the story.

Yep, it is only one side.  I'm not putting the SP on trial nor am I asking anyone to convict him.  I'm certainly not asking for his temple recommend to be revoked.  

On the positive side, I am glad you you feel his actions are out of line with Church practice and doctrine.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That ultimately is the problem given how many people conflate burden of proof with infallibility. For instance even most "no death before the fall" people I talk with acknowledge fallibility. They just think the number of GAs saying the same thing is compelling reason to think they're right in this instance. I suspect most people accused of "de facto infallibility" are actually just accepting a burden of proof. That is they, like me, give the benefit of doubt to GAs. For those who strongly disagree with GAs or major church positions this then gets labeled unfairly as de facto infallibility.

My experience is that no evidence can change the views of people convinced that the masses think GAs are infallible. They're sure and think the burden of proof is on those accused of proving there actually isn't widespread infallibility belief in the Church despite the large number of quotes saying just that.

At best I can say that if you're accusing such a wide swath of people of something their leaders tell them isn't true that there ought be some level of evidence required.

I think it's also fair, especially if they're to be taken with a grain of salt, to be rather skeptical of such stories. I mean we don't even have the web page under question to see.

Yes, as I mentioned, the blog post was taken down by my friend in an effort to keep his temple recommend.

To be clear, cause I think I have have been misunderstood:  I think the vast majority of members will profess a belief that our leaders are fallible.  And that is the doctrinal position of the church.  My point is that in practice, we aren't ever allowed to speak of something taught by a church leader as if it might be an error.  The example of this is my friend who spoke out against what he felt were false teachings of a GA and lost his recommend because of it.  Even if you don't believe the experience of my friend, could we agree that taking away a temple recommend for writing a counter-point to a conference address seems antithetical to the idea that our leaders are fallible?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep, it is only one side.  I'm not putting the SP on trial nor am I asking anyone to convict him.  I'm certainly not asking for his temple recommend to be revoked.  

On the positive side, I am glad you you feel his actions are out of line with Church practice and doctrine.

I hedged my opinion with "apparently," since I do not in fact know his reasoning on the matter.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Wow..this is sad.  If one cannot ask questions or infer a difference of opinion, this makes a member a robot...IMO.

It may not be the fact they were questions or that a difference of opinion was expressed, but what the specific questions were and what the opinions were or how (tone/style of expression, confrontation vs. engaging for example)

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Roughly the last two-thirds of your post came through on my end as strike-through text. I’m guessing this wasn’t intended. 

That's the word!  Just couldn't grab on to it, not enough sleep and went with crosshatching as close enough.

Something in the coding does that, but I can't figure out how to show the code like we used to be able to so I can edit out the loose tag causing it.  And in the past even if I cut and paste again, it is embedded at my end of things so the only option is to scrap the whole post, leave it blank and do a new one...too lazy for that today.

So apologies, but please use link to read it if the strikethrough is too annoying.  Thanks....

Link to comment
4 hours ago, rockpond said:
Quote

Yes, I would deny it for that reason. I think literally believing in the Book of Mormon informs multiple TR questions. 

I understand that there are people who don't think there were gold plates, angels, Nephites, etc., but who also believe that the BoM is inspired. But I believe similarly to his SP as far as minimum standards for temple entrance. And, the fact that he blogged critically of a GC talk isn't a good thing. That he took down the blog post and is working with the SP is a good thing. 

There is nothing in the TR questions that requires a belief in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon. 

Strictly speaking, you are correct that "the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon" is not mentioned in the TR questions.  I'm not quite sure what "literal historicity" means.  Are you suggesting a very tight, hyper-precise, everything-that-is-described-in-the-Book-of-Mormon-happened-exactly-as-described historicity?  Or a broader "The Book of Mormon described actual, living persons and events, but also reflects some biases and limited perceptions in some particular passages" kind of historicity?

Also, the question about having "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days" means something.  What are your thoughts about that?  For example, can someone reject Joseph Smith as a prophet and still affirm "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

I think the situation described above is something better left to the properly-exercised discretion of the bishop and the individual (and probably the stake president as well).

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I would suggest that you (and the SP in question) are adding to the TR requirements.

With respect, I disagree.  I think exploring the parameters of a person's "testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days," particularly when the person expresses real reservations about a foundational element of the Restored Gospel (such as the Book of Mormon) is well within the purview of a bishop (and a stake president).  

Bishops and stake presidents are not automatons, after all.  They are judges in Israel.  They are supposed to exercise judgment.

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

If someone can answer all questions honestly and honestly say "yes" to the last question, you had better have some direct revelation telling you to deny signing the recommend. 

I appreciate and respect your concern about bishops and stake presidents exceeding the scope of the TR questions.  However, the Book of Mormon is an extremely important portion of the Restored Gospel.  It is the "keystone of our religion."  Can you appreciate the possibility that a bishop could be justified in exploring a person's stated concerns/doubts about, or outright rejection of, that "keystone" as having historicity?

Imagine someone responding to the first two questions with something like "I like and respect Jesus Christ as a purely metaphorical son of God.  He was a good teacher and taught us important moral truths by which we can be saved, but He was not divine.  Nevertheless, I am comfortable with answering 'yes' to both the first and second questions {in the TR interview}."  What do you think a bishop should do in such a circumstance?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Strictly speaking, you are correct that "the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon" is not mentioned in the TR questions.  I'm not quite sure what "literal historicity" means.  Are you suggesting a very tight, hyper-precise, everything-that-is-described-in-the-Book-of-Mormon-happened-exactly-as-described historicity?  Or a broader "The Book of Mormon described actual, living persons and events, but also reflects some biases and limited perceptions in some particular passages" kind of historicity?

Also, the question about having "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days" means something.  What are your thoughts about that?  For example, can someone reject Joseph Smith as a prophet and still affirm "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

I think the situation described above is something better left to the properly-exercised discretion of the bishop and the individual (and probably the stake president as well).

With respect, I disagree.  I think exploring the parameters of a person's "testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days," particularly when the person expresses real reservations about a foundational element of the Restored Gospel (such as the Book of Mormon) is well within the purview of a bishop (and a stake president).  

Bishops and stake presidents are not automatons, after all.  They are judges in Israel.  They are supposed to exercise judgment.

I appreciate and respect your concern about bishops and stake presidents exceeding the scope of the TR questions.  However, the Book of Mormon is an extremely important portion of the Restored Gospel.  It is the "keystone of our religion."  Can you appreciate the possibility that a bishop could be justified in exploring a person's stated concerns/doubts about, or outright rejection of, that "keystone" as having historicity?

Imagine someone responding to the first two questions with something like "I like and respect Jesus Christ as a purely metaphorical son of God.  He was a good teacher and taught us important moral truths by which we can be saved, but He was not divine.  Nevertheless, I am comfortable with answering 'yes' to both the first and second questions {in the TR interview}."  What do you think a bishop should do in such a circumstance?

Thanks,

-Smac  

By literal historicity (which may not be a great term... it just came out that way), I meant the belief that the people and stories all actually happened as told in the book we have today.

Asking my thoughts on what "a testimony of the restoration" means misses the point.  It doesn't matter what I believe it means.  If the the Brethren want to clarify it to be something more or less than is written in the question, they can certainly do that.  But they haven't.  Instead, they wrote instructions at the top of the list of questions to not add to the questions.

I agree that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion.  So does my friend.  And has a testimony of it as scripture that brings him closer to Christ.  He didn't reject the Book of Mormon.  He rejected a talk given by a GA.  If that GA is fallible, why can't my friend write a blog post offering a counter-point to the talk?  That's a serious question, not rhetorical.

I agree that the SP is a judge in Israel.  I acknowledged that, but I think he should have some revelation telling him a person is not worthy if they answered all the TR questions appropriately. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree that the SP is a judge in Israel.  I acknowledged that, but I think he should have some revelation telling him a person is not worthy if they answered all the TR questions appropriately. 

Does that revelation include in your view being inspired to ask questions about the details of their belief?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Does that revelation include in your view being inspired to ask questions about the details of their belief?

That’s a good question.  The instructions are to not add to the questions.  I think it is fine to ask questions about the details of their belief but I think that if priesthood leader is going to deny a temple recommend based on the answers, it needs to be the result of revelation not just the feeling that their beliefs don’t match yours so they must be wrong. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

By literal historicity (which may not be a great term... it just came out that way), I meant the belief that the people and stories all actually happened as told in the book we have today.

Okay.  This sounds like a rejection of historicity altogether, rather than incidental disputes of specific details and characterizations.

Quote

Asking my thoughts on what "a testimony of the restoration" means misses the point. 

I don't think it does.  Words must have a commonly-understood meaning in order to have utility.  Equivocation can be a form of dishonesty, after all.  And a bishop could be derelict in his responsibilities as a judge in Israel if he ignored equivocation or other Dehlin-esque efforts to mislead/deceive.

And then there is the spirit of the thing.  If a person in a TR interview says to his bishop "Well, I don't drink alcohol or use tobacco or drink coffee or tea.  However, my interpretation of the Word of Wisdom allows me to smoke marijuana, dabble with Percocet, and drop acid now and again.  None of these is prohibited in the text of the Word of Wisdom, so in answer to your question, yes, I keep the Word of Wisdom," how do you think the bishop should proceed?

Quote

It doesn't matter what I believe it means. 

I invite you to reconsider this statement.  I have a hard time believing you can stand by it.  How can you possibly affirm a statement when you deny the necessity of that statement to have meaning?

Imagine you are a litigant in a lawsuit about a fistfight you had with your neighbor, Joe.  Your neighbor sues you, and at the trial his attorney asks the following:

  • Attorney: So tell us a bit about the actual fistfight.  Where did it take place?
  • Rockpond: On my driveway.
  • Attorney: And when?
  • Rockpond: On July 2, 2017, at about 3:00 p.m.
  • Attorney: What was the fight about?
  • Rockpond: Joe came over and yelled that my dog had bitten his daughter earlier in the day, then he started the fight.
  • Attorney: What do you mean, "he started the fight?"
  • Rockpond: It doesn't matter what I believe it means.
  • Attorney: Um, what?  You just said that Joe "started the fight."  What does that mean?  
  • Rockpond: You're missing the point. 
  • Attorney: Well, no, I'm not.  This lawsuit is about a physical altercation between you and Joe.  You are claiming that Joe "started the fight."  We need to understand what that means.
  • Rockpond: No, we don't.

Words need to have meaning in order to convey information.  Refusal to explain the meaning of a response to a question does not "miss the point," either in court or in a TR interview.  The entire point of both events is to gather information and discern truth.

The TR questions are not some rote incantation that a bishop mindlessly utters.  If that were the case, the Church could simply have people fill out a form online.  There would be no need for an interview.

To be sure, there are times when a bishop can exceed the appropriate scope of inquiry in a TR interview.  But just as a bishop can construe that scope too broadly, I think you may be construing it too narrowly.

The role of bishops as "judges in Israel" is not just flowery prose.  It's not just an honorary title. It's supposed to mean something.

Quote

If the the Brethren want to clarify it to be something more or less than is written in the question, they can certainly do that.  But they haven't.  Instead, they wrote instructions at the top of the list of questions to not add to the questions.

I agree.  But we aren't talking about added questions.  We are talking about responses to the approved TR questions.

Quote

I agree that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion.  So does my friend.  And has a testimony of it as scripture that brings him closer to Christ.  He didn't reject the Book of Mormon.  He rejected a talk given by a GA.  If that GA is fallible, why can't my friend write a blog post offering a counter-point to the talk?  That's a serious question, not rhetorical.

I have nothing to say regarding your friend.  I'm speaking generally, not specifically.

Quote

I agree that the SP is a judge in Israel.  I acknowledged that, but I think he should have some revelation telling him a person is not worthy if they answered all the TR questions appropriately. 

I think a bishop or a stake president can discern when an individual is equivocating or otherwise using deceit in a TR interview.  That being the case, further inquiry and discussion would not only be appropriate, but imperative.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That’s a good question.  The instructions are to not add to the questions.  

But that's not what is being suggested, I think.  If a bishop asks "Do you keep the Word of Wisdom," and the interviewee responds with "Well, pretty much, yes," or "For the most part," and if the bishop then asks for clarification, he is not really "add{ing} to the questions."  He is seeking a clear and honest and unequivocal response to the authorized question about the Word of Wisdom.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think it is fine to ask questions about the details of their belief but I think that if priesthood leader is going to deny a temple recommend based on the answers, it needs to be the result of revelation not just the feeling that their beliefs don’t match yours so they must be wrong. 

I don't think the bishop should use his own personal interpretation of the Restored Gospel, I agree with you there.

I think the bishop should ask the questions, and clarifying inquiries where appropriate, based on the teachings of the Church.  As Elder Andersen put it:

Quote

The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

Rejecting Joseph Smith as a prophet might be a disqualifying issue.

Rejecting the Book of Mormon as having "historicity" might be a disqualifying issue.

Some private interpretations of the Word of Wisdom (such as the the one I posed in my previous post) might be a disqualifying issue.

Private interpretations of the Law of Chastity might be a disqualifying issue.

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...