Sam Young is Excommunicated

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I can understand the frustration and the passion.  But I do wonder if the 'being public' about it is really at the heart of it.  For me Bro. Young was exed as much or more for the tone of his public statement rather than the underlying desire for change.  I have been vocal in the past about my desires to have certain aspects of Church policy be approached differently, both in an in-church setting and on social media, and I never once have been warned or chastised.  Of course, I never implied in any of my statements that I held the leaders of the church in contempt, that people should not joint Church over any issue, or that if my demands were not met, I would raise h#@l and/or leave the Church.  

I disagree with some of what Sam Young did (especially towards the end with the hunger strike.).  However, he did get the attention of the leaders and I do believe his cause is a good one (even if I disagree with some of how he went about getting some changes made).

But, serious questions....

What is a member to do who wants to speak out and ask for changes on an issue that they feel strongly about?  What if they feel there needs to be a new policy where all child/youth interviews are two deep, so that all members know of this change and all leaders are uniform on this too?

Members are told not to bother the brethren in SLC with letters or requests, and yet, the local leaders have no power to make any changes.  So who would you speak to about your concerns?

Edited September 19, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You wrote a lot. But the gist seems to be that there should be no complaints when a consequence of an action is foreseeable because the individual knew what would happen.

Pretty much.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't knowingly withdraw from the conditions for entry to the temple and then complain about not being allowed entry to the temple.

So yes, complaints like this come across as very ad hoc.  

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Someone (or group) may have the power to dictate terms, and then enforce a negative consequence for failure to live up to the dictated terms, but just because a consequence is foreseeable doesn't mean it is just.

Meh.  This is an ad hoc complaint, IMO, not a principled one based on the TR requirements not being "just."

By this reckoning, you can dispose of any or all of the TR requirements.  Not because there is any moral reasnoning to it, but because they are inconveniently incompatible with a chosen course of conduct.

"Yes, I step out on my wife.  But that doesn't mean the Church can enforce a negative consequence for my behavior."

"No, I don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but that doesn't mean the Church can enforce a negative consequence for my lack of belief."

"No, I don't sustain the general authorities of the Church..."

Again, you can't have it both ways.

There has always been a "power imbalance" in the Church.  That is the way of things in every organization.  Some people have more authority and influence than others.  We all have equal value in the eyes of God, but we are not all called upon to have identical sets of responsibilities and stewardship.  Consider Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 12:

Quote

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

I think the present ad hoc complaints are, in essence, an argument against the organization of the Church.  But I emphasize "ad hoc."  As in we're-just-making-up-complaints-as-we-go-along.  As in there is a predetermined desired outcome (Sam Young and people like him want to be free to publicly rail against the Church, while remaining in full fellowship in it), so we're make up complaints and criticisms that have no particular rhyme or reason, except that they prop up our efforts to pursue the aforementioned desired outcome.

If there is a reasoned and principled complaint about the TR requirements, I'd like to see it.  As it is, however...

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Having said that, yes, the church has the power to determine who is able to participate in the temple and who is not. They can set those terms and enforce consequences but that doesn't mean it will always be just. Stated in an even easier way, Might doesn't always make right.

This is the way of things.  This is the way things have been for a very long time.  So when people like Sam Young are "facing the music," the utterly foreseeable and reasonable consequences of their misconduct, to now say "Hey, this is unfair," comes across as more than a little ad hoc and contrived.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pretty much.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't knowingly withdraw from the conditions for entry to the temple and then complain about not being allowed entry to the temple.

Last I checked, neither the handbook nor the temple recommend book stated that each question must be answered in a specific way.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Fascinating! I think there might be some "contagiousness" with the intensity, and that it is prone to clumping in pockets of influence. 

We had 65 youth and a primary of 120 in my old ward. We post all First Presidency letters (including the one on allowing chaperones), and announced from the pulpit that this was available. Not a single youth or parent requested it. I think this is more normative than the anecdotal pockets where there are some families that want this. 

In writing, though? Man, oh man! Sometimes I'm grateful for the hand I was dealt.  

It's not a contagion. It's awareness.

This is a new phenomena. Looking at what has happened historically over the last 10-15 years won't give much of a sense for how rapidly things are changing. For example, I never had this issue while I was bishop either, but I don't find that experience as very informative to the present. I've been released for 3 years now but a lot has changed in 3 years.

 

[Storm Rider]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Last I checked, neither the handbook nor the temple recommend book stated that each question must be answered in a specific way.

Are you saying that when it says....any of the do questions that I can reply in the negative and still get my temple recommend?  No, I don't think that is correct. 

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

Fascinating! I think there might be some "contagiousness" with the intensity, and that it is prone to clumping in pockets of influence. 

We had 65 youth and a primary of 120 in my old ward. We post all First Presidency letters (including the one on allowing chaperones), and announced from the pulpit that this was available. Not a single youth or parent requested it. I think this is more normative than the anecdotal pockets where there are some families that want this. 

In writing, though? Man, oh man! Sometimes I'm grateful for the hand I was dealt.  

Actually, we feel this is positive and has opened up more communication between the parents and us (the Bishopric).  It for sure has opened up communication on certain topics between the parents who have attended the interviews with their youth.  Some have made sure they went home and discussed The Law of Chastity which is where I believe the communication should take place along with support from the lessons they receive in YWs and YMs.  

I do believe that "contagiousness" may not be the correct word.  It's just more awareness of an issue that many are already concerned about, and then them learning to not be afraid to be more vocal about it.  Many more are learning that they can request to be involved with their youth as they are interviewed.  This is a good step and it's progress, IMO (for all parties involved).

Edited September 19, 2018 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pretty much.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't knowingly withdraw from the conditions for entry to the temple and then complain about not being allowed entry to the temple.

So yes, complaints like this come across as very ad hoc.  

Meh.  This is an ad hoc complaint, IMO, not a principled one based on the TR requirements not being "just."

By this reckoning, you can dispose of any or all of the TR requirements.  Not because there is any moral reasnoning to it, but because they are inconveniently incompatible with a chosen course of conduct.

"Yes, I step out on my wife.  But that doesn't mean the Church can enforce a negative consequence for my behavior."

"No, I don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but that doesn't mean the Church can enforce a negative consequence for my lack of belief."

"No, I don't sustain the general authorities of the Church..."

Again, you can't have it both ways.

There has always been a "power imbalance" in the Church.  That is the way of things in every organization.  Some people have more authority and influence than others.  We all have equal value in the eyes of God, but we are not all called upon to have identical sets of responsibilities and stewardship.  Consider Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 12:

I think the present ad hoc complaints are, in essence, an argument against the organization of the Church.  But I emphasize "ad hoc."  As in we're-just-making-up-complaints-as-we-go-along.  As in there is a predetermined desired outcome (Sam Young and people like him want to be free to publicly rail against the Church, while remaining in full fellowship in it), so we're make up complaints and criticisms that have no particular rhyme or reason, except that they prop up our efforts to pursue the aforementioned desired outcome.

If there is a reasoned and principled complaint about the TR requirements, I'd like to see it.  As it is, however...

This is the way of things.  This is the way things have been for a very long time.  So when people like Sam Young are "facing the music," the utterly foreseeable and reasonable consequences of their misconduct, to now say "Hey, this is unfair," comes across as more than a little ad hoc and contrived.

Thanks,

-Smac

After all of that you didn't really address my issue, namely that just because a person/group has the power to impose a rule and inflict a consequence, doesn't necessarily make it just. You are arguing that because the church has the rule and has the power to enforce it, then there is no reason to complain. This assumes rightness of the condition and the consequence. I haven't argued that the church doesn't have any right to enforce its boundaries. In fact I agreed with that.

But a person/group can create terms and inflict punishment, and it still be unfair. You disagree with that?

Also, can you explain why an "ad hoc" complaint that relates to a specific situation is a bad thing. Again, you seem to be claiming that whoever has the power set terms and enforce consequences is right because they have the power.

I'm curious if there is anything the Q15 could say or do, or policy they could impose that you would not sustain. Anything? Think of the absolute worst you can imagine and pretend they did, said, or set it in policy. Would you sustain or oppose knowing that opposition would mean you lost your Temple Recommend?

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Are you saying that when it says....any of the do questions that I can reply in the negative and still get my temple recommend?  No, I don't think that is correct. 

There isn’t a requirement that questions be answered in any particular way.  It’s a decision between you, your priesthood leader, and the Lord.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious if there is anything the Q15 could say or do, or policy they could impose that you would not sustain. Anything? Think of the absolute worst you can imagine and pretend they did, said, or set it in policy. Would you sustain or oppose knowing that opposition would mean you lost your Temple Recommend?

Great question!  I do feel there are some on here who would never oppose anything that came from the Q15.

I immediately thought of them bringing polygamy back (and learning they had started marrying plural wives).    Would members sustain that change?

Edited September 19, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Last I checked, neither the handbook nor the temple recommend book stated that each question must be answered in a specific way.

Right.  So we're supposed to check our brains at the bishop's door?  A person can legitimately and reasonably expect to receive a temple recommend after responding with "No, I don't believe in God or Jesus Christ, I reject Joseph Smith and the truth claims of the Restored Gospel.  I also do drugs regularly.  And I step out on my wife all the time.  And I slap her around when I'm in a bad mood.  My recommend, please."?

It sure would be nice to not have discussions of serious topics descend into absurdities.

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Right.  So we're supposed to check our brains at the bishop's door?  A person can legitimately and reasonably expect to receive a temple recommend after responding with "No, I don't believe in God or Jesus Christ, I reject Joseph Smith and the truth claims of the Restored Gospel.  I also do drugs regularly.  And I step out on my wife all the time.  And I slap her around when I'm in a bad mood.  My recommend, please."?

It sure would be nice to not have discussions of serious topics descend into absurdities.

-Smac

You took my serious point, reduced it to an absurdity (and not at all what I said nor implied) and then complained that "topics descend into absurdities".

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  So we're supposed to check our brains at the bishop's door?  A person can legitimately and reasonably expect to receive a temple recommend after responding with "No, I don't believe in God or Jesus Christ, I reject Joseph Smith and the truth claims of the Restored Gospel.  I also do drugs regularly.  And I step out on my wife all the time.  And I slap her around when I'm in a bad mood.  My recommend, please."?

It sure would be nice to not have discussions of serious topics descend into absurdities.

-Smac

Which is what you just did.

Edited September 19, 2018 by ALarson

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm seeing an interesting divide between people who feel like the church already protects children adequately, and those who don't. I'm curious what the ratio would be. Do you think only 1 out of 10 members would want greater safety precautions to match general societal norms? Or would it be 2 out of 10? 3, 4, 5 out of 10? This would obviously be a guess unless someone wanted to create a poll on this site.

But at what point would members desire for greater safety precautions override those who are happy with the status quo? Should the majority opinion rule either way, or would the position towards greater safety precautions deserve some kind of preferential treatment.

IOW- if 4 out of 10 members felt the church needed to do more to protect the children, would that 40% be significant enough that changes should be made? Or are they out of luck until they hit 51%.

I think you bring up what has been bothering most about brother Young and his acolytes. The don't acknowledge that people can or should disagree with them.  There is only one valid opinion. If I don't agree with them, it must be because I support child abuse, or that I can't think for my self.

They don't think there can be a benefit to having confidential interviews with children (Or I suspect) with anyone.  Even though i disagree with Abulafia, I respect that she is at least honest about her belief that confidential interviews don't have a value.

I, on the other hand have seen the value of confidential interviews, both my own and of those that I am close to (one in particular who was a victim of child sexual abuse).  These interviews could not have been beneficial the way that they were, if they weren't confidential.

These benefits, in my opinion far outweigh what little  risks there of of ecclesiastical abuse. 

It would be nice for Brother Young to at least acknowledge that there is an opposing opinion to theirs and that it doesn't mean that we favor child abuse.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  So we're supposed to check our brains at the bishop's door?  A person can legitimately and reasonably expect to receive a temple recommend after responding with "No, I don't believe in God or Jesus Christ, I reject Joseph Smith and the truth claims of the Restored Gospel.  I also do drugs regularly.  And I step out on my wife all the time.  And I slap her around when I'm in a bad mood.  My recommend, please."?

It sure would be nice to not have discussions of serious topics descend into absurdities.

-Smac

Here are the instructions for Temple Recommend interviews.

Quote

Interviewing Instructions  

Exercise great care when interviewing applicants for recommends to enter a temple.

Make it clear that you represent the Lord in determining worthiness to enter his holy house. No unworthy applicant should receive a recommend. Be certain that each applicant is worthy as a result of living up to Church standards and principles.

Acceptable answers to the recommend interview questions ordinarily will establish worthiness to receive a recommend. Do not assume that worthiness to enter the temple at one time is reason for a casual interview later. Discuss the interview questions with each applicant, and keep each interview private.

Require an applicant who is not living up to Church standards and principles to demonstrate true repentance before receiving a recommend to enter a temple.

When interviewing an applicant for a recommend, do not inquire into personal, intimate matters about marital relations between a husband and his wife.

Generally, do not deviate from the recommend interview questions. If, during an interview, an applicant asks about the propriety of specific conduct, do not pursue the matter. Merely suggest that if the applicant has enough anxiety about the propriety of the conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it.

If you are sensitive and wise, you usually can prevent those being interviewed from asking such explicit questions.

I'd never really ever considered the possibility that "wrong answers" could be given but the recommend could still be given. "Ordinarily" allows for some variation. Obviously, the rule would be that "correct answers" would result in a TR but it doesn't necessarily follow that "wrong answers" MUST result in withholding the recommend. Very interesting.

Sidenote/derail- I'd never noticed the last line of the instruction which states that if a leader is sensitive and wise, the person being interviewed can be prevented from even asking a question that may not be appropriate. I also find it troubling that if a person asks about whether a behavior is appropriate or not, the mere process of asking implies that the behavior should be discontinued. Talk about side-stepping tough questions with some bad psychology, IMO.

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not a contagion. It's awareness.

I put it in quotes to designate "for lack of a better term." I was referring to the concept of "social contagion," which doesn't have connotations one way or another. Like with suicide contagion, or social memes (the technical term, not pictures of Willy Wonka with captions)   I think it's beyond doubt that the "clumping" (again, for lack of a better term, but I think you know what I mean) of incidence of people insisting on or even availing themselves of chaperoning, can be traced back to (neutral) social media "contagion." 

Another way of looking at it is Malcolm Gladwell's concept of "stickiness" in "Tipping Point" (which has great applicability in this discussion). He looks at why some social phenomena "take off," and others don't. It's a fascinating sociological phenomenon to look at. For chaperoned interviews to "tip" in the Church would require factors and key people ("mavens") to align and push things to critical mass. 

If this happens, then the Brethren will yield to the internal social pressure, as they have before. But it is not certain that things will develop that way, and obviously I hope that they don't. I think that supporters see the enthusiasm among their "fellow travelers" (lack of a better term, again) as indicating snowballing momentum within the Church.

I think Sam Young's movement will follow other "can't miss" movements, like Ordain Women. Excommunications are very effective at taking wind out of those sails. 

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

After all of that you didn't really address my issue, namely that just because a person/group has the power to impose a rule and inflict a consequence, doesn't necessarily make it just.

You haven't raised an issue.  Your making an insinuation, that's all.  And the insinuation (that the TR questions are unjust) comes across as ad hoc and contrived.

Quote

You are arguing that because the church has the rule and has the power to enforce it, then there is no reason to complain.

The prophets and apostles have the keys to administer the ordinances, I don't.

If there is a good faith and principled and reasoned complaint about the TR questions, I'd like to see it.  Instead, what we are seeing here is ad hoc.

Quote

This assumes rightness of the condition and the consequence. I haven't argued that the church doesn't have any right to enforce its boundaries. In fact I agreed with that.

But a person/group can create terms and inflict punishment, and it still be unfair. You disagree with that?

In the abstract, yes.

But in the particular of the TR questions, no, I'm not buying into that.  The complaint about the TR question about sustaining the leaders of the Church is only being presented because of Sam Young and his followers.  It's an ad hoc complaint, not a reasoned or principled one.

Quote

Also, can you explain why an "ad hoc" complaint that relates to a specific situation is a bad thing.

Because ad hoc complaints usually aren't based on fairness or generalized principles of reasoning and ethics.  They are contrived.  They are fabricated in the moment to prop up someone's position (in this instance, people who cast dissenting votes).

Quote

Again, you seem to be claiming that whoever has the power set terms and enforce consequences is right because they have the power.

No.  I'm saying that the ad hoc complaints presented here are not based on what is "just," but rather on what is convenient to support a predetermined desired outcome (evasion of the consequences of casting a dissenting vote).

Quote

I'm curious if there is anything the Q15 could say or do, or policy they could impose that you would not sustain. Anything?

Certainly.  For example, Amasa Lyman, a prominent early leader of the Church, was excommunicated for repeatedly giving sermons "which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ" and for his association with apostates (Godbeites).  His grandson, Richard R. Lyman, is another example of someone whose behavior I would not sustain.

I know of a person who cast a dissenting vote as to a person in her ward who had received a calling.  She spoke with the bishop afterward and aired her concerns about the fitness of the person to function in that calling.  The calling was then rescinded, and the person who cast the dissenting vote did not face any censure for doing so.

This is an example of a proper basis for casting a dissenting vote.  A dissenting vote as an exercise in "virtue signalling" in General Conference gets no respect or admiration from me.

Quote

Think of the absolute worst you can imagine and pretend they did, said, or set it in policy. Would you sustain or oppose knowing that opposition would mean you lost your Temple Recommend?

I think that a person who casts a dissenting vote based on personal knowledge of substantial worthiness issues with an individual leader could very well get a temple recommend.

For example, I know of a situation that involved an elderly woman whose grandchild, a baby, was born severely brain-damaged and later died because of the doctor's medical negligence.  A long and very painful lawsuit ensued, at which the doctor's malpractice was determined.  Years later, that doctor ended up being called as the stake president of the elderly woman.  That woman had a difficult time offering a "sustaining vote" for this man, given that he had caused the death of her grandson, and in the litigation he had blamed pretty much everyone else but himself for the baby's death.  The Church worked with this elderly woman, and she was able to obtain and retain a temple recommend throughout the doctor's tenure as stake president.

In contrast, I think a lot of people who are casting dissenting votes are misusing the system.  They have no knowledge of misconduct or worthiness issues of the general authorities, but nevertheless cast a dissenting vote for "symbolism," or based on some peculiar and specific pet issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[lostindc]

Crazy how distracted posters get in this thread about grabbing on to any sort of material that might disqualify the messenger instead of the message.  

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Here are the instructions for Temple Recommend interviews.

I'd never really ever considered the possibility that "wrong answers" could be given but the recommend could still be given. "Ordinarily" allows for some variation. Obviously, the rule would be that "correct answers" would result in a TR but it doesn't necessarily follow that "wrong answers" MUST result in withholding the recommend. Very interesting.

Yep.  The local leaders are given a lot of discretion, and often endeavor to facilitate a struggling person's ability to retain a TR.  Worthiness issues are, I think, a different consideration from concerns/doubts about matters of faith and reasoning (such as are found in the first four questions of the TR).

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sidenote/derail- I'd never noticed the last line of the instruction which states that if a leader is sensitive and wise, the person being interviewed can be prevented from even asking a question that may not be appropriate.

Yes.  

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I also find it troubling that if a person asks about whether a behavior is appropriate or not, the mere process of asking implies that the behavior should be discontinued.

"If the applicant has enough anxiety about the propriety of the conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it."  This is probably a reference to matters involving sexuality.  To its credit, the Church has backed away from trying to establish "bright line rules" about such things, and instead offers the foregoing wise counsel.

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Talk about side-stepping tough questions with some bad psychology, IMO.

And yet if the Church were to "step in" and declare that such-and-such a sexual practice is inappropriate, we'd be hearing complaints about the Church being nosy and perverted.

Holy cow.  Can the Church ever do anything right in the eyes of its critics?  Apparently not.  We darned if we do.  Darned if we don't.  Darned no matter what we do.

Such is the bitter fruit of endless faultfinding.

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Crazy how distracted posters get in this thread about grabbing on to any sort of material that might disqualify the messenger instead of the message.  

Meh.  We've had plenty of discussion about Sam Young's "message."

-Smac

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Crazy how distracted posters get in this thread about grabbing on to any sort of material that might disqualify the messenger instead of the message.  

Isn't this thread supposed to be about the messenger?

But I agree, time should be spent disqualifying the message as well. 

[smac97]

.

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You took my serious point, reduced it to an absurdity (and not at all what I said nor implied) and then complained that "topics descend into absurdities".

Well, I didn't take it as a serious point.  I saw it as an absurdity.

Perhaps you could clarify that point you were trying to make.  I apologize for jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lostindc]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Isn't this thread supposed to be about the messenger?

But I agree, time should be spent disqualifying the message as well. 

For sure on both counts.  

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'd never really ever considered the possibility that "wrong answers" could be given but the recommend could still be given. "Ordinarily" allows for some variation. Obviously, the rule would be that "correct answers" would result in a TR but it doesn't necessarily follow that "wrong answers" MUST result in withholding the recommend. Very interesting.

I had two occasions in which the member I was interviewing gave an answer that would generally be considered the "wrong" answer.  We proceeded to discuss the principle.  On both occasions, I felt impressed to grant the recommend.

Note:  I was a bishop's counselor at the time so neither of the above issues had to deal with serious transgressions, in which case I would have stopped the interview and had them meet with the bishop.

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I didn't take it as a serious point.  I saw it as an absurdity.

Perhaps you could clarify that point you were trying to make.  I apologize for jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

See my point just above this post.