Jump to content
smac97

Change to TR Interview Question?

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine who is in a bishopric just told me that he noticed what appears to be a change in the online list of temple recommend questions for limited-use recommends.  Specifically, question 7 states:

Quote

Do you support any group or person whose teachings oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The corollary question for regular temple recommends is:

Quote

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Anyone know anything about this?

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

I don't like this change (if it is true) because it is fairly broad.  President Trump has many practices that are contrary or opposed to practices accepted by the church.   Does that mean if one supports Trump, they don't get a TR?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

It's funny how this question really originated out of concern about polygamy, but since has expanded to be much more far reaching.

Who knows who will fall under its umbrella in the future.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

how do they define "affiliate"? like if you work with someone who is gay married or lives common law with someone? like yeah, I affiliate with them but I don't live like them

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Who knows who will fall under its umbrella in the future.

I feel certain I won't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Anyone know anything about this?

I haven't heard anything, but I hope it's true. I think I had to explain that question to every single youth I ever interviewed ... and half the adults.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I feel certain I won't.

You may be surprised.  At many times in Church history a great many faithful members found themselves unexpectedly in opposition to the church they believe in.

In fact, I  believe it's a requirement for us to reach that point so that we can be tried in all things.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

At many times in Church history a great many faithful members found themselves unexpectedly in opposition to the church they believe in.

Been there, done that. A few times. Each time, the Lord has corrected me and guided me back.

Quote

In fact, I  believe it's a requirement for us to reach that point so that we can be tried in all things.

Absolutely! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I feel certain I won't.

Do you affiliate with anyone who drinks or smokes?  I know I do.  Those are word of wisdom violations and are  "practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

If only it did.

(My politics are peeking out)

😢

Share this post


Link to post

What is changed here?  Several mention "affiliate", but that has been there a long time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Rain said:

What is changed here?  Several mention "affiliate", but that has been there a long time. 

Do you support any group or person whose teachings oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

vs.

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

29 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Do you affiliate with anyone who drinks or smokes?  I know I do.  Those are word of wisdom violations and are  "practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Hence my comment that this update would be a good improvement. I think we all know what the question is supposed to capture, but then it often turns into a silly response. I know I've personally joked in the past by responding, 'Well, do you mean other than working for the university?' And now that I work in the parliament, well ...

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Nvm, hamba was more accurate 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Do you affiliate with anyone who drinks or smokes?  I know I do.  Those are word of wisdom violations and are  "practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Not really. The Word of Wisdom is one of the commandments that only applies to the Saints (says so itself) so non members who drink or smoke are not opposed to our doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post

Also affiliate implies an official attachment to a person or group, not just working with or being a friend to someone.

Taken literally this question does mean you cannot belong to any political party I am aware of. :vader: 

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not really. The Word of Wisdom is one of the commandments that only applies to the Saints (says so itself) so non members who drink or smoke are not opposed to our doctrine.

Well, if we are spitting hairs, and apparently that is what we are doing, then really the Wow is not a commandment.  God said it was just a "word of wisdom".  Some man man changed that latter on.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you support any group or person whose teachings oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

vs.

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Hence my comment that this update would be a good improvement. I think we all know what the question is supposed to capture, but then it often turns into a silly response. I know I've personally joked in the past by responding, 'Well, do you mean other than working for the university?' And now that I work in the parliament, well ...

Smac said one was for limited use and one was for regular recomends. Does this mean only the limited qiestion was changed? The last time I got a limited use recommend was in 1986 or around there so I don't have any recollection of what it said.

That is one of the reasons I am confused. Did the regular one change at all? Some of the comments seem like some think affiliate was added, not taken away, but maybe I am reading those wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

The definition of affiliate is:  "officially attach or connect (a subsidiary group or a person) to an organization."  Obviously, just being in friendship with another is not to affiliate with them. To affiliate with another, you must "officially" attach with them - you join an organization. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think we all know what the question is supposed to capture, but then it often turns into a silly response. I know I've personally joked in the past by responding, 'Well, do you mean other than working for the university?

I would respond by saying "besides the Boy Scouts ?".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Well, if we are spitting hairs, and apparently that is what we are doing, then really the Wow is not a commandment.  God said it was just a "word of wisdom".  Some man man changed that latter on.  

It was a prophet and not a “man man”. The other part did not change and it is not splitting hairs to acknowledge that.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, smac97 said:

A friend of mine who is in a bishopric just told me that he noticed what appears to be a change in the online list of temple recommend questions for limited-use recommends.  Specifically, question 7 states:

The corollary question for regular temple recommends is:

Anyone know anything about this?

-Smac

Sounds like a good change.

Prsonally, when interviewing youth I had been skipping that question with the youngr kids.  It just confused them.

 

Share this post


Link to post

It’s less harsh by what I read.

you now can associate with them but not support.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a hard time seeing anyone possibly answering that question with a clear no.  Everyone has a boss, a co-worker, a grandma, child, cousin, neighbor who teaches or does something contrary to the teachings of the Church and yet everyone should support in some sense these people in their lives.  It sounds like they are trying to get members to avoid people outside the Church at all costs.  

The other day I was talking to a friend who said she had a long time friend who "decided to be gay".  That friend, an active member of the Church, said as if explaining something to me, "I don't associate with her anymore.  I need to stay away from that kind of stuff and can't advocate any support for her".   I guess she's trying to take this question literally.  I find such behavior completely wrong-headed and told her so.  

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×