Change to TR Interview Question?

[stemelbow]

10 hours 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.

I don't see how that makes sense.  For one, many members of the Church, at least those on the records, smoke and drink.  for another there's nothing in the question that indicates that you can support non-members who oppose the teachings of the Church.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

I'm lost.  

Can someone clarify what we're talking about?

"Here is the old question: XXXX"

"Here is the new question: XXXX"

 

We're all standing here arguing over the word "affiliate", but that word has always been there to my recollection.   (See, for example, this random reddit thread from 4 years go.)

 

From Smac's opening post, it would seem that the church is -removing- and -shortening- this question, not adding to it.

Edited November 8, 2018 by LoudmouthMormon

[Storm Rider]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

That is not what affiliate means. You are stretching the question to mean something different than what it states. 

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

That is not what affiliate means. You are stretching the question to mean something different than what it states. 

I didn't say anything about affiliate and what it means.  I talked about support.  If I'm wrong, please clarify.  How do you have an employee for instance who opposes the teachings fo the Church in some way, and yet you don't support that employee?  

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

That is not what affiliate means. You are stretching the question to mean something different than what it states. 

But "affiliate" isn't the only word in the question.

What does "support" mean.?

What does "agree" mean?

What does "teachings or practices" mean?

That's kind of the point. The question is SUPER vague and could be applied to most people in some way or another. The new, shorter question, is still SUPER vague, but at least it's shorter and not quite as confusing.

[Oliblish]

16 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:

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:

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

It is not clear to me what the change is.

You say the first question above is from the limited-use questions and the second one is from the regular temple recommend question list.  What was the change?  Did the limited-use question match the regular recommend question before?  If not what was the limited use question before the change?

Edited November 8, 2018 by Oliblish
emphasis added

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Oliblish said:

Did the limited-use question match the regular recommend question before? 

It did.

[Gray]

Quote

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

 

Can anyone answer no to this? I think it's time to retire this altogether.

[blueglass]

I think question 7 is primarily a rainbow flag question.  If you are an ally of LGBT constitutional rights to marry, HRC, or other non-profit organizations which promote LGBT marriages in a positive light, then depending on the views of the presiding authority conducting the interview they may decide to deny a temple recommend.   For example I believe at BYU no professors are allowed to post support for gay marriage or post rainbow flags on facebook without losing their job. 

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't say anything about affiliate and what it means.  I talked about support.  If I'm wrong, please clarify.  How do you have an employee for instance who opposes the teachings fo the Church in some way, and yet you don't support that employee?  

I actually agree.  I think the question should not focus on supporting individuals, but rather should focus on  supporting ideas, teachings, or practices.  I think that is what the question is really getting at but could be worded better to avoid confusion.

If I was to rewrite it, it would read like this:

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

Instead of this:

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

I think that would clear up a lot of confusion, which it is clear there is a lot of. 

Edited November 8, 2018 by pogi

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I actually agree.  I think the question should not focus on supporting individuals, but rather should focus on  supporting ideas, teachings, or practices.  I think that is what the question is really getting at but could be worded better to avoid confusion.

If I was to rewrite it, it would read like this:

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

Instead of this:

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

I think that would clear up a lot of confusion, which it is clear there is a lot of. 

Yes.  The other way you get members disowning family and friends if your not careful, as my example of my friend indicates.  

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I actually agree.  I think the question should not focus on supporting individuals, but rather should focus on  supporting ideas, teachings, or practices.  I think that is what the question is really getting at but could be worded better to avoid confusion.

If I was to rewrite it, it would read like this:

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

Instead of this:

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

I think that would clear up a lot of confusion, which it is clear there is a lot of. 

Is anyone aware of any training related to problems with question 7?  When I served in a bishopric for a few years I always asked for more training on these matters, yet no one had any advice to give.  When I asked a counselor in the stake presidency he looked at me suspiciously and said I should already know what is and is not an appropriate answer to that question.  A few months later when visiting another ward, my friend said the stake president was consistently denying temple recommends to anyone who supports LGBTQ rights, but only if they brought it up in the interview.  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Can anyone answer no to this? I think it's time to retire this altogether.

The key is just to make sure you support nothing and no one and then you are safe.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Can anyone answer no to this? I think it's time to retire this altogether.

It's a confusing question.  I feel like if they really want to know this, then they should be specific in what the mean.  There's too much room for personal interpretation, for good and bad.

[let’s roll]

I was asked about the intent of the question a number of times while conducting interviews and would say I believe it can be understood to be asking whether we are, in word or deed, unapologetically in opposition to Gospel teachings.   Btw, respecting the law of the land, even if the law is contrary to Church teachings, is always appropriate.

i

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's a confusing question.  I feel like if they really want to know this, then they should be specific in what the mean.  There's too much room for personal interpretation, for good and bad.

As we can see with the change to the limited use recommend, it is very easy to make a change to the questions. I think the church has been very aware of the confusion about this question for a long time. I think it is intentionally vague and confusing (why else would they keep it for so long). So why would they intentionally ask such a vague and confusing question? I think it's intended to spur conversation and self-reflection. That is a good thing. Unfortunately, there is no direction given about what the intent of the question is. Beyond the personal self-reflection, there is no direction for where the person should make adjustments to their life. It's all personal and individualized...except for when a leader attempts to impose his interpretation of the question's meaning and intent.

So I don't mind a vague question like this (I'm surprised to be typing that sentence) as long as direction is given to leaders and members about what the intent of the question is and how it actually applies to their lives. Otherwise it's meaningless in the broader context of the church and the boundary maintenance of temple worthiness.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's a confusing question.  I feel like if they really want to know this, then they should be specific in what the mean.  There's too much room for personal interpretation, for good and bad.

I think personal interpretation is involved with all the questions, and anyone could struggle with or rationalize what any one of them means depending on their priorities, influences, temptations, challenges, etc. Many of them are topics (tithe, chastity, belief, testimony, for example) often discussed on this message board in various ways.

The questions are not so much for informing the bishop of discrete facts, but of establishing the interviewee's spiritual disposition. The answers are between the interviewee and the Lord, and the judgement rendered is between the interviewer and the Lord. Hopefully the Spirit is with both of them. I think the more we look outside of that for guidance on conducting a fact-based transnational conversation, the less organic, effective and meaningful the interview.

I imagine the change in the wording of this particular question for limited use recommends will probably change in the books for the two-year recommends also. I see this as a good thing, part the Church's aim to simplify and globalize her practices. I think it's a good and necessary question since supporting the Church is one of the temple covenants. It also relates nicely to the tithing and sustaining questions (the three questions cover supporting the Church financially, personally and organizationally -- very multi-layered).

[CV75]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As we can see with the change to the limited use recommend, it is very easy to make a change to the questions. I think the church has been very aware of the confusion about this question for a long time. I think it is intentionally vague and confusing (why else would they keep it for so long). So why would they intentionally ask such a vague and confusing question? I think it's intended to spur conversation and self-reflection. That is a good thing. Unfortunately, there is no direction given about what the intent of the question is. Beyond the personal self-reflection, there is no direction for where the person should make adjustments to their life. It's all personal and individualized...except for when a leader attempts to impose his interpretation of the question's meaning and intent.

So I don't mind a vague question like this (I'm surprised to be typing that sentence) as long as direction is given to leaders and members about what the intent of the question is and how it actually applies to their lives. Otherwise it's meaningless in the broader context of the church and the boundary maintenance of temple worthiness.

My understanding of boundary maintenance is to main a distinction between "us" and "them". I don't see the temple recommend or questions serving that purpose. Rather, they encourage "a godly walk and conversation" between the interviewee and the Lord (in the moment of the interview and daily) and the interviewer's inspiration to use his keys properly in authorizing God's children to enter the temple. It is more personal and individual than "us" and them."

I think before the wording change, people took it to mean pretty much the same thing as it does to them now (see remarks above about those who struggle with it), which requires no more direction than we get in the correlated materials that inform us about the other recommend topics.

[sunstoned]

On 11/7/2018 at 7:29 PM, Duncan said:

and what about Guns and Roses? does anyone think about them?😑

daily.,

[Navidad]

On 11/7/2018 at 11:26 PM, 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.  

Is that true? I got rebuked pretty good on here a few weeks ago for differentiating between the law of the WOW, the law of tithing, and the law of fasting. The WOW is not a commandment? Then it can't be a law of the Lord like the other two? If you really want to split hairs, I follow my group's word of wisdom, but not the LDS WOW. Since I support a WOW, I suppose I am not contrary to or in opposition to the LDS Church.

[Navidad]

On 11/8/2018 at 6:16 AM, Storm Rider said:

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. 

Quick question - would the Church consider affiliation with the Masons an affiliation in violation of this question? Do individual bishops have the right to make decisions based on their own beliefs about what the Church teaches? I suppose it is inevitable that they do that.

[Prof]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But "affiliate" isn't the only word in the question.

What does "support" mean.?

What does "agree" mean?

What does "teachings or practices" mean?

That's kind of the point. The question is SUPER vague and could be applied to most people in some way or another. The new, shorter question, is still SUPER vague, but at least it's shorter and not quite as confusing.

HJW,

When I read your post, I was reminded of the expression "It depends on what the definition of IS is"

 

[Navidad]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

I actually agree.  I think the question should not focus on supporting individuals, but rather should focus on  supporting ideas, teachings, or practices.  I think that is what the question is really getting at but could be worded better to avoid confusion.

If I was to rewrite it, it would read like this:

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

Instead of this:

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

I think that would clear up a lot of confusion, which it is clear there is a lot of. 

I like that. But, when Mormons or Mormon groups join with other Christian groups (see how I keep sliding that in?) to facilitate disaster relief, support against LGBQT issues, ERA-type issues, etc. might they be in violation of this question? I have seen Mormons on platforms with Billy Graham. This by the way is one of the big differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists. I feel supported by the folks in our ward, is there an exception for those considered investigators?

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

My understanding of boundary maintenance is to main a distinction between "us" and "them". I don't see the temple recommend or questions serving that purpose. Rather, they encourage "a godly walk and conversation" between the interviewee and the Lord (in the moment of the interview and daily) and the interviewer's inspiration to use his keys properly in authorizing God's children to enter the temple. It is more personal and individual than "us" and them."

I think before the wording change, people took it to mean pretty much the same thing as it does to them now (see remarks above about those who struggle with it), which requires no more direction than we get in the correlated materials that inform us about the other recommend topics.

Boundary maintenance - a term I have not heard. Now you have piqued my interest. Dare I ask? Does the "us" equal Latter-day Saints and the "them" non-Latter-day Saints? Is it really the Church's declared intent to maintain a border wall between itself and the "other?" I do enjoy these kinds of threads; they show much more vitality than the usual declarative statements.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Navidad

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

My understanding of boundary maintenance is to main a distinction between "us" and "them". I don't see the temple recommend or questions serving that purpose. Rather, they encourage "a godly walk and conversation" between the interviewee and the Lord (in the moment of the interview and daily) and the interviewer's inspiration to use his keys properly in authorizing God's children to enter the temple. It is more personal and individual than "us" and them."

I think before the wording change, people took it to mean pretty much the same thing as it does to them now (see remarks above about those who struggle with it), which requires no more direction than we get in the correlated materials that inform us about the other recommend topics.

We see this differently. To me, the process of formally accepting an in-group which is able to attend the temple for the most meaningful worship the church offers, OR formally rejecting (even if temporarily) from the group, thus making them an out group. People in the church are quickly identified as endowed, or TR holding members. Many callings require TR worthiness, so it seems very much about creating a desired class of Mormon and then encouraging others to join that class. But until they do, they aren't part of the "in" group.l

9 minutes ago, Prof said:

HJW,

When I read your post, I was reminded of the expression "It depends on what the definition of IS is"

 

Yeah, I can see that   But I think we often take for granted what words mean when in fact they can mean many different things.

25 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Quick question - would the Church consider affiliation with the Masons an affiliation in violation of this question? Do individual bishops have the right to make decisions based on their own beliefs about what the Church teaches? I suppose it is inevitable that they do that.

No. Being a mason wouldn't disqualify a member from temple worthiness. As I'm sure you know, historically there were MANY church leaders who were masons. While that has dwindled significantly, I still know a few TR holding members who are also masons.

But yes, bishops have the right to make decisions based on their own interpretation and understanding. It would be impossible for a bishop not to. Bishops are generally knowledgeable about doctrines but everyone has a slightly different understanding of things. Personal interpretation of scriptures, and even the unconscious decision about which scriptures, rules, policies they believe are most important, will inevitably lead to differences in application throughout the church.