Temple recommend interview questions

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, I'm in trouble now.  Although I disagree with this change.  Which I suppose also puts me in trouble.

And probably half the membership too I suppose.   Unless we all only support the official version of every single doctrine...

I am a bit iffy about the change too.  Makes it feel quite broad in application, more so than the previous version.

Apparently SettingDog sees it as reversed.  If so, just goes to show making language clear to everyone isn't going to happen.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Calm

[let’s roll]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Honesty with yourself is as important in my view as with others.  A lot of dishonesty with others starts with rationalizations we know in our hearts are untrue.

I very much like the more global treatment of honesty.  Even when it only affects our selves, we are being encouraged to be honest.

Agree.  Global treatment includes our honesty with Deity as well.

[JAHS]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Gosh, just ask the one question then, it sums them all up. 

Why have all the others??

Right. It would make the interview go much faster.  I think they just want to emphasize those other things a little more. 

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, I'm in trouble now.  Although I disagree with this change.  Which I suppose also puts me in trouble.

And probably half the membership too I suppose.   Unless we all only support the official version of every single doctrine...

....while the question of what is and is not "Doctrine" is pretty unsettled anyway, especially when you throw in personal revelation.

Do you say the Doctrine is wrong and only your interpretation is correct?

That would be "contrary"

I feel fine about my interpretations because I feel they are all compatible with Doctrine and admit I could be wrong, and say so.

Alternative interpretations are not " contrary" in my book, they are different perspectives 

[kllindley]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think this is a bit of a change that might make a difference.

Technically the law of Chastity is about sexual relations, now this I would think covers porn and associated behaviors more clearly 

And it also goes to being honest with yourself. Breaking the law of Chastity starts with a thought 

But it might cause confusion between immoral thoughts and temptations. I can see that happening too

 

This was the biggest thing that stood out for me. I think that the separation of Law of Chastity and moral cleanliness in thought and action and the differing wording creates additional clarity regarding pornography and masturbation.  There the standard is "striving for cleanliness.". Regarding Law of Chastity, the standard is "keeping."

Hopefully, this means no more Bishops pulling recommends for pornography use or masturbation that a member is working to overcome. 

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you say the Doctrine is wrong and only your interpretation is correct?

That would be "contrary"

You know I say I disagree with several doctrines of the Church, mostly because I hold to some of their previous doctrines.

[rpn]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, I'm in trouble now.  Although I disagree with this change.  Which I suppose also puts me in trouble.

And probably half the membership too I suppose.   Unless we all only support the official version of every single doctrine...

Not agreeing with doctrine is not the same as supporting or promoting things that are contrary to doctrine.   Elsewhere in the conference there was a specific discussion of what is doctrine and it is limited to what all the first presidency and Q12 teach.

[blueglass]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Interlinear comparisons (with updates in red) in case that helps:

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 Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?

3. Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

4. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?  Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?

5. The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41). Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior? Do you obey God’s law of chastity?

6. Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?

7. Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8. Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament; and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9. Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?

10. Are you a full-tithe payer?

11. Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?

12. Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13. Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?

14. Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?

15. Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?

Personally, I find these clarifications self-explanatory and, having given dozens of such interviews, welcome them. No doubt some others will disagree ...

Thank you for the comparison compilation

Here are a few thoughts and questions I have.  let's frame this as questions for a friend who has a temple renewal recommend interview coming up in a few weeks. 

1.  Yes,  I believe in God but I also believe in Goddess and believe they are a divine ruling pair as heavenly parents.  Not sure about polygamy yet.  I believe in Jesus Christ but I am confused how he is a member of the Godhead having never entered into the covenant of eternal marriage. 

2.  yes, but I reject penal substitution and lean more towards ontological and christus victor.  I also believe in the facts of evolutionary science which means there was not a physical fall and spiritual fall has different meaning now which changes how I view atonement as well.  I also believe in technological transfiguration and that creation was left with some chaos for the last creation "homo sapiens" to labor to fix the bring into order the problems caused. 

3  yes i believe in continuing restoration, restitution, rebuilding, reforming is always required to keep the church alive.  a restored church adds scripture to the doctrine and covenants - and I hope for more revelation.

4 yes I sustain and will help hold up Moses arms when they are tired.  we sustain through service, taking initiative and honoring the name of Christ in our words and actions.  I believe and hope women will one day become apostles

5 Yes, I strive and believe God's law of chastity should include married gay couples.  Please stop excommunicating them for entering into legal and lawful marriage and invite them to worship with us.  It's not on me to say who can or cannot be sealed in our temples, but I believe people are happier, and grow and progress more spiritually as a couple than they can alone.  We gain spiritual strength through covenant marriage. 

6 yes.

7 yes, I support marriage equality, am a blue-dog democrat, and i'm not interested in debating doctrine in this interview.

8 yes, sabbath is holy and a day of holy rest.

9 strive yes.

10 I donate 10% my after tax+housing+food income to 3 way split between tithes, humanitarian aid,  and LDS philanthropies for women in computer science scholarship.

11 - I drink cold coffee, drink light beer once every couple years, and a shot of whisky once in a while, kombucha, and lemon grass tea.  I obey the word of wisdom the way Joseph Smith did - hope that's ok. 

12 no

13 yes I strive to wear garments

14 no, -  please stop asking sexual questions in interviews, please report abusers to law enforcement immediately, and provide or recommend qualified licensed therapists and counselors to help others with compulsive disorders people may have.

15 Yes - I hope so, what do you think?

 

 

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, rpn said:

Not agreeing with doctrine is not the same as supporting or promoting things that are contrary to doctrine.   Elsewhere in the conference there was a specific discussion of what is doctrine and it is limited to what all the first presidency and Q12 teach.

There are still other statements saying that our doctrine is that Christ was born, atoned for our sins, died for us, and was resurrected. 

Much of our other doctrine is a moving target. I never believed that same gender marriage was tantamount to apostasy.  The Brethren didn’t, then they did, now they don’t again. 

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

 

7 yes, I support marriage equality, am a blue-dog democrat, and i'm not interested in debating doctrine in this interview.

 

Since Church doctrine is to obey, honor, and sustain the law, you are okay on this one (assuming you live in a country where marriage equality is the law of the land).

[blueglass]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Since Church doctrine is to obey, honor, and sustain the law, you are okay on this one (assuming you live in a country where marriage equality is the law of the land).

As long as God's law of chastity can include AofF 12?   Elder Renlund served in Dem Republic of Congo where polygamy is legal.  We should be ok with polygamous families joining our church  as it's supported in our scriptures. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Let's frame this as questions for a friend who has a temple renewal recommend interview coming up in a few weeks.

Is your friend really so childish that he would arrange a temple recommend interview as an excuse to engage in a silly point-scoring exercise with an already overburdened bishopric member?

[blueglass]

17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Is your friend really so childish that he would arrange a temple recommend interview as an excuse to engage in a silly point-scoring exercise with an already overburdened bishopric member?

Oh - you're right.  I forgot to suggest downloading the temple recommend app - so my friend could submit simple yes/no responses electronically simultaneously to the presiding authority bishop/stake president. 

Edited October 7, 2019 by blueglass

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You know I say I disagree with several doctrines of the Church, mostly because I hold to some of their previous doctrines.

Hey who am I to say-- but sounds good to me if they are contradicting themselves- what are you supposed to do??

Care to share which doctrines?   This kind of rings a bell with me that you disagreed on something but I can't remember what.

Just curious and it's not my business and if we disagree I won't bring it up again- I think people who follow the spirit are entitled to their own revelations anyway.

The entire contradiction the church does not seem to understand is that not everyone agrees with the church's revelations even though they might pray about their positions and get different answers from the spirit.

The problem with that is it is on the edge of a contradiction to expect people to get their own testimonies and then when the person comes up with their own revelation, calling it an "error".

Either we really allow for personal individual revelations or we follow blindly- and that is the route of Jim Jones.  So they have a problem with encouraging individual testimony while demanding dogmatic adherence to doctrine.

But that is not what is happening.  That itself is contradictory to the teachings they intend to express.  

And really the bottom line is that if some beliefs are actually "contrary" to our doctrine ("The Atonement never happened.") then the temple is probably not for them anyway.

So suppose you believe in the Adam God theory.  Do you "promote" that view and is it "contrary" to church doctrine?

Not in my book.  Doctrine on that is very ambiguous.

Edited October 7, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

 

15 Yes - I hope so, what do you think?

 

 

It doesn't matter what I think, it's what God thinks.

Just answer the questions.  You don't have to tell your life story.

It's between you and God and if you get in trouble with God I would worry about that a little more than getting in trouble with the bishop.

Why would you even want to go to the temple?  Those answers on tithing and the word of wisdom would disqualify you anyway - changes or not!

Whatever. 

Edited October 7, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, SteveO said:

Probably not a hill they were willing to die on in 2019...

 

I do like the new way it is phrased though

The disposition to choose one’s battles carefully seems to be present in recent procedural and policy changes in Church administration. 
 

Take, for example, the retirement this past weekend of the term “auxiliary.” I remember reading a while back that some were complaining that the word, as applied to the Relief Society, marginalized women. What the complainers were failing to recognize, however, was that the word was applied to each of five organizations in the Church (Relief Society, Young Women, Primary, Young Men and Sunday School) and that of those five, two are led by men. If it’s marginalizing to women in their organization, why wouldn’t it also be so for men and the organizations they lead? The idea conveyed was that these organizations were supplemental (or “auxiliary”) to the work of the priesthood in saving souls and blessing lives  

That said, it is somewhat of an antiquated term and rather needless. Why not just say “organization”? Why tack “auxiliary” onto it? Thus, why not retire it if some people are going to have heartburn over it, even if their reasoning is not eminently sound?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think this is a bit of a change that might make a difference.

Technically the law of Chastity is about sexual relations, now this I would think covers porn and associated behaviors more clearly 

And it also goes to being honest with yourself. Breaking the law of Chastity starts with a thought 

But it might cause confusion between immoral thoughts and temptations. I can see that happening too

 

Here again, the term “strive for” (as opposed to having achieved perfection) might bring some clarity to the matter. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I have usually answered #4 with : Yes, as far as they are translated correctly" Sometimes the questioner laughs... sometimes not. 

As for #7, given that we here are often arguing over what is and what isn't doctrine... nuance should be allowed. 

The addition of the phrase “or promote” could be significant. One may harbor private opinions that are contrary to the doctrines of the Church, but one may not promote them. I fear some express such contrarian views on the internet but rationalize they are not promoting them, when that is in fact what they are doing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, I'm in trouble now.  Although I disagree with this change.  Which I suppose also puts me in trouble.

And probably half the membership too I suppose.   Unless we all only support the official version of every single doctrine...

Again, you disagree privately with a thing without publicly promoting your disagreement. You can remain silent about it. It seems that should be within the capacity of anyone. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

The original one made me antsy. Because I do “affiliate” with “apostate” groups. Do I openly teach or believe the things they teach? Of course not. However, I do have friends and such that I talk to regularly and appreciate their doctrinal insights.

 

I know for a fact I also hold beliefs that aren’t taught openly by the church, or maybe even clash with some of the currently taught doctrine. I don’t openly teach it, but I believe it. So techicnally I couldn’t answer yes to that question. The new question eases me a little haha

I think you’ve been misapplying the word affiliate. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

Right. It would make the interview go much faster.  I think they just want to emphasize those other things a little more. 

Or preclude the likelihood of rationalization. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, kllindley said:

This was the biggest thing that stood out for me. I think that the separation of Law of Chastity and moral cleanliness in thought and action and the differing wording creates additional clarity regarding pornography and masturbation.  There the standard is "striving for cleanliness.". Regarding Law of Chastity, the standard is "keeping."

Hopefully, this means no more Bishops pulling recommends for pornography use or masturbation that a member is working to overcome. 

So are you saying here that a member could be eligible for a recommend even if he has not overcome a masturbation habit?

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here again, the term “strive for” (as opposed to having achieved perfection) might bring some clarity to the matter. 

There you go!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The disposition to choose one’s battles carefully seems to be present in recent procedural and policy changes in Church administration. 
 

Take, for example, the retirement this past weekend of the term “auxiliary.” I remember reading a while back that some were complaining that the word, as applied to the Relief Society, marginalized women. What the complainers were failing to recognize, however, was that the word was applied to each of five organizations in the Church (Relief Society, Young Women, Primary, Young Men and Sunday School) and that of those five, two are led by men. If it’s marginalizing to women in their organization, why wouldn’t it also be so for men and the organizations they lead? The idea conveyed was that these organizations were supplemental (or “auxiliary”) to the work of the priesthood in saving souls and blessing lives  

That said, it is somewhat of an antiquated term and rather needless. Why not just say “organization”? Why tack “auxiliary” onto it? Thus, why not retire it if some people are going to have heartburn over it, even if their reasoning is not eminently sound?

Honestly in our Stake meetings I have not heard the term "auxiliary" in several years.  It's always "Make sure all the organizations get the information to ......"  etc.

The term really sounds archaic to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Honestly in our Stake meetings I have not heard the term "auxiliary" in several years.  It's always "Make sure all the organizations get the information to ......"  etc.

The term really sounds archaic to me.

The term is very much present in the Church’s handbooks for the reason I gave: to refer to the relationship of those five organizations to the priesthood. Now that the term has been retired, there may be less precision in, say, differentiating those organizations from other groups in the Church.