Temple recommend interview questions

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I meant reaching an understanding between the two conversants, as opposed to trying to win a debate.

Got it. 
 

I understand better than you think. 

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Got it. 
 

I understand better than you think. 

Praise be, Brother Lloyd! Truly you are an exemplary warrior for the Greater Good!  

Under His Eye.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Praise be, Brother Lloyd! Truly you are an exemplary warrior for the Greater Good!  

Under His Eye.

Welcome to my ignore list. 

[blueglass]

On 10/7/2019 at 12:22 AM, mfbukowski said:

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. 

I think you mean what Goddess thinks.  This person believes women have the potential to become an equal partner as a heavenly parent.  Which means ordination to the office of Goddess.  I suppose you're right.  It's important for those who can't answer correctly the questions to not bother interviewing.

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Welcome to my ignore list. 

🤣😂  Not a fan of Margaret Atwood, it seems.

Edited October 11, 2019 by ttribe

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, blueglass said:

I think you mean what Goddess thinks.  This person believes women have the potential to become an equal partner as a heavenly parent.  Which means ordination to the office of Goddess.  I suppose you're right.  It's important for those who can't answer correctly the questions to not bother interviewing.

This conversation feels to me like the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

I feel like there are glimmers of agreement and light and then the noise to Signal ratio gets too high to even worry about if communication is possible.

It's like those obnoxious little characters that Microsoft used to have that would tap on the glass of the monitor wondering if there is anybody out there. https://amp-interestingengineering-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.interestingengineering.com/the-surprising-pointless-return-of-microsofts-clippy?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15707779277355&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Finterestingengineering.com%2Fthe-surprising-pointless-return-of-microsofts-clippy

  I hear a little bits of beautiful music that get swallowed by static. 

Help! I can't find the squelch knob.!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squelch

Edited October 11, 2019 by mfbukowski

[blueglass]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This conversation feels to me like the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

I feel like there are glimmers of agreement and light and then the noise to Signal ratio gets too high to even worry about if communication is possible.

It's like those obnoxious little characters that Microsoft used to have that would tap on the glass of the monitor wondering if there is anybody out there. https://amp-interestingengineering-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.interestingengineering.com/the-surprising-pointless-return-of-microsofts-clippy?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15707779277355&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Finterestingengineering.com%2Fthe-surprising-pointless-return-of-microsofts-clippy

  I hear a little bits of beautiful music that get swallowed by static. 

Help! I can't find the squelch knob.!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squelch

Oh.  That's low!  I can't stand that clippy character.

Proverbs 17:10

10 An intelligent person learns more from one rebuke than a fool learns from being beaten a hundred times.

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, ttribe said:

🤣😂  Not a fan of Margaret Atwood, it seems.

Maybe he's just not a fan of being compared to a loyalist in the evil, totalitarian regime described in her fiction. 

I'm sure you were just trying to be clever / funny, but I thought the remark was a little off-putting. YMMV.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 10/10/2019 at 3:23 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

The emotional connotations and associations you personally attach to a word or phrase are not binding on me. 
 

But I will say that any violation of the law of chastity, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is repugnant. Hence, if a behavior is immoral, it is by definition repugnant.
 

Laws permitting gay marriage do not alter the immoral character of the sexual behavior, since the laws of God only recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman. 

Likewise, the intent of a heterosexual couple to make a home for a child conceived out of wedlock, positive though it may be, does not alter the immoral character of their sexual relations outside of marriage, either in the past or going forward. 

I checked an online dictionary in search of a normative definition and found two meanings for repugnant.

The first is “distasteful.” Violation of the law of chastity is certainly that. 
 

The second definition is “incompatible with,” as in “The defendant’s outburst is repugnant to the decorum that should prevail in a courtroom.”  I didn’t use the word in that grammatical form, but if I had, it would probably have been something along the lines of “repugnant to the laws of God” or “repugnant to the Lord’s law of matrimony.”

I used the word one time in this discussion thread. Rockpond keeps repeating it, probably thinking to score debating points or place me at a disadvantage by conjuring up associations and feelings such as you have described. But if he insists on doing so, my recourse is to double down on my use of the word with the normative meaning that I understand it to convey. and that I have cited here. 

I'm sure if a judge or government official described Latter-day Saints' ethics as morally repugnant, you would not impute any ill-will or animus. Right?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'm sure if a judge or government official described Latter-day Saints' ethics as morally repugnant, you would not impute any ill-will or animus. Right?

I would consider the source. Especially since judges and government officials are to support the Constitution, which safeguards the free exercise of religion and prohibits governmental abridgment thereof. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would consider the source. Especially since judges and government officials are to support the Constitution, which safeguards the free exercise of religion and prohibits governmental abridgment thereof. 

Right, but saying Latter-day Saint belief’s are morally repugnant, by itself, wouldn’t cause you to feel like the person held any bias or that they were prejudiced against you. Correct?

[etana]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'm sure if a judge or government official described Latter-day Saints' ethics as morally repugnant, you would not impute any ill-will or animus. Right?

I mean, by that definition i find brother/sister? Scott's use of the word to describe a wedding of a loved one repugnant and immoral. But is suppose we are all limited in our capacity to make  judgement on  an other's motes by our own understanding--or our own willingness to understand.

[cherryTreez]

On 10/8/2019 at 2:44 PM, rockpond said:

We were just taught by President Oaks to show love and respect to all, including LGBT persons.

When a family or close friend invites me to their wedding, I make every effort to attend.  Afterward, I give them a hug and congratulate them.

To do otherwise because the family member is marrying someone of their own sex would not be showing love and respect.

What would you do if your niece was marrying a woman and invited you?  Attend but not congratulate them?  Not attend?

I wouldn't go. But I have missed several weddings in the family. I live away from them and will only make the effort for a few.  I missed my brother's wedding as well. I didnt and still don't like the replacement wife.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'm sure if a judge or government official described Latter-day Saints' ethics as morally repugnant, you would not impute any ill-will or animus. Right?

I would not, but I would impute politics.

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right, but saying Latter-day Saint belief’s are morally repugnant, by itself, wouldn’t cause you to feel like the person held any bias or that they were prejudiced against you. Correct?

Of course it would. But all by itself, it wouldn’t cause me to regard that person as my enemy, to cut off contact with him, to rebuff any gestures of kindness or respect he might offer. 
 

I’ll give you a real-world example. Years ago, when Mitt Romney was running against Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination for president, Huckabee said to an interviewer, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?”

That rankled a lot of Latter-day Saints, me included. But I have been able to compartmentalize Huckabee’s anti-Mormon prejudice and recognize it as part and parcel of his Evangelical fervor. I actually admire the man for his political views and, to a lesser extent, his prowess as a commentator and a musician. I admire even more his daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who recently resigned from her post as presidential press secretary. 
 

In fact, here’s a bit of irony for you. Politically, I admire Mike Huckabee far more than I do Mitt Romney, who, as a senator representing Utah, has been a disappointment to me and others. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Maybe he's just not a fan of being compared to a loyalist in the evil, totalitarian regime described in her fiction. 

I'm sure you were just trying to be clever / funny, but I thought the remark was a little off-putting. YMMV.

 

Oh, I used that comparison on purpose to drive home the point that being a zealot and sacrificing love and charity in favor of rigid adherence to orthodoxy is dangerous and foolish.

Edited October 11, 2019 by ttribe

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course it would. But all by itself, it wouldn’t cause me to regard that person as my enemy, to cut off contact with him, to rebuff any gestures of kindness or respect he might offer. 
 

I’ll give you a real-world example. Years ago, when Mitt Romney was running against Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination for president, he said to a reporter, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?”

That rankled a lot of Latter-day Saints, me included. But I have been able to compartmentalize Huckabee’s anti-Mormon prejudice and recognize it as part and parcel of his Evangelical fervor. I actually admire the man for his political views and, to a lesser extent, his prowess as a commentator and a musician. I admire even more his daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who recently resigned from her post as presidential press secretary. 
 

In fact, here’s a bit of irony for you. Politically, I admire Mike Huckabee far more than I do Mitt Romney, who, as a senator representing Utah, has been a disappointment to me and others. 

Your goofy political views aside, aren't Jesus and Satan brothers?  I mean do you think God, the father of us all, just disowned Lucifer back when he vied for the saviorship?  Do you think that's officially the case for God?  That Satan is not really his son any longer?  

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Your goofy political views aside, aren't Jesus and Satan brothers?  I mean do you think God, the father of us all, just disowned Lucifer back when he vied for the saviorship?  Do you think that's officially the case for God?  That Satan is not really his son any longer?  

Perhaps you don't know what it means to be cut off from our Father? I'll tell you this much, Satan won't be an heir of all that our Father has, and if we're not reconciled to God through Christ then we won't be either. We'll just be some servants of our Father and those who are reconciled to him.

If you really want to know more about this there actually are some scriptures about it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Your goofy political views aside, aren't Jesus and Satan brothers?  I mean do you think God, the father of us all, just disowned Lucifer back when he vied for the saviorship?  Do you think that's officially the case for God?  That Satan is not really his son any longer?  

That’s the last straw! If you are going to call my political views “goofy,” I want no more interaction with you. You are not to contact me or to offer me gestures of kindness and respect. I will rebuff them. 
 

Just kidding! Just kidding! I hope you see the point I’m making. 
 

Regarding Lucifer and Jesus as brothers, it has long been an anti-Mormon ploy to state that flatly without any explanatory context or information and thus to try  to get people who don’t know any better to react with shock and revulsion. I’m sure that you, having once been a faithful Latter-day Saint, understand that the doctrine pertaining to Jesus and Lucifer and the pre-mortal existence is far more nuanced than that. 
 

To answer your question, I give it as my personal opinion that Lucifer has indeed been disowned as one of the spirit children of God, that he is thus no longer a brother to Jesus or to any of us. 
 

What do you think?

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Perhaps you don't know what it means to be cut off from our Father? I'll tell you this much, Satan won't be an heir of all that our Father has, and if we're not reconciled to God through Christ then we won't be either. We'll just be some servants of our Father and those who are reconciled to him.

If you really want to know more about this there actually are some scriptures about it. 

the highlighted portion is interesting.  Are you suggesting if we aren't heirs of all the Father has then we aren't really his children?  If so, that really puts the Church in a pickle by claiming everyone is a child of God, right?  

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Perhaps you don't know what it means to be cut off from our Father? I'll tell you this much, Satan won't be an heir of all that our Father has, and if we're not reconciled to God through Christ then we won't be either. We'll just be some servants of our Father and those who are reconciled to him.

If you really want to know more about this there actually are some scriptures about it. 

Well...that was a short-lived vacation from the board.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

the highlighted portion is interesting.  Are you suggesting if we aren't heirs of all the Father has then we aren't really his children?  If so, that really puts the Church in a pickle by claiming everyone is a child of God, right?  

We were all born spiritually by him in heaven, but then Satan and some other people rebelled against him and he basically cut them off from the blessings that would have been theirs had they not rebelled against our Father.  But not all hope was lost then because our Father provided a way for those who were cut off to be reconciled to him through Jesus Christ who adopts us back into the family, so to speak, as long as we honor Jesus in our new relationship to him.

Jesus called some people the children of the devil, so there is also that option available too. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s the last straw! If you are going to call my political views “goofy,” I want no more interaction with you. You are not to contact me or to offer me gestures of kindness and respect. I will rebuff them. 
 

Just kidding! Just kidding! I hope you see the point I’m making. 
 

Regarding Lucifer and Jesus as brothers, it has long been an anti-Mormon ploy to state that flatly without any explanatory context or information and thus to try  to get people who don’t know any better to react with shock and revulsion. I’m sure that you, having once been a faithful Latter-day Saint, understand that the doctrine pertaining to Jesus and Lucifer and the pre-mortal existence is far more nuanced than that. 
 

To answer your question, I give it as my personal opinion that Lucifer has indeed been disowned as one of the spirit children of God, that he is thus no longer a brother to Jesus or to any of us. 
 

What do you think?

lol..thanks for that.

I suppose you have a couple of points that really resonate with me.  yes, I agree, that people do use the notion to shock and cause revulsion.  Why it's effective I think hits on a couple of interesting notes.  Huckabee could have accused Mitt of thinking Jesus is our brother and it could have caused some concern even if it is not as shocking.  It might have proved a more effective attack though, because what can Mitt do but agree?  

I suppose it's without question that God disowned Lucifer.  I dont' know what the means.  I mean if my neighbor disowns his son, the son is still his son and remains the brother of the other son.  If another comes along and in speaking to the neighbor references is disowned son, it might mean to the father that the reference is not his son, but it seems to me to everyone else it still is.  It'd make me wonder if God finds offense in any reference that Satan is his son, or that Satan is Jesus' brother.  

[mfbukowski]

On 10/10/2019 at 2:23 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

The emotional connotations and associations you personally attach to a word or phrase are not binding on me. 

See? You ARE a relativist after all!!

There are no facts only interpretations.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

See? You ARE a relativist after all!!

 

If you say so. 
 

I do tend to stick to normative definitions of words, as I’ve shown here.