Sleeping With The Enemy

[BCSpace]

She told me that she was concerned with Question #7:

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?

Given her (our) support for gay marriage on FB, she was convinced that she could have to answer this question in the affirmative. And, from a technical standpoint, she is correct. She agrees with a group ... whose ... practices are contrary to ... those accepted by the Church. But read in that light, aren't we all guilty of sleeping with the enemy so to speak? Don't we all support (patronize), affiliate with (work with), or agree with (vote for) individuals or groups whose practices are contrary to those espoused by the Church?

Given that, what do you think is really meant by the question?

 

Exactly how she read it.  She's being honest which we should applaud.

 

What are the types of groups with whom we should not be affiliate?

 

Exactly as the question describes. 

 

"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"

 

But read in that light, aren't we all guilty of sleeping with the enemy so to speak? Don't we all support (patronize), affiliate with (work with), or agree with (vote for) individuals or groups whose practices are contrary to those espoused by the Church?

 

Some do, some don't.  I don't knowingly do so and if I discover that I am, I curtail it.  Consider also the fact that the Church defines, in part, being valiant in the testimony of Jesus (a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom) as voting as Jesus would vote:

 

To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to take the Lord’s side on every issue. It is to vote as he would vote. It is to think what he thinks, to believe what he believes, to say what he would say and do what he would do in the same situation. It is to have the mind of Christ and be one with him as he is one with his Father.

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/be-valiant-in-the-fight-of-faith?lang=eng&query=vote+as+he+would+vote

 

How Christ would vote according to the Church is of course defined by the Church's doctrine.

 

Are we only talking about specifically anti-Mormon groups? Or are we also referring to ANY group that has an agenda in opposition to our own?

 

Any such group.

 

And how much affiliation is too much?

 

 

To the extent that you "support, affiliate with, or agree with".  Romans 1:32 is scriptural basis for this.

 

Seriously, how do you reframe this question to allow you to answer it in the negative?

 

You can't.  The instruction is not to modify the questions and there is no context to allow one to weasel out of it.

 

The TR interview is for your self-evaluation and for the BP/SP to evaluate based on what he knows of the person.  So the question really is "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?"

 

I get asked this question fairly consistently and that is how I answer.  I don't need to suggest any particular group as they will usually bring it up themselves.  If not, I simply say to compare the group's beliefs with the doctrine of the Church which then can lead to a discussion of what is and is not the doctrine of the Church.

[BCSpace]

Bob Crockett is right. The question was included in response to apostate groups that practice polygamy and were endeavoring to gain individual admission to our temples without being worthy.

 

Correct.  But such context is not given in the instructions for asking the questions or in the question itself.  Hence it applies to every group that meets the general description.

[The Nehor]

Some do, some don't.  I don't knowingly do so and if I discover that I am, I curtail it.  Consider also the fact that the Church defines, in part, being valiant in the testimony of Jesus (a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom) as voting as Jesus would vote:

 

 

How Christ would vote according to the Church is of course defined by the Church's doctrine.

 

There is no need to be so coy. You can just come out and say that you think Democrats are debased sinners beyond the redemption of the Savior unless they come before the Lord in sackcloth and ashes and repent of their betrayal of the Lord's plan of salvation, also known as free-market capitalism.

 

Though you have admitted in the past that the Republicans are not fully in harmony with the Plan of Salvation so with your incredibly strict reading of the question support of a Republican candidate is equally abhorrent to God. Well, this is a bit of a puzzler.......

[BCSpace]

There is no need to be so coy.

 

You believe we can actually discuss those types of opinions, mine which you have inaccurately represented, on this issue directly on this board without censure?  If so, I would be happy to do so and please do allow others the same privilege even if they disagree with me.  PM me when you obtain permission and proof thereof.

 

As for my actual post, is there anything specific about it which you believe is wrong or inaccurate and if so why?  It is precisely what I say publicly in Church IRL. 

Edited February 24, 2014 by BCSpace

[Storm Rider]

A close family member of mine was brought in to speak to the bishop because of a five word FB post in support of SSM. She was told by the bishop that if she continued to publicly support SSM she would face disciplinary action . When she asked for clarification he said disfellowship or excommunication and he used question seven as his justification.

 

That is a bishop that should be disciplined/corrected by his stake president toute de suite. He is in error.

[BCSpace]

That is a bishop that should be disciplined/corrected by his stake president toute de suite. He is in error.

 

Not necessarily.  The SP has quite a bit of leeway on these issues in his Stake and may have directed his Bishops on the issue.

Edited February 24, 2014 by BCSpace

[Scott Lloyd]

I have a solution to this that's fairly simple in concept, though some here may not like it. If there's a question in your mind about whether a particular group is not in keeping with Church teachings, don't affiliate or sympathize with said group.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether one values a particular brand of politics or philosophy over allegiance to God and His kingdom.

[mormonnewb]

I have a solution to this that's fairly simple in concept, though some here may not like it. If there's a question in your mind about whether a particular group is not in keeping with Church teachings, don't affiliate or sympathize with said group.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether one values a particular brand of politics or philosophy over allegiance to God and His kingdom.

You first, my Brother! Because unless you work for the Church, only shop at the BYU bookstore, never drive (or ride) in a car, abstain from voting, and have found a way to achieve tax-exempt status, then you are "supporting" some group that has practices in opposition to Church teachings.

[Nofear]

Irreverent though it is, most of the time I answer #7 by saying, "BYU was a long time ago..."

[Buckeye]

My understanding is similar to prior comments regarding the origin of this TR question.  I was meant to weed out members practicing polygamy. 

 

Unfortunately, if taken literally, the question weeds out anyone who interacts with "the world."  Take President Monson for example.  He supports (pays money) and affiliates with (sits in attendance) a group (the Utah Jazz) whose practices (serving alcohol and playing basketball on sundays) are contrary to those generally accepted by the church.   

 

For myself, I view the question as directed to support/affiliation with groups whose purpose is to oppose the church.  I'm free to support and affiliate with a group whose teachings and practices are not in synch with the church's so long as they are not actively fighting against the church.  But that's just my view.  There are three separate signatures on the recommend.  Each person signing must be comfortable that all the questions have been answered appropriately.  I know a lot of bishops who would like specific instruction on this question from Salt Lake (your wife is far from alone), but are still waiting in vain.  While that situation persists, different bishops and stake presidents will come to different conclusions as to the same factual situation.  It's called "bishop roulette." 

[strappinglad]

Bishop Jones reads question 7 to bro. Ron during a TR interview

Bro .Ron " Well, bishop I do live in Shortcreek and am a member of the local Danite chapter"

Bishop Jones " Oh, I see no harm in that, anything else ?"

Bro, Ron ," I also contribute $20 / yr to the ACLU ."

Bishop Jones, " Repent bro, Ron , I cannot stand for such apostate leanings !! "

Here we are again straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

[mormonnewb]

Exactly as the question describes. 

 

"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"

 

Some do, some don't.  I don't knowingly do so and if I discover that I am, I curtail it.

So can we assume that you are not now nor have ever been an AMERICAN? Because if so, I hate to break it to you, but our government has many practices that are not in line with the Church's teachings. The sad news is that I don't think here is a country on the planet that ours meet this test, but I'd suggest Tonga or Somoa as being your best hopes.

Seriously, do you really think that you only support, affiliate and agree with groups that adhere to Church teachings? And is that even Biblical? Christ willingly "supported" the Holy Roman Empire through paying taxes. He "affiliated" with tax collectors. He "agreed with" prostitutes and others that the Pharisees and Sadducees of His day were a bunch of legalistic hypocrites.

[rpn]

I think if you or your  spouse is teaching others to oppose the church's official position  in opposition to gay marriage, in a spiritual context (as opposed to your own personal vote, or expressing your personal beliefs) then you may have a problem with question 7.   Only the persons answering the question know whether they are going to the temple because they love God, intend to keep His commandments and believe that those who decide are His prophets.  

 

The question is intended to deny entrance not to those who struggle with doctrine or practice, but those who are going to the temple intending to misuse it and/or intentionally misrepresenting their testimonies, because they have shifted their allegiance to a different cause than the Lord as embodied in His church.

[The Nehor]

You believe we can actually discuss those types of opinions, mine which you have inaccurately represented, on this issue directly on this board without censure?  If so, I would be happy to do so and please do allow others the same privilege even if they disagree with me.  PM me when you obtain permission and proof thereof.

 

As for my actual post, is there anything specific about it which you believe is wrong or inaccurate and if so why?  It is precisely what I say publicly in Church IRL.

I fear no censure. If the mods strike me down I will become more powerful then they can possibly imagine.

I know you preach your personal political philosophy in church. You have said that before. This makes me sad.

[MiserereNobis]

If not, I simply say to compare the group's beliefs with the doctrine of the Church which then can lead to a discussion of what is and is not the doctrine of the Church.

 

 

This must be an interesting discussion, since no one seems to be able to agree on what is and what is not the doctrine of the church

[mtomm]

Wait!  I just taught the "Doctrine of Christ" to my Sunday School class yesterday.  I can tell you what the Doctrine of the Church should be if it aligns with the Doctrine of CHRIST:

1:  Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,

2:  Repentance

3:  Baptism by immersion

4:  Receive the Holy Ghost.

 

Should sound familiar. 

[hoo rider]

My wife approached me today to announce that she was no longer worthy to enter the temple. The smart aleck in me wanted to say, "You're just figuring that out? Welcome to reality!" However, the person who doesn't want to go live his momma asked, "Why not?"

She told me that she was concerned with Question #7:

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?

Given her (our) support for gay marriage on FB, she was convinced that she could have to answer this question in the affirmative. And, from a technical standpoint, she is correct. She agrees with a group ... whose ... practices are contrary to ... those accepted by the Church. But read in that light, aren't we all guilty of sleeping with the enemy so to speak? Don't we all support (patronize), affiliate with (work with), or agree with (vote for) individuals or groups whose practices are contrary to those espoused by the Chuch?

Given that, what do you think is really meant by the question? What are the types of groups with whom we should not be affiliate? Are we only talking about specifically anti-Mormon groups? Or are we also referring to ANY group that has an agenda in opposition to our own? And how much affiliation is too much? While I certainly couldn't be the President of the International Society of Mormon Haters (the dreaded ISMH), can I be someone who gives a monthly gift of $5 to the ACLU (or the Democratic Party for that matter)?

Seriously, how do you reframe this question to allow you to answer it in the negative?

 

I honestly answer the question (for me the answer is yes) and then let the interviewer use the spirit to guide him.  

 

Generally when I say yes I get a surprised look and am asked for more information.  I then explain that I think the question is poorly written and over-inclusive, but I feel that I should answer it as written.  I further explain what sort of groups I do support and affiliate with (the NRA, my co-workers, etc.), and then state that I do not support or affiliate with any groups that has a primary goal of working against the church.  I haven't had any representative express any concern or deny me a recommend.  In fact, several have commented that they appreciate me thinking about the questions rather than giving an automatic answer.  

[teddyaware]

My wife approached me today to announce that she was no longer worthy to enter the temple. The smart aleck in me wanted to say, "You're just figuring that out? Welcome to reality!" However, the person who doesn't want to go live his momma asked, "Why not?"

She told me that she was concerned with Question #7:

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?

Given her (our) support for gay marriage on FB, she was convinced that she could have to answer this question in the affirmative. And, from a technical standpoint, she is correct. She agrees with a group ... whose ... practices are contrary to ... those accepted by the Church. But read in that light, aren't we all guilty of sleeping with the enemy so to speak? Don't we all support (patronize), affiliate with (work with), or agree with (vote for) individuals or groups whose practices are contrary to those espoused by the Chuch?

Given that, what do you think is really meant by the question? What are the types of groups with whom we should not be affiliate? Are we only talking about specifically anti-Mormon groups? Or are we also referring to ANY group that has an agenda in opposition to our own? And how much affiliation is too much? While I certainly couldn't be the President of the International Society of Mormon Haters (the dreaded ISMH), can I be someone who gives a monthly gift of $5 to the ACLU (or the Democratic Party for that matter)?

Seriously, how do you reframe this question to allow you to answer it in the negative?

 

I think it's likely the best approach in this situation is for there to be total transparency with your local Church leaders. It might be a good idea to set up a non-temple recommend counseling session with your Bishop or Stake President, and in a spirit of love and goodwill lay all concerns out in the open. I know from personal experience it's best to just be open and fully honest and then let the chips fall where they may. Trying to participate and serve in Church with an unsettled mind due to insecurities about one's standing can sap a lot of emotional energy, cause feelings of resentment, and hinder the activity of the Spirit of the Lord.

 

A final point: It's nothing new for some of the Lord's people to either privately or openly question the wisdom and inspiration of the Lord's duly chosen Prophets, Seers and Revelators; such doubts have been entertained since the very first dispensation. Sometime with patience and the passage of time these doubts may eventually dissolve away and become inconsequential; in other instances these doubts can give rise to outright rifts and disaffection. On this point I will say it's not only important to have faith in the Lord but to also have faith in his Prophets. It must be understood that these men have priesthood keys and special spiritual insight that enables them to more clearly foresee and anticipate the consequences of harmful societal trends that may seem innocuous to the well-meaning who do not possess the same degree of divine insight. In this regard, I recommend seriously pondering the profound warning found in Proverbs:

 

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12)

 

This verse indicates there is a possibility that those with less wisdom and inspiration than the Prophets may be absolutely convinced something the Church leaders prohibit, as contrary to the spirit of the gospel, is something wholesome and good, but in reality is very harmful and deleterious to the Spirit of the Lord.  

Edited February 25, 2014 by teddyaware

[subgenius]

My wife approached me today to announce that she was no longer worthy to enter the temple. The smart aleck in me wanted to say, "You're just figuring that out? Welcome to reality!" However, the person who doesn't want to go live his momma asked, "Why not?"

She told me that she was concerned with Question #7:

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?

Given her (our) support for gay marriage on FB, she was convinced that she could have to answer this question in the affirmative. And, from a technical standpoint, she is correct. She agrees with a group ... whose ... practices are contrary to ... those accepted by the Church. But read in that light, aren't we all guilty of sleeping with the enemy so to speak? Don't we all support (patronize), affiliate with (work with), or agree with (vote for) individuals or groups whose practices are contrary to those espoused by the Chuch?

Given that, what do you think is really meant by the question? What are the types of groups with whom we should not be affiliate? Are we only talking about specifically anti-Mormon groups? Or are we also referring to ANY group that has an agenda in opposition to our own? And how much affiliation is too much? While I certainly couldn't be the President of the International Society of Mormon Haters (the dreaded ISMH), can I be someone who gives a monthly gift of $5 to the ACLU (or the Democratic Party for that matter)?

Seriously, how do you reframe this question to allow you to answer it in the negative?

Answering "negative" will prompt a discussion of the matter and then a subsequent witness will be provided. The point is that you answer honestly by how you understand the question and that answer is received accordingly. The recommend interview does not occur in a vacuum nor without the presence and guidance of the Lord.

[MiserereNobis]

Wait!  I just taught the "Doctrine of Christ" to my Sunday School class yesterday.  I can tell you what the Doctrine of the Church should be if it aligns with the Doctrine of CHRIST:

1:  Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,

2:  Repentance

3:  Baptism by immersion

4:  Receive the Holy Ghost.

 

Should sound familiar. 

 

In that case, you could belong to any Christian church that practices baptism by immersion (the Orthodox baptize infants by immersion -- you can see some videos on youtube).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My wife approached me today to announce that she was no longer worthy to enter the temple. The smart aleck in me wanted to say, "You're just figuring that out? Welcome to reality!" However, the person who doesn't want to go live his momma asked, "Why not?"

She told me that she was concerned with Question #7:

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?

Given her (our) support for gay marriage on FB, she was convinced that she could have to answer this question in the affirmative. And, from a technical standpoint, she is correct. She agrees with a group ... whose ... practices are contrary to ... those accepted by the Church. But read in that light, aren't we all guilty of sleeping with the enemy so to speak? Don't we all support (patronize), affiliate with (work with), or agree with (vote for) individuals or groups whose practices are contrary to those espoused by the Chuch?

Given that, what do you think is really meant by the question? What are the types of groups with whom we should not be affiliate? Are we only talking about specifically anti-Mormon groups? Or are we also referring to ANY group that has an agenda in opposition to our own? And how much affiliation is too much? While I certainly couldn't be the President of the International Society of Mormon Haters (the dreaded ISMH), can I be someone who gives a monthly gift of $5 to the ACLU (or the Democratic Party for that matter)?

Seriously, how do you reframe this question to allow you to answer it in the negative?

I want to add some that I did put in other posts, giving money to the Democratic Party is certain not a violation of question #7, and the ACLU which of course had fought against many faiths, but would defend any faith if they thought a faith had their civil liberties were being violated, even Westboro Baptist's were, whom beliefs 99.99999999999 of all Americans find insulting. Also the poster who asked "why would you want a recommend" Please ignore. I am sure that if you are seeking (or your wife) a recommend, then you believe our faith to be true, and we need and want you as a member. God bless you my brother.

[Scott Lloyd]

You first, my Brother! Because unless you work for the Church, only shop at the BYU bookstore, never drive (or ride) in a car, abstain from voting, and have found a way to achieve tax-exempt status, then you are "supporting" some group that has practices in opposition to Church teachings.

Because I understand the question in the temple recommend interview and its intent, I don't have to bind myself to an absurdly literalistic interpretation of said question. Ergo, my conscience is clear on that point. Problem averted.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

In that case, you could belong to any Christian church that practices baptism by immersion (the Orthodox baptize infants by immersion -- you can see some videos on youtube).

There's that sticking point about it having to be performed by one having authority.

 

And the fact that Jesus Christ decreed that "this generation" (i.e. this gospel dispensation) would receive His word through Joseph Smith (see Doctrine and Covenants 5:10).

Edited February 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

I want to add some that I did put in other posts, giving money to the Democratic Party is certain not a violation of question #7, and the ACLU which of course had fought against many faiths, but would defend any faith if they thought a faith had their civil liberties were being violated, even Westboro Baptist's were, whom beliefs 99.99999999999 of all Americans find insulting. Also the poster who asked "why would you want a recommend" Please ignore. I am sure that if you are seeking (or your wife) a recommend, then you believe our faith to be true, and we need and want you as a member. God bless you my brother.

Thank you for the welcome, Brother!

And to be clear, we have current recommends and have received our endowments. In all honesty, we're not really sure what to make of the temple. However, what we are sure of is that the temple has deep and enduring significance to our fellow saints and so we would never want to desecrate it by entering into the temple unworthily.

[mormonnewb]

Because I understand the question in the temple recommend interview and its intent, I don't have to bind myself to an absurdly literalistic interpretation of said question. Ergo, my conscience is clear on that point. Problem averted.

Good for you! I guess those of us who aren't blessed with your greater light and knowledge will have to withdraw from the world completely. Or maybe, our "betters" could give us an understanding of the question to allow us to have your peace of mind.

Edited February 24, 2014 by mormonnewb