Worthiness Interviews: Is There A Better Way?

[HappyJackWagon]

"Worthiness" interviews have changed throughout the history of our church; from eventual requirements to have a TR before entering the temple, to the required timing of those recommends, to the changes in questions, and the modern requirements for annual and semi-annual worthiness interviews for the youth.

 

These interviews are usually harmless. Good men interview by asking the required questions. But sometimes the questions are modified and expanded upon. We've probably all heard horror stories about leaders who ask for details or even share personal details about their lives that make the interviewees uncomfortable.

 

In today's climate this seems to be a problematic practice, particularly when men are asking women and youth specific personal questions about the law of chastity. There is often little to no training for leaders before they begin conducting these worthiness interviews.

 

How might the practice of worthiness interviews be changed to be more appropriate with social convention, especially regarding the law of chastity?

 

Are worthiness interviews even necessary?

 

If a person wants to go to the temple or advance in their priesthood office they go through a recommend process which is totally dependent upon their honesty. They know what the questions will be in advance so if they want to prepare false answers they can do so. So in a way the "judge in Israel" or gate-keeper is often acting as a rubber stamp. Those who want to "pass" a worthiness interview can do so easy enough if they are willing to lie. The interview won't stop them.

 

The only benefits I can see to interviews is to ...

 

1- Teach what is appropriate and what is not (but this also creates problems. Appropriate teachings can be done in other places)

2- Ecclesiastical leaders get one on one time with most ward members on a semi-regular basis which can help to build relationships of trust

3- For those who are honest, going through a gatekeeper creates a barrier of potential embarrassment or shame which could be motivational in choosing to stay on the straight and narrow.

 

What do you think? Are worthiness interviews beneficial? Are they necessary? Or could there be a better way?

Edited September 8, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

"Worthiness" interviews have changed throughout the history of our church; from eventual requirements to have a TR before entering the temple, to the required timing of those recommends, to the changes in questions, and the modern requirements for annual and semi-annual worthiness interviews for the youth.

 

These interviews are usually harmless. Good men interview by asking the required questions. But sometimes the questions are modified and expanded upon. We've probably all heard horror stories about leaders who ask for details or even share personal details about their lives that make the interviewees uncomfortable.

 

In today's climate this seems to be a problematic practice, particularly when men are asking women and youth specific personal questions about the law of chastity. There is often little to no training for leaders before they begin conducting these worthiness interviews.

 

How might the practice of worthiness interviews be changed to be more appropriate with social convention, especially regarding the law of chastity?

 

Are worthiness interviews even necessary?

 

If a person wants to go to the temple or advance in their priesthood office they go through a recommend process which is totally dependent upon their honesty. They know what the questions will be in advance so if they want to prepare false answers they can do so. So in a way the "judge in Israel" or gate-keeper is often acting as a rubber stamp. Those who want to "pass" a worthiness interview can do so easy enough if they are willing to lie. The interview won't stop them.

 

The only benefits I can see to interviews is to ...

 

1- Teach what is appropriate and what is not (but this also creates problems. Appropriate teachings can be done in other places)

2- Ecclesiastical leaders get one on one time with most ward members on a semi-regular basis which can help to build relationships of trust

3- For those who are honest, going through a gatekeeper creates a barrier of potential embarrassment or shame which could be motivational in choosing to stay on the straight and narrow.

 

What do you think? Are worthiness interviews beneficial? Are they necessary? Or could there be a better way?

 

I think they are beneficial...

 

I take time in each interview to ask the ward member about their lives, their family, how they are feeling in their calling, within the ward, etc.  Obviously, I could still do that without the need for a TR renewal but it serves as the trigger and provides the opportunity.

 

With respect to the questions, I try to remind the person I'm interviewing that it is their opportunity to consider their worthiness and preparation to enter the temple.  I think the questions themselves function as reminders of what is important:  faith, sustaining leaders, marriage, family, and covenants.

[stemelbow]

Temple Recommend renewal time for me. yesterday I sat with the counselor in the B-ric. Good guy. Very robotic, get it done approach--took less than 3 minutes. I don't mind it.

As for kids being subjected to a certain discomfort by an adult male--I ain't for it. Perhaps the biggest offenses with kids have come from adults who were trusted by the kid's parents. It just makes me very uncomfortable when I think about it. But it's true, growing up, I had no problem whatsoever with my leaders and often appreciated our one-on-one visits. So, I have no particular solution in mind. I want to sit in on interviews with my kids, but I also want them to feel comfortable without me, with others. It's a bit conflicting.

[stemelbow]

I don't much care for the term worthy either. It probably meant more years ago, but today, it's just silly.

[hope_for_things]

A major overhaul is needed.

 

Part of me thinks that sex should never be discussed at church in interviews under any circumstances, whether between adults and their leaders, or between youth and leaders which is highly inappropriate. 

 

Step 1 – Get rid of the youth interviews completely.  Never have a situation where a single adult leader is behind the door with a single youth EVER!

 

Step 2 – Overhaul the temple recommend interview.  I don’t find the temple recommend interview to be consistent with the gospel message.  I believe that members should be able to attend the temple if they personally feel worthy.  I don’t like the judge in Israel needs to discern your worthiness tradition, its creepy and it really doesn’t follow with the overall message of the gospel which is a personal self examination.  I would change the process entirely so that members can make requests for recommends and those requests are almost always approved by leaders.  I’m sure there could be some exceptions to this rule, but in general, I want individuals to self select whether they want to attend the temple or not.  

[DJBrown]

"Worthiness" interviews have changed throughout the history of our church; from eventual requirements to have a TR before entering the temple, to the required timing of those recommends, to the changes in questions, and the modern requirements for annual and semi-annual worthiness interviews for the youth.

 

These interviews are usually harmless. Good men interview by asking the required questions. But sometimes the questions are modified and expanded upon. We've probably all heard horror stories about leaders who ask for details or even share personal details about their lives that make the interviewees uncomfortable.

 

In today's climate this seems to be a problematic practice, particularly when men are asking women and youth specific personal questions about the law of chastity. There is often little to no training for leaders before they begin conducting these worthiness interviews.

 

How might the practice of worthiness interviews be changed to be more appropriate with social convention, especially regarding the law of chastity?

 

Are worthiness interviews even necessary?

 

If a person wants to go to the temple or advance in their priesthood office they go through a recommend process which is totally dependent upon their honesty. They know what the questions will be in advance so if they want to prepare false answers they can do so. So in a way the "judge in Israel" or gate-keeper is often acting as a rubber stamp. Those who want to "pass" a worthiness interview can do so easy enough if they are willing to lie. The interview won't stop them.

 

The only benefits I can see to interviews is to ...

 

1- Teach what is appropriate and what is not (but this also creates problems. Appropriate teachings can be done in other places)

2- Ecclesiastical leaders get one on one time with most ward members on a semi-regular basis which can help to build relationships of trust

3- For those who are honest, going through a gatekeeper creates a barrier of potential embarrassment or shame which could be motivational in choosing to stay on the straight and narrow.

 

What do you think? Are worthiness interviews beneficial? Are they necessary? Or could there be a better way?

 

What is the temple recommend really?  What is the function of all the interviews in the church?  I believe the answers to these questions are very under-appreciated elements of the restored gospel.  No other church that I know of has this type of accountability in the form of interviews.

 

One day, whether we like it or not, we will all stand before the great judge- Jesus Christ- and account for our lives.  The result of that judgement will determine the state of our existence for eternity.  I believe the fundamental purpose behind every interview in the church is to prepare us for the ultimate judgement.  It is a merciful gift from God that allows us to review our lives and examine what needs to change.  When necessary, discipline is provided by the church and the Lord's representatives in the attempt to inspire members to repent and prepare for that great day.

 

I cannot count the number of times individuals have confessed to sins for which they needed to repent when questioned in a very basic way on the law of chastity.  These confessions have always resulted in subsequent visits and full repentance followed by full restoration of temple "worthiness."  

 

I think it is extremely naive to think that we should just trust all of us to do what is right and only go to the temple when we are worthy.  Do you think God should just simply trust that people will go into the celestial kingdom when they are worthy and not provide a judgement and approval?  Of course not.

 

I think parents who insist on being present for their children's interviews are teaching their kids to not trust their Priesthood leaders.  And they are crazy if they think their child is going to confess sexual sins in their presence.  

 

I am very grateful for all the interviews that I have had in which I have been asked to account to the Lord's servants.  It isn't always comfortable, but it has always been a catalyst for improvement.  

 

I think the Lord knows what He is doing. 

[thesometimesaint]

A major overhaul is needed.

 

Part of me thinks that sex should never be discussed at church in interviews under any circumstances, whether between adults and their leaders, or between youth and leaders which is highly inappropriate. 

 

Step 1 – Get rid of the youth interviews completely.  Never have a situation where a single adult leader is behind the door with a single youth EVER!

 

Step 2 – Overhaul the temple recommend interview.  I don’t find the temple recommend interview to be consistent with the gospel message.  I believe that members should be able to attend the temple if they personally feel worthy.  I don’t like the judge in Israel needs to discern your worthiness tradition, its creepy and it really doesn’t follow with the overall message of the gospel which is a personal self examination.  I would change the process entirely so that members can make requests for recommends and those requests are almost always approved by leaders.  I’m sure there could be some exceptions to this rule, but in general, I want individuals to self select whether they want to attend the temple or not.  

 

The Temple Recommend Questions are for self examination. If you can't answer them honestly and correctly there is little point in going to the Temple. The TR Interview is just the vehicle by which we get the needed help when we want to go, but can't.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

 

1- I cannot count the number of times individuals have confessed to sins for which they needed to repent when questioned in a very basic way on the law of chastity.  These confessions have always resulted in subsequent visits and full repentance followed by full restoration of temple "worthiness."  

 

2- I think it is extremely naive to think that we should just trust all of us to do what is right and only go to the temple when we are worthy.  Do you think God should just simply trust that people will go into the celestial kingdom when they are worthy and not provide a judgement and approval?  Of course not.

 

 

3- I think parents who insist on being present for their children's interviews are teaching their kids to not trust their Priesthood leaders.  And they are crazy if they think their child is going to confess sexual sins in their presence.  

 

 

Thanks, DJBrown. I appreciate your perspective about how the TR interview process is a kind of preparation for final judgement. At the same time that kind of concerns me. Can I ask a couple of follow up questions? (I numbered a few of your statements so I can respond to each)

 

1- I think that if the question is asked as written "Do you live the law of chastity?" there isn't likely to be a whole lot of problem. The problems come when that answer is not believed and is then followed up with the "extra" questions that are asked in association with that. I also struggle with the practice I've seen and even been taught to try to "coerce a confession" for the good of the individual. Confession may be a different subject all together but I don't think it's proper the way some leaders almost badger people for a confession by asking ever increasingly personal questions. When someone is prepared to confess they should have an outlet to do that, but I don't believe we should be soliciting confessions.

 

2- I don't think it's naive to trust people. We're already doing that, but first we require them to sit down and talk to a man who may be a neighbor or friend to be accountable to him. I don't know if teaching accountability to leadership who are acting as proxy for God is a healthy practice.

 

3- I think many parents don't want their children having any s3xual conversations with leaders, so being present would make sure that things remain appropriate. I've heard so many stories about youth being taught about a practice they previously didn't know about through probing questions. This is totally unacceptable. Is there a way to ensure this doesn't happen? Youth behind closed doors with a man would never be allowed in any other context in our world. Not in boy scouts, not at school etc.

[HappyJackWagon]

The Temple Recommend Questions are for self examination. If you can't answer them honestly and correctly there is little point in going to the Temple. The TR Interview is just the vehicle by which we get the needed help when we want to go, but can't.

This is describing confession. If someone needs help overcoming a problem it is great when they have a resource to turn to for help. But as a matter of practice, individuals are capable of self reflection. I can ask myself the questions and answer honestly in my heart. If I feel good about it I can go to the temple. If I don't I can go to the bishop to talk about it.

 

If you can answer the questions honestly upon self reflection you'll be able to attend the temple. If you can't then you can seek help if you want it.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

One day, whether we like it or not, we will all stand before the great judge- Jesus Christ- and account for our lives.  The result of that judgement will determine the state of our existence for eternity.  I believe the fundamental purpose behind every interview in the church is to prepare us for the ultimate judgement.  It is a merciful gift from God that allows us to review our lives and examine what needs to change.  When necessary, discipline is provided by the church and the Lord's representatives in the attempt to inspire members to repent and prepare for that great day.

This paragraph raises a lot of questions for me.

 

1- Who will judge us? Christ is our mediator. Is it the 12 apostles from the final dispensation? If so, who is a part of the 12 apostles who will be our judges after we discount all of the original leaders who were excommunicated or apostatized from the church?

 

2- Is judgement final and eternal as is often taught or is there progression between kingdoms as is also taught?

 

3- Regarding discipline in the church- Upon excommunication members lose their priesthood temple blessings, their priesthood and their membership in the church. The priesthood existed prior to the church. At least Joseph, Oliver and David Whitmer held the M. Priesthood prior to the church's organization. They didn't need the church to hold this priesthood. Is priesthood independent of the church?

[JAHS]

I thnk it's important that the parents have their own conversations with their kids about what it means to live the law of chastity. Then when the Bishop asks them if they live the law they know what he is refering to and he doesn't need to go into details. The child can inform him that their parents have talked to them about it and understand what the question is refering to. 

[DJBrown]

Thanks, DJBrown. I appreciate your perspective about how the TR interview process is a kind of preparation for final judgement. At the same time that kind of concerns me. Can I ask a couple of follow up questions? (I numbered a few of your statements so I can respond to each)

 

1- I think that if the question is asked as written "Do you live the law of chastity?" there isn't likely to be a whole lot of problem. The problems come when that answer is not believed and is then followed up with the "extra" questions that are asked in association with that. I also struggle with the practice I've seen and even been taught to try to "coerce a confession" for the good of the individual. Confession may be a different subject all together but I don't think it's proper the way some leaders almost badger people for a confession by asking ever increasingly personal questions. When someone is prepared to confess they should have an outlet to do that, but I don't believe we should be soliciting confessions.

 

2- I don't think it's naive to trust people. We're already doing that, but first we require them to sit down and talk to a man who may be a neighbor or friend to be accountable to him. I don't know if teaching accountability to leadership who are acting as proxy for God is a healthy practice.

 

3- I think many parents don't want their children having any s3xual conversations with leaders, so being present would make sure that things remain appropriate. I've heard so many stories about youth being taught about a practice they previously didn't know about through probing questions. This is totally unacceptable. Is there a way to ensure this doesn't happen? Youth behind closed doors with a man would never be allowed in any other context in our world. Not in boy scouts, not at school etc.

 

Legrand Richards once said something to the effect that local leaders should be very careful not to teach youth how to break the law of chastity.  I totally get that.  And ultimately, it comes down to wisdom and inspiration.  I think it makes sense to start out at age twelve with very basic questions and explanations of the law of chastity.  In my experience, kids that age get what we are talking about after a very brief and basic explanation about it being about keeping the power to create children sacred.  I never go into detailed questions with kids that age.  

 

The issue you allude to comes, most often, in the context of a leader feeling inspired to ask follow up questions- in my experience about pornography or self abuse.  I would say that those questions are by far the exception.  But almost always, when I have felt the impression to ask those questions, the kid ends up confessing to having issues with pornography or something related.

 

None of the bishops in the church are perfect.  But I really think the role of the "judge in Israel" is significant and needed among our people.  

 

If anything, maybe more guidance for bishops and leaders on interviewing youth.  That is a doable thing, I think.

[HappyJackWagon]

I thnk it's important that the parents have their own conversations with their kids about what it means to live the law of chastity. Then when the Bishop asks them if they live the law they know what he is refering to and he doesn't need to go into details. The child can inform him that their parents have talked to them about it and understand what the question is refering to. 

Many of these children are clearly old enough to understand what is being asked, yet the more probing questions are still asked. It's not simply about making sure they understand the question. The probing questions signal that the interviewer doesn't trust the interviewee's answer and is often an attempt to coerce a confession.

[DJBrown]

I thnk it's important that the parents have their own conversations with their kids about what it means to live the law of chastity. Then when the Bishop asks them if they live the law they know what he is refering to and he doesn't need to go into details. The child can inform him that their parents have talked to them about it and understand what the question is refering to. 

 

That is ideal.  But most often, twelve year olds are not really familiar with the term "law of chastity."  I don't think it appropriate just to avoid that question or skip it if a kid isn't able to connect the dots.  

 

I agree that a leader doesn't have to go into details.  Kids are smart and understand.  But a very brief and basic description of the law- like what is found in the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet is appropriate.  No?

[hope_for_things]

The Temple Recommend Questions are for self examination. If you can't answer them honestly and correctly there is little point in going to the Temple. The TR Interview is just the vehicle by which we get the needed help when we want to go, but can't.

 

If the recommend questions are for self examination, then why not change the vehicle so that interviews are self administered?  Not sure why people want to hold onto the interview tradition.  Its not scripturally required, it certainly wasn’t invented by Joseph, and I don’t find any evidence that the practice is inspired.  It’s a cultural tradition, and it’s has more cons than pros, so hence my desire to throw it out.  

[DJBrown]

Many of these children are clearly old enough to understand what is being asked, yet the more probing questions are still asked. It's not simply about making sure they understand the question. The probing questions signal that the interviewer doesn't trust the interviewee's answer and is often an attempt to coerce a confession.

 

I don't think you can support this statement.  I don't think leaders are trying to coerce anything.  I have had many kids say they keep the law of chastity, but admit to watching pornographic videos when questioned.  

[thesometimesaint]

This is describing confession. If someone needs help overcoming a problem it is great when they have a resource to turn to for help. But as a matter of practice, individuals are capable of self reflection. I can ask myself the questions and answer honestly in my heart. If I feel good about it I can go to the temple. If I don't I can go to the bishop to talk about it.

 

If you can answer the questions honestly upon self reflection you'll be able to attend the temple. If you can't then you can seek help if you want it.

 

We are a confessional church. Our Baptism and Temple attendance are signs of the confession. Bishops and SP are instructed not to get too personal in the confession. So that leaves a lot to personal reflection. IE; I'm reasonable sure that most adults seeking a TR know what the law tithing and law of chastity mean. Also I think most adults seeking a TR know the meanings behind the other questions. IE; If you don't have a testimony that Jesus is the Christ there is little point in going to the Temple.

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't think you can support this statement.  I don't think leaders are trying to coerce anything.  I have had many kids say they keep the law of chastity, but admit to watching pornographic videos when questioned.  

Right. You ask the question and get an answer. If you don't believe that answer then you ask additional questions about an interpretation of the Law of Chastity, namely Self abuse and p0rn.

 

To me it seems coersive when a question is asked and answered and then follow up, probing questions are asked to get them to change their answer.

 

Frankly, if we accept the LoC as defined in the temple, p0rn and self abuse to not fall into that category. It may be a separate issue of morality but it's not breaking the LoC

[The Nehor]

Temple Recommend renewal time for me. yesterday I sat with the counselor in the B-ric. Good guy. Very robotic, get it done approach--took less than 3 minutes. I don't mind it.As for kids being subjected to a certain discomfort by an adult male--I ain't for it. Perhaps the biggest offenses with kids have come from adults who were trusted by the kid's parents. It just makes me very uncomfortable when I think about it. But it's true, growing up, I had no problem whatsoever with my leaders and often appreciated our one-on-one visits. So, I have no particular solution in mind. I want to sit in on interviews with my kids, but I also want them to feel comfortable without me, with others. It's a bit conflicting.

While I get the protective parenting thing I am guessing the kids would NOT want their parents to sit in on their interviews. I know I would not have when I was an Aaronic Priesthood holder.

If the recommend questions are for self examination, then why not change the vehicle so that interviews are self administered?  Not sure why people want to hold onto the interview tradition.  Its not scripturally required, it certainly wasn’t invented by Joseph, and I don’t find any evidence that the practice is inspired.  It’s a cultural tradition, and it’s has more cons than pros, so hence my desire to throw it out.

I think it has more pros then cons. It is easier to self-deceive when you are evaluating yourself then it is to lie to another. It also allows you to have an inspired leader there if you have questions or concerns.

[DJBrown]

Right. You ask the question and get an answer. If you don't believe that answer then you ask additional questions about an interpretation of the Law of Chastity, namely Self abuse and p0rn.

 

To me it seems coersive when a question is asked and answered and then follow up, probing questions are asked to get them to change their answer.

 

Frankly, if we accept the LoC as defined in the temple, p0rn and self abuse to not fall into that category. It may be a separate issue of morality but it's not breaking the LoC

 

The prophets say otherwise.  Watching pornography and self abuse are sins and constitute breaking the law of chastity.  They are not adultery or fornication, but related sins.  

[hope_for_things]

I think it is extremely naive to think that we should just trust all of us to do what is right and only go to the temple when we are worthy.  Do you think God should just simply trust that people will go into the celestial kingdom when they are worthy and not provide a judgement and approval?  Of course not.

 

I think parents who insist on being present for their children's interviews are teaching their kids to not trust their Priesthood leaders.  And they are crazy if they think their child is going to confess sexual sins in their presence.  

 

I think it naïve to think that we as humans can judge the worthiness of other individuals.  I don’t like the worthy term, and I think we are all already worthy and loved and good enough in God’s eyes.  

 

Children shouldn’t be alone with a priesthood leader for multiple reasons.  Its an unfair power dynamic.  Its risky liability to put a youth alone with a leader, even the scouting rules require that no scout leader be alone with a youth for liability purposes.  Its not that we shouldn’t learn to trust, its that the one on one alone scenario is unduly risky for the child and the leader, that is common sense.  

 

Lastly, you would rather have a stranger talking to your kids about their sexual practices than have the parent because you think kids are too shy to bring these things up with their parents?  This is so sad on multiple levels I don’t even know where to start.  

[hope_for_things]

I think it has more pros then cons. It is easier to self-deceive when you are evaluating yourself then it is to lie to another. It also allows you to have an inspired leader there if you have questions or concerns.

 

The gospel teaches that Jesus is our only mediator, no one else.  No need for inspired leaders on this subject.  It comes down to our personal relationship with God, nothing else is necessary.  If a person wants counseling, get it from a professional, not from a local yokel with good intentions.  You wouldn't take your kid to the church for broken arm to get advice on how to heal it from an untrained ecclesiastical leader with inspiration would you?  

[The Nehor]

The gospel teaches that Jesus is our only mediator, no one else.  No need for inspired leaders on this subject.  It comes down to our personal relationship with God, nothing else is necessary.  If a person wants counseling, get it from a professional, not from a local yokel with good intentions.  You wouldn't take your kid to the church for broken arm to get advice on how to heal it from an untrained ecclesiastical leader with inspiration would you?  

Christ is the only mediator but he also assigns others to represent him in Earth which is what Priesthood and Priesthood keys are all about. You are twisting that doctrine beyond all recognition.

As to everything coming down to "our personal relationship with God" and nothing else being necessary that is a Protestant idea. In the LDS faith you need ordinances, obedience, and covenants.

[KevinG]

This may be looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.  

 

Leaders are already trained to ask the interview questions as they are written, without embellishment.  The only question relating to sexual behavior is "are you obeying the law of chastity?"  When issues arise leaders are asked not to delve into details, only counsel repentance.

 

If behaviors or situations come up that are illegal, or involve abuse the Church hotline is available to counsel leaders on the appropriate reporting laws for their state. 

 

Bishops are never to be in the building alone, and clerks or Councillors are always within range of the office if questions arise.  There are much easier places to take advantage of privacy than the Bishops office.

 

Confessions are voluntary, as is temple attendance, the interview process, and callings.

 

I worry more about dysfunctional families trying to keep a child from a Bishop than the other way around.  There is a reason minor children are often interviewed by doctors away from parents.

[hope_for_things]

The prophets say otherwise.  Watching pornography and self abuse are sins and constitute breaking the law of chastity.  They are not adultery or fornication, but related sins.  

 

This is a good point, I'd love to see anywhere in the scriptural canon where the law of chastity is defined.  Adultery is one of the 10 commandments, but I'm not aware of any ancient laws that really expound on this, please enlighten me if otherwise.  I know modern leaders have broadly defined it, but its obviously personal speculation and interpretation and not part of our standard works, which is what the church defines as constituting doctrine.