Worthiness Interviews: Is There A Better Way?

[hope_for_things]

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.

 

I’m not suggesting covenant breaking, I think this view is compatible with a covenant relationship with God.  Again a relationship with God, not the arm of the flesh.  The interview process is a tradition and a policy and changeable.  I don’t know about the protestant claim as I’m not very familiar with their traditions, but a lot of the backbone of Mormon doctrine started out protestant and developed over time.  Again, culture and tradition seem to be the key components with this practice.  

[thesometimesaint]

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.  

 

Nothing is stopping anyone from reading and following the TR questions. The questions aren't secret or sacred.

SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Worthiness_to_enter

 

It is probably a good idea to go over them before you ask the Bishop for a Recommend.

 

Temple recommend questions have been around for more than a few thousands of years, though they do change with time. So JS didn't invent them. But he sure did issue Temple Recommends. The first ones required his signature. 

[DJBrown]

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.  

 

Not sure why you say I think strangers should discuss law of chastity with kids rather than their parents.  I have never said such a thing and do not believe such a thing.

 

As Nehor said above, thinking that "all we need is Jesus" and trying to remove the role of Priesthood leaders and keys is very much in line with apostate Christianity.  Are we trying to rob the church of ordinances without engaging the full mission of the church?

 

There is a purpose behind the Lord's structure in His church.  There is a purpose behind having to account to and follow His earthly leaders.  Being unwilling to do that is not following Christ.  And it is hypocritical as well.  We insist on perfection yet ask the Lord to forgive us our own imperfections and sins.  I believe the Lord looks down on such distrust.  Do we have faith in Him or not?  Can He use others to help us?  And our children.  Do insist that we are above His organization is to reject the atonement, ultimately in my opinion. 

[The Nehor]

I’m not suggesting covenant breaking, I think this view is compatible with a covenant relationship with God.  Again a relationship with God, not the arm of the flesh.  The interview process is a tradition and a policy and changeable.  I don’t know about the protestant claim as I’m not very familiar with their traditions, but a lot of the backbone of Mormon doctrine started out protestant and developed over time.  Again, culture and tradition seem to be the key components with this practice.

While the format could change the principles behind it are scriptural. It is the bishop's duty to aid the members and assess their spiritual state so corrections can be made and counsel offered.

[KevinG]

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?  

 

Your description of an LDS ecclesiastical leader as "a local yokel with good intentions" lets me know everything I need to know about your comprehension and respect of the gospel plan.

 

For future reference, if you bother to inquire:

 

D&C 1:38  38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

 

D&C 107:  71 Nevertheless, a high priest, that is, after the order of Melchizedek, may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth;

72 And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church.

[hope_for_things]

Temple recommend questions have been around for more than a few thousands of years, though they do change with time. So JS didn't invent them. But he sure did issue Temple Recommends. The first ones required his signature. 

You can’t be serious about this?  Please share some of your historical knowledge.  Temple recommend questions for thousands of years?  Joseph’s signature of a recommend question?  I’m open to learning something new, but I’ve never read anything that would suggest Joseph Smith had any kind of temple recommend questions, let alone an ancient temple recommend interview.  

[hope_for_things]

While the format could change the principles behind it are scriptural. It is the bishop's duty to aid the members and assess their spiritual state so corrections can be made and counsel offered.

I disagree, I think the recommend process is in violation of scriptural principles more than it is in alignment with any.  I don’t doubt the good intentions of this origins of this process.  Unfortunately, we all know where good intentions sometimes lead us.  Lets change it!  

[The Nehor]

I disagree, I think the recommend process is in violation of scriptural principles more than it is in alignment with any.  I don’t doubt the good intentions of this origins of this process.  Unfortunately, we all know where good intentions sometimes lead us.  Lets change it!

What scriptural principle does it violate?

Also, "we" cannot change it. The prophet and the apostles can change it.

[hope_for_things]

Your description of an LDS ecclesiastical leader as "a local yokel with good intentions" lets me know everything I need to know about your comprehension and respect of the gospel plan.

 

For future reference, if you bother to inquire:

 

D&C 1:38  38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

 

D&C 107:  71 Nevertheless, a high priest, that is, after the order of Melchizedek, may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth;

72 And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church.

 

Church leaders are human, just like you and I and they make mistakes.  They aren’t experts in counseling, medicine, law, finance or anything.  Bad advice given in these areas of expertise by a well intentioned leader can be devastating.  You wouldn’t expect a church leader to tell you how to fix your car, why would you expect them to tell you how to fix your emotional life.  It just doesn’t make sense.  Limited spiritual guidance maybe, but anything else is out of someone’s skills and capacity.  This is just common sense.  

[rpn]

Another benefit is that the person can be held accountable for lying if that is what they do,  and dealt justice by God.

 

There is a lot to be said for accountability to someone who has stewardship to help us fix things that are wrong in our lives.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

 

This isn't universally accurate. First, training is almost always minimal. I've been in trainings where I have been taught to ask additional questions "as the spirit directs". This means different things to different people. But I was also told that we should be asking the M question to all youth in conjunction with the LoC question. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the questions are often asked because no other issue arose.

 

 

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.

 

It's great that they won't be in the building alone but behind a closed door in an office that is usually sound proof doesn't provide much safety for someone IF they were abused. Again, one on one contact with youth wouldn't be permitted in any other situation in life. Even our nursery rooms usually have a window in them for security reasons. There is no such security when a youth is one on one with a leader. I'll also note that these private interviews would be a perfect place to begin groom a victim for later.

 

 

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

 

Yes, but there's a power dynamic in having an older man, a church leader, pull a youth in for an interview and ask questions. So it doesn't necessarily feel voluntary.

 

 

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.

 

But if a doctor interviews a child away from the parent when abuse is suspected, the doctor is not alone with the child. They have someone else present.

We know there are instances of abuse using this method of private interviews. I don't think that's really debateable. The question is about whether it is needed at all, and if it is, how can we make it safer and more appropriate to illiminate the risk.

[DJBrown]

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.  

 

I think Christ's own words in 3 Nephi 27 and in Matthew 5 (sermon on the Mount) should suffice:

 

"Behold, it has been written by them of old time that thou shalt not commit adultery.  But I say unto you that whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart."

[hope_for_things]

What scriptural principle does it violate?

Also, "we" cannot change it. The prophet and the apostles can change it.

Trusting in the arm of flesh instead of God directly, paying for access to the temple (you have to be paying tithing to attend), proving that you believe in specific doctrines to gain admittance, rather than just acting on faith, which is all that the gospel asks for is faith, repentance, and baptism.  

 

Also, church leaders often get ideas from the grass roots members.  We are all part of the process for change in the church.  Bottom up revelation.  

[The Nehor]

Trusting in the arm of flesh instead of God directly, paying for access to the temple (you have to be paying tithing to attend), proving that you believe in specific doctrines to gain admittance, rather than just acting on faith, which is all that the gospel asks for is faith, repentance, and baptism.  

 

Also, church leaders often get ideas from the grass roots members.  We are all part of the process for change in the church.  Bottom up revelation.

No offense but every statement in this post is wrong.

[hope_for_things]

I think Christ's own words in 3 Nephi 27 and in Matthew 5 (sermon on the Mount) should suffice:

 

"Behold, it has been written by them of old time that thou shalt not commit adultery.  But I say unto you that whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart."

 

Jesus frequently took a traditional teaching and turned it on its head to get people thinking.  This is throughout the NT.   He wanted people to think about things more deeply.  One thing he didn’t do is establish a new “commandment”.   He did away with the old ones and told us to focus on loving God and our neighbor.  Remember the law was done away.  I think you could make the case for there being no law of chastity more easily than you could make the case for it. 

 

In either scenario, how does the scripture you quote tell us what specific actions are against this definition.  Seems pretty unclear to me from the scripture.  Other than the that Jesus wants us to consider how our thoughts can lead to bad actions, so we should be aware of our thoughts.  

[hope_for_things]

No offense but every statement in this post is wrong.

 

No offense taken, honestly I thought you were wrong too, but I was trying to engage in conversation.  I guess this means you don't want to, thats fine.  

[The Nehor]

No offense taken, honestly I thought you were wrong too, but I was trying to engage in conversation.  I guess this means you don't want to, thats fine.

Hard to have a conversation when it sounds like we are not even members of the same faith.

[hope_for_things]

Hard to have a conversation when it sounds like we are not even members of the same faith.

 

Active TR holding member here.  Give it a chance, you have to be willing to explain why you don't agree to have a conversation.  

[Tacenda]

Active TR holding member here.  Give it a chance, you have to be willing to explain why you don't agree to have a conversation.  

It's because of the devotion to the church.  No matter if something is wrong or not.  Whatever the leadership say...is straight from God.  This mentality, even from Nehor.  

 

When you compare how careful the church is now with scouts not being left alone with leaders on campouts etc.  Do they not see that a TR interview, especially with young women, could lead to something going wrong on occasion .  Is it still ok to sacrifice one youth for the betterment of the rest?  But they don't allow for that to occur with the boy scout, if at all possible.  Why not do that to avoid a situation with a young woman.  I recently read someone's blog.  Maybe it's already been shared about a young single adult woman who was abused mentally by her Singles Ward bishop.  She was asked to stay after Sacrament for a worthiness interview.  Well, she thought no problem, she didn't have a chastity problem.  But the bishop asked her questions as if she should be questioning her worthiness to the point that she thought she had done something wrong.  She went downhill from there, she didn't like attending Sacrament and had to force herself to go. 

 

Does this sound like a good idea folks? 

 

Lots of mind stuff can happen with a closed door policy like this.  Is it worth it to get our youth to confess their sins?  When there is danger in it? 

[thesometimesaint]

You can’t be serious about this?  Please share some of your historical knowledge.  Temple recommend questions for thousands of years?  Joseph’s signature of a recommend question?  I’m open to learning something new, but I’ve never read anything that would suggest Joseph Smith had any kind of temple recommend questions, let alone an ancient temple recommend interview.  

 

You tell me how many non Hebrews were allowed inside the Tabernacle in the Desert? How many in the Holy of Holies?

 

"I’m open to learning something new, but I’ve never read anything that would suggest Joseph Smith had any kind of temple recommend questions, let alone an ancient temple recommend interview".

SEE http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/temples/temple_recommend.html

[Storm Rider]

Church leaders are human, just like you and I and they make mistakes.  They aren’t experts in counseling, medicine, law, finance or anything.  Bad advice given in these areas of expertise by a well intentioned leader can be devastating.  You wouldn’t expect a church leader to tell you how to fix your car, why would you expect them to tell you how to fix your emotional life.  It just doesn’t make sense.  Limited spiritual guidance maybe, but anything else is out of someone’s skills and capacity.  This is just common sense.  

 

This is just a bizarre statement.  When did anyone say or teach that priesthood leaders are experts in any field?  They function in an interview process is to facilitate repentance and to assist in the healing process.  

 

Some walk around with a chip on their shoulder and seek problems to complain about.  Others create problems where none exist.  I expect that some have experienced priesthood leaders asking more questions than they should; however, I have never experienced such a thing.  I have had bishops that assisted me in the repentance process and I am deeply grateful that we are empowered to confess our sins and move forward knowing that we have been forgiven.  

[Duncan]

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.  

 

see, I was taught that those aren't breaking the LOC. If it bothers you you don't need anyone's permission to attend ARP

[HappyJackWagon]

You tell me how many non Hebrews were allowed inside the Tabernacle in the Desert? How many in the Holy of Holies?

 

"I’m open to learning something new, but I’ve never read anything that would suggest Joseph Smith had any kind of temple recommend questions, let alone an ancient temple recommend interview".

SEE http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/temples/temple_recommend.html

Using race as a litmous test for temple attendance is hardly the same as saying Temple Recommend interviews are of ancient origins. Or do you have a source that addresses that more reasonably?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

hope_for_things, on 08 Sept 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

Church leaders are human, just like you and I and they make mistakes.  They aren’t experts in counseling, medicine, law, finance or anything.  Bad advice given in these areas of expertise by a well intentioned leader can be devastating.  You wouldn’t expect a church leader to tell you how to fix your car, why would you expect them to tell you how to fix your emotional life.  It just doesn’t make sense.  Limited spiritual guidance maybe, but anything else is out of someone’s skills and capacity.  This is just common sense.  

 

StormRider-

This is just a bizarre statement.  When did anyone say or teach that priesthood leaders are experts in any field?  They function in an interview process is to facilitate repentance and to assist in the healing process.

Why is this a bizarre statement. We act as if our priesthood leaders will be prompted by the spirit in any counsel they give and that we'll be safe if we just follow their counsel. So they counsel on morals, money, relationships etc and we act as if they have all the answers. The truth is they have virtually no training to handle issues of counseling on issues of abuse, relationships, finances etc but we treat them as the ultimate authority.

 

No one claims they are experts yet we are still expected to follow their counsel. That's bizarre.

[thesometimesaint]

Using race as a litmous test for temple attendance is hardly the same as saying Temple Recommend interviews are of ancient origins. Or do you have a source that addresses that more reasonably?

 

How many non Hebrews were allowed in the Tabernacle in the Desert? Or more to your question how many Hebrew women were allowed in the Tabernacle in the Desert?