Worthiness Interviews: Is There A Better Way?

[Calm]

Trusting in the arm of flesh instead of God directly, paying for access to the temple (you have to be paying tithing to attend)...

I pay no tithing and can go to the temple when ever I want.

[Calm]

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.  

 

Yeah, right. Maybe you should read again without pushing your assumptions on others. It is hard to take criticisms seriously when they go to absurd lengths.

Same with hope's list of what is wrong with the LDS faith...extremes are not indicative of what discussion.

[Tacenda]

Yeah, right. Maybe you should read again without pushing your assumptions on others. It is hard to take criticisms seriously when they go to absurd lengths.

Same with hope's list of what is wrong with the LDS faith...extremes are not indicative of what discussion.

My bad, sorry. 

[DJBrown]

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

 

That seems crazy to me.  LDS.org says, "Using pornographic material in any way is a violation of a commandment of God: “Thou shalt not … commit adultery … nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). It can lead to other serious sins. Members of the Church should avoid pornography in any form and should oppose its production, distribution, and use."

 

Elder Oaks sure states that involvement with pornography is breaking the law of chastity.  "Some seek to justify their indulgence by arguing that they are only viewing “soft,” not “hard,” porn. A wise bishop called this refusing to see evil as evil. He quoted men seeking to justify their viewing choices by comparisons such as “not as bad as” or “only one bad scene.” But the test of what is evil is not its degree but its effect. When persons entertain evil thoughts long enough for the Spirit to withdraw, they lose their spiritual protection and they are subject to the power and direction of the evil one. When they use Internet or other pornography for what this bishop described as “arousal on demand” (letter of Mar. 13, 2005), they are deeply soiled by sin."

 

"Some have suggested that pornography should be a separate question in the temple recommend interview. It is already. At least five different questions should elicit a confession and discussion on this subject if the person being interviewed has the spiritual sensitivity and honesty we expect of those who worship in the house of the Lord."

 

"Here, brethren, I must tell you that our bishops and our professional counselors are seeing an increasing number of men involved with pornography, and many of those are active members. Some involved in pornography apparently minimize its seriousness and continue to exercise the priesthood of God because they think no one will know of their involvement. But the user knows, brethren, and so does the Lord."

 

He also cites Christ's statement that lusting after a woman is to commit adultery in your heart.  

 

So according to Elder Oaks, viewing pornography is a violation of the commandment to not commit adultery.  It also results in loss of the Spirit.  And a person who views pornography should not continue using the Priesthood without repenting.

[rockpond]

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.  

 

In doing temple recommend interviews we are not permitted to elaborate on the questions.  When asked to clarify the Law of Chastity (usually in interviews with Deacons/Beehives) I use the Church's published definition which does not reference pornography or self-abuse*.

 

* I'm not suggesting that pornography and self-abuse are "okay" things to be participating in.  If a youth confessed either to me, I'd end the interview and schedule them to meet with the Bishop.

[Duncan]

That seems crazy to me.  LDS.org says, "Using pornographic material in any way is a violation of a commandment of God: “Thou shalt not … commit adultery … nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). It can lead to other serious sins. Members of the Church should avoid pornography in any form and should oppose its production, distribution, and use."

 

Elder Oaks sure states that involvement with pornography is breaking the law of chastity.  "Some seek to justify their indulgence by arguing that they are only viewing “soft,” not “hard,” porn. A wise bishop called this refusing to see evil as evil. He quoted men seeking to justify their viewing choices by comparisons such as “not as bad as” or “only one bad scene.” But the test of what is evil is not its degree but its effect. When persons entertain evil thoughts long enough for the Spirit to withdraw, they lose their spiritual protection and they are subject to the power and direction of the evil one. When they use Internet or other pornography for what this bishop described as “arousal on demand” (letter of Mar. 13, 2005), they are deeply soiled by sin."

 

"Some have suggested that pornography should be a separate question in the temple recommend interview. It is already. At least five different questions should elicit a confession and discussion on this subject if the person being interviewed has the spiritual sensitivity and honesty we expect of those who worship in the house of the Lord."

 

"Here, brethren, I must tell you that our bishops and our professional counselors are seeing an increasing number of men involved with pornography, and many of those are active members. Some involved in pornography apparently minimize its seriousness and continue to exercise the priesthood of God because they think no one will know of their involvement. But the user knows, brethren, and so does the Lord."

 

He also cites Christ's statement that lusting after a woman is to commit adultery in your heart.  

 

So according to Elder Oaks, viewing pornography is a violation of the commandment to not commit adultery.  It also results in loss of the Spirit.  And a person who views pornography should not continue using the Priesthood without repenting.

 

well, if we are going to use GA's here then I'll play Earl Tingey of the 70 said in a stake priesthood meeting to send men who want to change from their involvement to the Temple, Bruce C. Hafen said the opposite of what Elder Oaks that porn and self abuse don't affect your standing in the Church so work it out-I heard that either in a talk or one of his books I forget which. My Mission President told us not to worry him with it, unless you're doing it numerous times a day. It just seems so anecdotal though. My take on Elder Oaks' statement is for men who don't want to change and these others are trying to help people who want to change-also you can't commit adultery if you aren't married

Edited September 8, 2015 by Duncan

[stemelbow]

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.

sure

[KevinG]

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.  

 

That is why Bishops have LDS Social Services, the hotline, and myriads of other resources to refer those in need.

[hope_for_things]

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

 

So absolutely no historical evidence of a temple recommend interview anciently in the tabernacles.  Just this vague idea that only worthy individuals should be allowed to enter.   And no evidence of any kind of a temple recommend interview in Joseph’s Smith’s time either.   You should read some of the Kirtland temple history out there, non members could enter the temple.  Our current temple practices have changed drastically from early church temple practices.  I'm still open to evidence otherwise if you have any.  

[KevinG]

OK so what I'm hearing is because the interview process could be abused we should throw it all out?!

 

Isn't that like chucking the baby out with the bathwater?

 

Confidential priesthood interviews have done more in my life to stop sin, provide support, and help me to repentance than they have ever harmed.  And I've had some Bishops with questionable counselling skills.  As a parent I give my children privacy and respect, and don't pry into their confessions or sins.  True they often come to me first to inquire if they should go to priesthood authority, and I know more than I'd ever expected to about their private lives and attempts to repent, but it is up to them, not me to judge when and how to go to an ecclesiastical leader.

[hope_for_things]

Yeah, right. Maybe you should read again without pushing your assumptions on others. It is hard to take criticisms seriously when they go to absurd lengths.

Same with hope's list of what is wrong with the LDS faith...extremes are not indicative of what discussion.

 

Labeling my list as an extreme without engaging the content doesn't facilitate a discussion.  If you disagree with a comment, I’d value your opinion on why.  

[KevinG]

Labeling my list as an extreme without engaging the content doesn't facilitate a discussion.  If you disagree with a comment, I’d value your opinion on why.  

 

If you think scrapping the whole program and starting over with something that better matches your personal sensibilities isn't an extreme notion, there isn't going to be much of a discussion.

 

[hope_for_things]

I pay no tithing and can go to the temple when ever I want.

 

One person's experience doesn't apply to everyone.  Are you saying that paying tithing isn't one of the requirements that is generally interpreted as necessary in order to receive a recommend?

[hope_for_things]

My bad, sorry. 

I really liked your comment and I have similar concerns.  Thank you for sharing, you don't need to apologize. 

[Calm]

One person's experience doesn't apply to everyone.  Are you saying that paying tithing isn't one of the requirements that is generally interpreted as necessary in order to receive a recommend?

I am saying that claiming one has to pay for access to the temple is a misrepresentation of the actual policy.

[Calm]

One person's experience doesn't apply to everyone.  Are you saying that paying tithing isn't one of the requirements that is generally interpreted as necessary in order to receive a recommend?

It applies to everyone who doesn't pay tithing and is given a temple recommend, which is probably a significant number of individuals across the world.

I am not an exception to the rule, after all.

[Calm]

, you don't need to apologize.

at the very least she misrepresented Nehor's position and as someone long on the board with lots of chance to read his posts, she should apologize at least to him unless he prefers her not to do so. Edited September 8, 2015 by calmoriah

[hope_for_things]

That is why Bishops have LDS Social Services, the hotline, and myriads of other resources to refer those in need.

So we should go to the bishop before we see our doctor or financial expert.  So he can prescreen and select the right provider for us? 

[hope_for_things]

OK so what I'm hearing is because the interview process could be abused we should throw it all out?!

 

Isn't that like chucking the baby out with the bathwater?

 

Confidential priesthood interviews have done more in my life to stop sin, provide support, and help me to repentance than they have ever harmed.  And I've had some Bishops with questionable counselling skills.  As a parent I give my children privacy and respect, and don't pry into their confessions or sins.  True they often come to me first to inquire if they should go to priesthood authority, and I know more than I'd ever expected to about their private lives and attempts to repent, but it is up to them, not me to judge when and how to go to an ecclesiastical leader.

 

You're saying the baby is the interview it sounds like?  I'm not saying that you can't go to your bishop for counseling.  I would just suggest doing away with the formal interviews.  I'm glad your experiences have been positive.  Others haven't.  I think its a tradition with more harm than good.  At the least it should be overhauled, and I'm thinking eliminating them entirely is a plausible option to consider.   

[hope_for_things]

I am saying that claiming one has to pay for access to the temple is a misrepresentation of the actual policy.

I don’t understand how that misrepresents the policy.  The question is “Are you a full-tithe payer?”  The simple answer is that tithing is required for a recommend, and that’s how I believe most leaders administering recommends, as well as members who are applying for a recommend would interpret it.  Could there be exceptions to the rule as you mentioned, I’m sure.  But the general application seems pretty straightforward.  

[KevinG]

So we should go to the bishop before we see our doctor or financial expert.  So he can prescreen and select the right provider for us? 

 

No we go to the Bishop for questions about

 

Faith

Chasity

Word of Wisdom

Service and Callings

Tithes and Offerings

Temporal Support

etc.

 

If you have ever gone to a Bishop for financial advice, marriage counselling, specifics on sexuality, etc.  

 

You aren't doing it right.

 

Give the poor straw man a break.  The Bishop's responsibilities are carefully outlined in the handbook and our D&C, and the examples you have provided are not what he is there for.  When an interview does uncover something amiss that is outside of his scope he has lots of resources to refer people to.

 

If you can keep the law of chastity, keep your faith in God, keep your calling, and keep your nose clean spiritually you don't have to confess to the Bishop.  If you answer all of the Temple recommend questions yes or no as appropriate then you will get your recommend without any attempt at prying into your business.

[KevinG]

You're saying the baby is the interview it sounds like?  I'm not saying that you can't go to your bishop for counseling.  I would just suggest doing away with the formal interviews.  I'm glad your experiences have been positive.  Others haven't.  I think its a tradition with more harm than good.  At the least it should be overhauled, and I'm thinking eliminating them entirely is a plausible option to consider.   

 

If you see the interview as a hurdle to pass through your argument has merit.

 

However if you use the interview as an opportunity to self reflect, and gain support with spiritual (and sometimes temporal) issues the "baby" you throw out with the "bathwater" is the whole confession and support process outlined in the scriptures.

 

If you don't believe the Bishop has some authority and inspiration why bother being a Mormon at all?  Especially in light of question " Do you sustain the President of the Church and his authority, and other general authorities and local church leaders?"

[hope_for_things]

No we go to the Bishop for questions about

 

Faith

Chasity

Word of Wisdom

Service and Callings

Tithes and Offerings

Temporal Support

etc.

 

If you have ever gone to a Bishop for financial advice, marriage counselling, specifics on sexuality, etc.  

 

You aren't doing it right.

 

My experience is that there are a whole lot of people not doing it right by your definition.   People who go to the bishop for all of the things you mention that they shouldn’t.  And I've known plenty of bishops who give advice and counseling on those subjects.  Perhaps the tradition of going to a bishop for these things needs to change in the culture.  It has evolved over time as well.  The handbook continues to be updated, and I’m suggesting further updates, and evolution of our culture.  Don’t even go to the bishop for any of that stuff.  No matter how good intentioned, chances are he doesn’t have the skills to help.  

[KevinG]

Let's cut to the heart of the matter...

 

Which of the following do you think a Bishop, Branch President or Stake Presidency Member is not qualified to counsel a member on in the case of voluntary confession and why?

 

(From Wikipedia)

 

• Faith in and testimony of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost,
• Testimony of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
• Testimony of the Restoration of the Gospel.
• Sustain the President of the Church and his authority, and other general authorities and local church leaders.
• Living the law of chastity.
• Relationships with family members as being in harmony with church teachings.
• Support for or affiliation with any group or individual with teachings or practices that are not in agreement with church teachings.
• Making a good faith effort to keep the covenants the individual has made, to attend church meetings and keep their life in harmony with the gospel.
• Honesty in dealings with others.
• Paying a full tithe.
• Keeping the Word of Wisdom.
• Payment of and keeping current on child support or alimony, if applicable.
• If already attending the temple, does the individual keep the covenants made in the temple and wear the temple garment "night and day" according to the covenants made in the temple.
• Making a full confession of any serious sins to church leaders.
• Regarding oneself worthy to enter the temple and take part in the ordinances within.

[KevinG]

My experience is that there are a whole lot of people not doing it right by your definition.   People who go to the bishop for all of the things you mention that they shouldn’t.  And I've known plenty of bishops who give advice and counseling on those subjects.  Perhaps the tradition of going to a bishop for these things needs to change in the culture.  It has evolved over time as well.  The handbook continues to be updated, and I’m suggesting further updates, and evolution of our culture.  Don’t even go to the bishop for any of that stuff.  No matter how good intentioned, chances are he doesn’t have the skills to help.  

 

Then not doing it right is the problem, not the program.

 

I have been a Bishop's Counselor and High Priest Group Leader and in every case the Bishop's I counselled with were often frustrated with members who attempted to use the Bishop like a one stop shop for all personal issues.  For decades leadership training from the Presidency on down has emphasized the need for quorums and home teachers to take over where they can in support of the Saints.

 

The issues you see are truly issues, but not from lack of trying to train the members and leaders, or from flaws in the program.  They come from not following the program we have.

Edited September 8, 2015 by KevinG