Worthiness Interviews: Is There A Better Way?

[Zakuska]

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.

 

So judges in Isreal must have testimony presented to them... I see nothing about a one-on-one interview here but a process involving several people. 

[KevinG]

So judges in Isreal must have testimony presented to them... I see nothing about a one-on-one interview here but a process involving several people. 

 

If you believe in living prophets and apostles, and the Doctrine and Covenants, yes.  The Bishop, Branch President, and Stake Presidency has the duty to ask you if you have a testimony of the Gospel, et al.

 

Can you imagine the condemnation one would bring upon his own head if he lied about that to gain entry into the Temple?

 

Remember this is a voluntary and self honor program.  

 

No ecclesiastical leader has ever checked my journals, or sought eyewitness proof of my statements.  It is up to the individual to answer.

[Zakuska]

If you believe in living prophets and apostles, and the Doctrine and Covenants, yes.  The Bishop, Branch President, and Stake Presidency has the duty to ask you if you have a testimony of the Gospel, et al.

 

Can you imagine the condemnation one would bring upon his own head if he lied about that to gain entry into the Temple?

 

Remember this is a voluntary and self honor program.  

 

No ecclesiastical leader has ever checked my journals, or sought eyewitness proof of my statements.  It is up to the individual to answer.

 

Maybe they should... at least according to the D&C that's how transgressions should be handled.

 

Out of the mouth of 2 or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[Kenngo1969]

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? 

Ladies and gentlemen, that's called "moving the goal posts."  You're welcome.  Glad to be of service.

[KevinG]

Maybe they should... at least according to the D&C that's how transgressions should be handled.

 

Out of the mouth of 2 or three witnesses shall every word be established.

 

This is done in disciplinary counsels.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

I think you're misrepresenting this. To qualify for a TR a person MUST be a full tithe payer. So if you're claiming you go to the temple without paying any tithing that likely means you either make $0 or a spouse "forbids" you from from paying tithing. I'm curious about what other exceptions might exist but I'm not aware of any. 

 

But insinuating that payment of $$$ in the form of tithing isn't a requirement to attend the temple  is being a bit disengenuous. Of course it's required.

[KevinG]

I think you're misrepresenting this. To qualify for a TR a person MUST be a full tithe payer. So if you're claiming you go to the temple without paying any tithing that likely means you either make $0 or a spouse "forbids" you from from paying tithing. I'm curious about what other exceptions might exist but I'm not aware of any. 

 

But insinuating that payment of $$$ in the form of tithing isn't a requirement to attend the temple  is being a bit disengenuous. Of course it's required.

 

The characterization of it as a payment to attend is what is inaccurate (and frankly often intentionally offensive when used as a critique of the church).

 

There is no payment to attend the temple.  However being current (as determined by self) in tithes is one component of many determining temple worthiness.

[stemelbow]

The characterization of it as a payment to attend is what is inaccurate (and frankly often intentionally offensive when used as a critique of the church).

 

There is no payment to attend the temple.  However being current (as determined by self) in tithes is one component of many determining temple worthiness.

Sometimes you have to pay for renting clothes, but that's becoming less and less an offering these days. If ya ain't got your own, you'll just have to sit out. I still remember the first time I wore a white shirt with short sleeves. I couldn't figure out why they were making me rent a shirt...then it hit me--I was being immodest wearing a short sleeve.

But with that, I don't see it as inaccurate to say we have to pay moneys, our tithing, to enter the temple. It's true. Not sure why it's a bad thing to point out that we have to pay in order to go in--unless for some reason we're granted an exception.

[hope_for_things]

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?"

 

I think that self reflection is just that, self reflection.  If a person feels compelled to talk to an ecclesiastical leader as part of their repentance process, then that ought to be personally defined, not a requirement to jump through.  That’s my opinion. 

 

Nothing to do with following or not following the leaders.  Any time someone thinks a policy is bad, then some people will cry foul. 

[HappyJackWagon]

The characterization of it as a payment to attend is what is inaccurate (and frankly often intentionally offensive when used as a critique of the church).

 

There is no payment to attend the temple.  However being current (as determined by self) in tithes is one component of many determining temple worthiness.

You don't buy a ticket to enter but payment of tithes is still required before you can attend. I don't see that statement as being "intentionally offensive." You may not like it because it sounds bad, but it's accurate.

 

To your previous question about whether or not a bishop is capable of counseling about the law of tithing, my answer is, it depends. If we asked 100 bishops to define the law of tithing and what was required to obtain a temple recommend, do you believe they would all teach, or counsel the same thing. Or would there be some pretty extreme variability about whether tithing is paid on gross, net, surplus, just the member spouses income or the entire household, etc. Different bishops and SP may have different requirements. And none of their counsel is difinitive unless their counsel is simply for you to decide on your own what you feel about.

[hope_for_things]

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.

 

I agree its a cultural problem at some level.  Its also a problem with clarity from the top down.  Seems like changing the interview process could help in this matter.  

Edited September 8, 2015 by hope_for_things

[Zakuska]

This is done in disciplinary counsels.

 

So then that verse has nothing to do with "Worthiness interviews" and you should withdraw it.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

I agree its a cultural problem at some level.  Its also a problem with clarity from the top down.  Seems like changing the interview process could help in this matter.  

 

The process is being asked the following twice, once with the Bishop (or Branch President) and the second time with the Stake President.  This is renewed every two years for current recommend holders.

• To qualify for a temple recommend, an LDS Church member must faithfully answer a series of questions which affirm the individual's adherence to essential church doctrine. The questions address the following:[10][11]
•  
• 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.

What exactly would you change or emphasize more to prevent issues from occurring?

[Summertime]

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.  

More cons than pros? That is quite subjective. Some of the most spiritual self-reflective experiences I've had have been through this interview process. In my view it is inspired and wonderful if done in the spirit of love

[KevinG]

So then that verse has nothing to do with "Worthiness interviews" and you should withdraw it.

 

No.  In fact I will add the rest of the section for your reference.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107?lang=eng

 

Being a judge in church counsels does not eliminate the duty to minister in the Temporal things of the church or his other duties running the Ward.

[HappyJackWagon]

Also, is there a difference between an adult going in for a TR renewal and a youth meeting privately with a leader? I think there is. For one, there's a difference in the level of qualification. Sure, the same questions are asked, but the level of covenant is not the same so there is a little more leniency for the youth.

 

How could these interviews, especially for youth, be overhauled to be more in line with acceptable social standards?

 

-Have the bishop & another adult, a parent or a counselor conduct interviews together. Essentially require ecclesiastical leaders to follow the 2 deep leadership plan (may seem a bit overwhelming to the youth to have multiple adults in meeting)

-Have the youth bring a person of their choosing to the interview

-Require all interviewers to stick strictly to the approved questions and ask them ONLY as written. No additions, especially with regard to LoC issues.

-Get rid of annual and semi-annual worthiness interviews (Not TR interviews)

-Allow youth or all members to record the interviews if they inform the interviewer at the beginning

-Do interviews in plain sight or at least have a window in the Bishop's office or any place where interviews occur

-Do not solicit/coerce confessions by asking increasingly personal, explicit questions

 

Are there other actions that could be taken to help protect youth and any vulnerable person from abuse?

 

It's ironic that a bishop or counselor can meet behind closed doors, one on one with youth, but if they are later called to serve in primary they are required to have another adult with them, or prop the door open if there is not a window in the room.

[Zakuska]

Also, is there a difference between an adult going in for a TR renewal and a youth meeting privately with a leader? I think there is. For one, there's a difference in the level of qualification. Sure, the same questions are asked, but the level of covenant is not the same so there is a little more leniency for the youth.

 

How could these interviews, especially for youth, be overhauled to be more in line with acceptable social standards?

 

-Have the bishop & another adult, a parent or a counselor conduct interviews together. Essentially require ecclesiastical leaders to follow the 2 deep leadership plan (may seem a bit overwhelming to the youth to have multiple adults in meeting)

-Have the youth bring a person of their choosing to the interview

-Require all interviewers to stick strictly to the approved questions and ask them ONLY as written. No additions, especially with regard to LoC issues.

-Get rid of annual and semi-annual worthiness interviews (Not TR interviews)

-Allow youth or all members to record the interviews if they inform the interviewer at the beginning

-Do interviews in plain sight or at least have a window in the Bishop's office or any place where interviews occur

-Do not solicit/coerce confessions by asking increasingly personal, explicit questions

 

Are there other actions that could be taken to help protect youth and any vulnerable person from abuse?

 

It's ironic that a bishop or counselor can meet behind closed doors, one on one with youth, but if they are later called to serve in primary they are required to have another adult with them, or prop the door open if there is not a window in the room.

 

I know....  Glass sound proof bishops offices! Fish bowls like we have here at work.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

-Have the bishop & another adult, a parent or a counselor conduct interviews together. Essentially require ecclesiastical leaders to follow the 2 deep leadership plan (may seem a bit overwhelming to the youth to have multiple adults in meeting)  

 

I could see this working... although give the interviewee the option of going without a third party if that would be an issue with privacy or embarrassment.  Its kind of hard to have a confidential process with a witness.

 

-Have the youth bring a person of their choosing to the interview

​This can be done now.  Or at least I know of no restriction if the parent and child agree.  But it could be a hindrance if the child is under duress from the parent or other party.

 

-Require all interviewers to stick strictly to the approved questions and ask them ONLY as written. No additions, especially with regard to LoC issues.

This is something leaders hear in training.  Sometimes it helps to ask people to elaborate when giving counsel, but as far as worthiness interviews for callings, temple recommends, and ordinations, it is supposed to be verbatim.

 

-Get rid of annual and semi-annual worthiness interviews (Not TR interviews)

Is there such a thing?  I know of Bishoprics that want to visit with the youth regularly to check in on how they are doing, but I don't think those are categorized as worthiness interviews.  The only time I'm aware of "worthiness" being confessed is for temple and calling related issues.

 

-Allow youth or all members to record the interviews if they inform the interviewer at the beginning

Again I can see some real privacy issues coming from this.  

 

-Do interviews in plain sight or at least have a window in the Bishop's office or any place where interviews occur

Agreed.  There are ways to be visible without others being in earshot. This is how the BSA recommends interviews be done.

 

-Do not solicit/coerce confessions by asking increasingly personal, explicit questions

This is already discouraged and has been for decades.  Leaders are not to ask people to elaborate on sins, details of tithing, etc.

Edited September 8, 2015 by KevinG

[DJBrown]

Also, is there a difference between an adult going in for a TR renewal and a youth meeting privately with a leader? I think there is. For one, there's a difference in the level of qualification. Sure, the same questions are asked, but the level of covenant is not the same so there is a little more leniency for the youth.

 

How could these interviews, especially for youth, be overhauled to be more in line with acceptable social standards?

 

-Have the bishop & another adult, a parent or a counselor conduct interviews together. Essentially require ecclesiastical leaders to follow the 2 deep leadership plan (may seem a bit overwhelming to the youth to have multiple adults in meeting)

-Have the youth bring a person of their choosing to the interview

-Require all interviewers to stick strictly to the approved questions and ask them ONLY as written. No additions, especially with regard to LoC issues.

-Get rid of annual and semi-annual worthiness interviews (Not TR interviews)

-Allow youth or all members to record the interviews if they inform the interviewer at the beginning

-Do interviews in plain sight or at least have a window in the Bishop's office or any place where interviews occur

-Do not solicit/coerce confessions by asking increasingly personal, explicit questions

 

Are there other actions that could be taken to help protect youth and any vulnerable person from abuse?

 

It's ironic that a bishop or counselor can meet behind closed doors, one on one with youth, but if they are later called to serve in primary they are required to have another adult with them, or prop the door open if there is not a window in the room.

 

At some point, we have to decide whether we are disciples or lobbyists.  

 

Too many people are trying to "counsel the Lord."  This is not a democracy.  

[The Nehor]

So now when a teenager chooses to confess a sin or get a temple recommend we would add more people to the room, allow others to watch through a window, and possibly record it? And we are doing this for their benefit?

Let us ask if adults would prefer to be interviewed and confess their sins in that environment.

[HappyJackWagon]

At some point, we have to decide whether we are disciples or lobbyists.  

 

Too many people are trying to "counsel the Lord."  This is not a democracy.  

 

-Have the bishop & another adult, a parent or a counselor conduct interviews together. Essentially require ecclesiastical leaders to follow the 2 deep leadership plan (may seem a bit overwhelming to the youth to have multiple adults in meeting)  

 

I could see this working... although give the interviewee the option of going without a third party if that would be an issue with privacy or embarrassment.  Its kind of hard to have a confidential process with a witness.

 

-Have the youth bring a person of their choosing to the interview

​This can be done now.  Or at least I know of no restriction if the parent and child agree.  But it could be a hindrance if the child is under duress from the parent or other party.

 

-Require all interviewers to stick strictly to the approved questions and ask them ONLY as written. No additions, especially with regard to LoC issues.

This is something leaders hear in training.  Sometimes it helps to ask people to elaborate when giving counsel, but as far as worthiness interviews for callings, temple recommends, and ordinations, it is supposed to be verbatim.

 

-Get rid of annual and semi-annual worthiness interviews (Not TR interviews)

Is there such a thing?  I know of Bishoprics that want to visit with the youth regularly to check in on how they are doing, but I don't think those are categorized as worthiness interviews.  The only time I'm aware of "worthiness" being confessed is for temple and calling related issues.

 

-Allow youth or all members to record the interviews if they inform the interviewer at the beginning

Again I can see some real privacy issues coming from this.  

 

-Do interviews in plain sight or at least have a window in the Bishop's office or any place where interviews occur

Agreed.  There are ways to be visible without others being in earshot. This is how the BSA recommends interviews be done.

 

-Do not solicit/coerce confessions by asking increasingly personal, explicit questions

This is already discouraged and has been for decades.  Leaders are not to ask people to elaborate on sins, details of tithing, etc.

Part of the problem is there isn't consistency. You say leaders are being taught in training not to do some of these things, yet I still see them happening. Maybe there need to be consequences when a Bishop or SP doesn't follow the approved guidelines.

 

I kind of like the recording idea. If my child goes in for an interview and they feel the need to record it I think they should. Inform the interviewer that they will be recording and then set the recorder/phone on the desk.

 

I think it would useful to have public teachings about what is and what is not appropriate and then hold leaders accountable when they are inappropriate. Teach youth and others that they can take a 3rd party with them if they choose. Some don't they can so they don't ask. Set strict guidelines. Make those guidelines public. Give interviewees options. Hold leaders accountable IF there are inappropriate questions or conversations.

[Calm]

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.

But by the rules I don't have to pay a dime so I don't have to pay anything for access to the temple.

It misrepresents by claiming everyone has to pay to have access. Anyone who pays zero in tithing can still have access by the rules.

Edited September 8, 2015 by calmoriah

[HappyJackWagon]

So now when a teenager chooses to confess a sin or get a temple recommend we would add more people to the room, allow others to watch through a window, and possibly record it? And we are doing this for their benefit?

Let us ask if adults would prefer to be interviewed and confess their sins in that environment.

No. The person being interviewed has the option of recording if they choose. The person being interviewed can bring a 3rd party. TR interviews are not confessionals.

 

-set clear standards for interviews, identifying inappropriate subject matter (mostly around LoC issues)

-give the interviewee options to make them feel more comfortable

-hold leaders accountable if they ask or do anything inappropriate

 

I think this would be a good start. Would anyone disagree with this?

[HappyJackWagon]

But by the rules I don't have to pay a dime so I don't have to pay anything for access to the temple.

It misrepresents by claiming everyone has to pay to have access. Anyone who pays zero in tithing can still have access by the rules.

No it doesn't. You are required to pay a full tithe, whatever that means for you. For most people that means there is money exchanged. That is the standard. If you earn $0 you pay $0 but that is still a full tithe. There aren't many people who earn $0 though.

 

ETA- think of it as a sliding fee scale

Edited September 8, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Calm]

I think you're misrepresenting this. To qualify for a TR a person MUST be a full tithe payer. So if you're claiming you go to the temple without paying any tithing that likely means you either make $0 or a spouse "forbids" you from from paying tithing. I'm curious about what other exceptions might exist but I'm not aware of any.

But insinuating that payment of $$$ in the form of tithing isn't a requirement to attend the temple is being a bit disengenuous. Of course it's required.

It is not an exception. Tithing is 10% of one's income. If one has no income, one pays nothing in tithing. Simple math. No need to consult a bishop or SP to get permission to pay nothing. Can claim one is a full tithe payer and never be doubted.

The claim was made that one must pay to access the temple. Out of the 30+ years I've had access ro the temple, I gave tithing in maybe three years at most. Yet no one has ever doubted or refused me a recommend.

Thus I don't have to pay for access and neither do the many other Saints out there with no income.

I am not insinuating one does not have to be a full tithe payer togoto the temple. I am stating and proving by my own existence, by my mother's and many other men and women I've known over the years who paid nothing in tithing and yet got temple recommends without a problem.

I am not the one being careless with my phrasing.

Edited September 8, 2015 by calmoriah