Worthiness Interviews: Is There A Better Way?

[hope_for_things]

What would you do if your child wanted an interview without you.

I know there were many interviews, that I had with the bishop when I was glad my parents weren't present.

 

My oldest is 13, and if he asked me at this age, I’d say no.  If it was a 16 year old I might have a different opinion.  But I’m leaning no as well.  I’ll have to cross that bridge if I come to it.  Last thing I’d want to have happen is for my child to confess a sin to a leader that then shames them into thinking they are dirty or has some backwards views about what is evil and how to remedy it.  Not saying all Bishops would do this, but I don’t want to take that risk.  

[hope_for_things]

Acts 5:29.

 

Acts 5:29 KJV "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."  

 

I like it, kind of supports my earlier comments about not taking your troubles to the men in the church, and instead taking them directly to God.  Of course I don't know the full context of this scripture so I'm probably proof texting a little, but that's how I was taught to read the scriptures.  :-)  

[hope_for_things]

 

Yet, in your very next sentence, you proceed to do exactly that

 

 

So my thinking that people are already worthy and loved by God is a form of judgment.  I guess that’s technically true, but I'm thinking is not the same kind of judgment, its a positive kind of judgment.  

 

If I understand you correctly, you’re in support of ecclesiastical leaders probing and trying to discern the righteousness of members in their congregation as long as they are attempting to identify sin and sinners.  But you are against my proclamation that I believe people are inherently good and that God loves us and we are already worthy in God’s eyes.  BTW, this doesn't mean I think we don't have sin or need for improvement.  I just don't think this affects worthiness, and I don't like that word or how it is used to identify some kind of merit that is earned.  

[KevinG]

I discern helicopter parenting.  

 

The paradox here is wanting to be trusted to counsel self without Bishop, but not trusting Bishop and Child enough to trust them to have a conversation without you.

 

That is an issue the church cannot fix for you.

 

Temple worthiness by the way, is the ability to keep and sustain our covenants so we're not condemning ourselves by promising one thing, and living another.  All church discipline and worthiness is about, is helping us order our lives so we are meet for repentance, and able to keep our covenants with God.

Edited September 9, 2015 by KevinG

[hope_for_things]

So that makes at least 2 of us out of a hundred or so active posters who pay nothing to have access to the temple because even though we pay nothing, we are full tithe payers by our own definition.  I know my daughter would have gone for abt. 5 years not paying anything if she has been socially able to attend,.

 

Somehow I don't think finding a nonpaying full tithe payer is all that hard to do.

It’s abundantly clear from the temple recommend interview question that the policy to get access to the temple requires the payment of tithing.  This is a pretty straight forward interpretation. 

 

It’s also clear that not every individual person earns an income.  Also, some people define income differently.  Some members of families don’t personally earn income.  Some households have primarily one person that earns the money, I’m that person in my household.  There are also a multitude of definitions for income found throughout the church (gross, net, surplus, etc).    All of the above does not change the fact that paying tithing is a requirement for temple access.

 

BTW, I have heard accounts from people in a mixed faith marriage, specifically where the income earning spouse lost their faith in Mormonism and no longer pays tithing, and the non income earning spouse who is still a believer in Mormonism was not given a temple recommend because their spouse no longer paid tithing for the family.  Personally I don’t think is fair, but it has happened, depending on local leaders and their application of the rule.  

[Storm Rider]

It’s abundantly clear from the temple recommend interview question that the policy to get access to the temple requires the payment of tithing.  This is a pretty straight forward interpretation. 

 

It’s also clear that not every individual person earns an income.  Also, some people define income differently.  Some members of families don’t personally earn income.  Some households have primarily one person that earns the money, I’m that person in my household.  There are also a multitude of definitions for income found throughout the church (gross, net, surplus, etc).    All of the above does not change the fact that paying tithing is a requirement for temple access.

 

BTW, I have heard accounts from people in a mixed faith marriage, specifically where the income earning spouse lost their faith in Mormonism and no longer pays tithing, and the non income earning spouse who is still a believer in Mormonism was not given a temple recommend because their spouse no longer paid tithing for the family.  Personally I don’t think is fair, but it has happened, depending on local leaders and their application of the rule.  

 

And I heard that Mormons have tails and horns and eat babies.  It is not appropriate for anyone to build a criticism of a group or an individual on what they have heard.  

 

Regardless, humans do stupid things and leaders, much to the dismay of critics and faithful alike, remain human.  There will be times when leaders will do something stupid - that should not be a surprise to anyone.  However, just because one of God's servants makes a mistake does not make it acceptable to accuse all leaders of making gross mistakes or of being child abusers.

 

What is a fact is that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches that all disciples of Christ should pay a full tithe.  However, it leaves it completely in the hands of the individual to determine if they are in fact a full tithe payer.  When asked by a church leader if they are a full tithe payer it is the individual that must answer - there is no test to determine if they are in fact a full tithe payer.

[hope_for_things]

And I heard that Mormons have tails and horns and eat babies.  It is not appropriate for anyone to build a criticism of a group or an individual on what they have heard.  

 

Regardless, humans do stupid things and leaders, much to the dismay of critics and faithful alike, remain human.  There will be times when leaders will do something stupid - that should not be a surprise to anyone.  However, just because one of God's servants makes a mistake does not make it acceptable to accuse all leaders of making gross mistakes or of being child abusers.

 

What is a fact is that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches that all disciples of Christ should pay a full tithe.  However, it leaves it completely in the hands of the individual to determine if they are in fact a full tithe payer.  When asked by a church leader if they are a full tithe payer it is the individual that must answer - there is no test to determine if they are in fact a full tithe payer.

 

I agree, and don't want to focus on how different bishops or individuals interpret the requirement.  That doesn't change the fact that the current requirement for a temple recommend is the payment of tithing.  This supports my original premise that payment is required for admittance to the temple.  Apparently this fact is lost on various different interpretations and exceptions to the rule at the individual level, but it still remains as a requirement to receive a temple recommend.  

[Garden Girl]

 

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

 

I've not seen "progression between kingdoms" formally taught... granted, there are those who personally hold to this view, i.e., that there is progression between kingdoms... but it is not "taught" nor is it scriptural... 

I personally do not believe there will be... not as I read D&C...

 

 

 

 

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.   

 

Matt 5:17-48... "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.,

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth shall pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.....

 

 

 

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? 

This is an idiotic statement, albeit sarcastic...

 

GG

Edited September 9, 2015 by Garden Girl

[Danzo]

My oldest is 13, and if he asked me at this age, I’d say no.  If it was a 16 year old I might have a different opinion.  But I’m leaning no as well.  I’ll have to cross that bridge if I come to it.  Last thing I’d want to have happen is for my child to confess a sin to a leader that then shames them into thinking they are dirty or has some backwards views about what is evil and how to remedy it.  Not saying all Bishops would do this, but I don’t want to take that risk.  

 

I think helicopter parenting can be more damaging sometimes than the risk of shame.  

 

I think that your lack of trust in your child says alot.

 

If you had been my parent, your lack of trust in me would have driven me away faster than any shame the bishop might have caused me.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Danzo

[Danzo]

My oldest is 13, and if he asked me at this age, I’d say no.  If it was a 16 year old I might have a different opinion.  But I’m leaning no as well.  I’ll have to cross that bridge if I come to it.  Last thing I’d want to have happen is for my child to confess a sin to a leader that then shames them into thinking they are dirty or has some backwards views about what is evil and how to remedy it.  Not saying all Bishops would do this, but I don’t want to take that risk.  

 

just curious, but would you let your sixteen year old talk to the school nurse without you being present?

[KevinG]

just curious, but would you let your sixteen year old talk to the school nurse without you being present?

 

My daughter went through some very difficult times when being diagnosed with a few conditions that affected her bladder and uterus.  Many medical professionals suspected sexual activity at a young age when symptoms first started showing up.  This wasn't the case but time after time they asked to talk to her privately.  After convincing them that she was still a virgin she asked that her mother could come back in and accompany her.  

 

This was driven by my daughter.  My wife protesting would not have helped anyone.

 

When my son was a small boy I accidentally backed into him, knocked him into a cabinet, and split his head open enough to require stitches.  When we arrived at the hospital the orderlies and nurses repeatedly asked him what happened.  I kept my mouth shut and let him gleefully exclaim "Dad knocked me into the cabinet!"  When they looked at me I shrugged and said "It's the truth."  Then my son chimed in with "it was an accident."

 

Sometimes as parents we run the risk of someone assuming things about us, or stories not getting told the way we want them to be told.  But being defensive, protective, or hovering only adds to suspicion or the sense that something isn't right.

 

Better to trust our children to tell their own truth, and support them in it.  That goes a long way towards them trusting us as adults.  Not that I always want to know the details of my kids sins and mistakes, but I'd rather they were open with me and their Bishops so they can receive guidance and love without unrighteous judgement.

 

The risk of a bad Bishop does not justify throwing out the whole system God has counselled us to use.

[Calm]

Is this the same thing as when you don't have income but still work in the home or isn't it the same as when you are jointly paying the tithe using your husband's income? So technically you do pay it, as a couple?

Tithepaying is determined by how a person defines it for oneself. How I view it is at this time I am not contributing to the home in terms of bringing income in which is what tithing is based on in our family. That is my husband's contribution and any money that comes from investments etc. is a result of that. What I do for the family has as much and in some cases more value than the paycheck he pulls in. He does other things as well of more inherent value imo.

If there are spouses who define their own contribution to family income as Including their spouses' paycheck, I have no problem with that. That is the arrangement they get to decide for their own relationship just as I get to define my own.

An essential aspect of tithing is determining for oneself through the Spirit what it is to be for oneself.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Calm

[Sleeper Cell]

So my thinking that people are already worthy and loved by God is a form of judgment.  I guess that’s technically true, but I'm thinking is not the same kind of judgment, its a positive kind of judgment.  

 

If I understand you correctly, you’re in support of ecclesiastical leaders probing and trying to discern the righteousness of members in their congregation as long as they are attempting to identify sin and sinners.  But you are against my proclamation that I believe people are inherently good and that God loves us and we are already worthy in God’s eyes.  BTW, this doesn't mean I think we don't have sin or need for improvement.  I just don't think this affects worthiness, and I don't like that word or how it is used to identify some kind of merit that is earned.  

 

Sin doesn’t affect one’s worthiness?  One’s personal moral conduct does not affect one’s worthiness?  

 

“Probing?” “Attempting to identify sin and sinners?”  I have never had such an ecclesiastical interview.  On the contrary, I have always had the impression that my bishops and stake presidents want me to pass.  I have never felt that passing a worthiness interview signified some sort of merit on my part -- earned or otherwise.  If anything, I have found that the experience engenders humility.  Questions that get me to think about my personal worthiness tend to do that.  

 

People are inherently good?  Do you have any scriptural basis for such a conclusion?  Or any other basis?  

 

BTW, a judgment for which there is, a priori, only one acceptable verdict is no judgment at all.  

[Tacenda]

I believe it's in the hands of the leaders of the church to train the bishops properly. I do think there is good in saying out loud a sin that is/has bothered you, but specific sins such as WoW may IMO, be handled personally through the Lord and the sexual sin is probably more grevious and needs to be told to the proper PH leader. And more than likely a person doing this wouldn't want anyone else in the room. Especially a parent...but this is my conditioning in the church. Maybe the parent should be the go-to person, they know their child better than anyone else. Maybe it is they who should be trained. It's really a tough question. I know at one time I went to a Singles Ward and had a bishop interview. Got a lot of things off my mind and heart that I was dealing with. He was fantastic and helped me with choosing great works of literature to read, such as "Jesus the Christ" by Talmage, although way over my head at the time.

But could have my parents been just as good, although I'm sure they might be disappointed or have feelings of guilt for not teaching me well enough, not sure. But can and do see how repentance through disclosure can be good. It's like being held accountable. And maybe the bishop can reassure you you aren't the worst person immaginable, or that Jesus Christ has your back. And teach how to repent and try righting any wrongs and never doing it again, I say try.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

I agree, and don't want to focus on how different bishops or individuals interpret the requirement.  That doesn't change the fact that the current requirement for a temple recommend is the payment of tithing.  This supports my original premise that payment is required for admittance to the temple.  Apparently this fact is lost on various different interpretations and exceptions to the rule at the individual level, but it still remains as a requirement to receive a temple recommend.  

 

Unless you can answer honestly and correctly ALL of the Temple Recommend questions. Paying tithing is the least of your problems.

[hope_for_things]

I think helicopter parenting can be more damaging sometimes than the risk of shame.  

 

I think that your lack of trust in your child says alot.

 

If you had been my parent, your lack of trust in me would have driven me away faster than any shame the bishop might have caused me.

 

Its an interesting accusation, especially considering that large organizations like scouting won’t let leaders pair off with individual scouts anymore. 

 

In all honesty I do worry that our overprotective society is hurting our children, and I wonder if I’m part of that problem.  However, we have a lot of evidence of abuse in the past that has led society to be more protective of children in our generation.  Only time will tell if this has more negative consequences in the long run for society.

 

Until then, I don’t want my child paired off with the Bishop, or a scout leader or anyone until they are an adult.  The church’s missionary policy also keeps them in two’s for their protection.  It’s funny to me that I’m getting accused of helicopter parenting in this instance where in many other instances the same policies for protection are already in place in our culture.  I would venture to say that you support those other examples of overprotection as valid since they are part of the status quo, but when it comes to changing the bishop/child practice you are against it?  Maybe you’re just opposed to change, and not opposed to the principle? 

[hope_for_things]

just curious, but would you let your sixteen year old talk to the school nurse without you being present?

It’s a good question, I haven’t thought about school situations for older teenagers.  I’m guessing they have policies to protect themselves and the kids that don’t allow them to be alone with kids.  Like I said, my oldest is 13 and it hasn’t come up yet.  But it’s a fair question.  

[hope_for_things]

 

Sin doesn’t affect one’s worthiness?  One’s personal moral conduct does not affect one’s worthiness?  

 

“Probing?” “Attempting to identify sin and sinners?”  I have never had such an ecclesiastical interview.  On the contrary, I have always had the impression that my bishops and stake presidents want me to pass.  I have never felt that passing a worthiness interview signified some sort of merit on my part -- earned or otherwise.  If anything, I have found that the experience engenders humility.  Questions that get me to think about my personal worthiness tend to do that.  

 

People are inherently good?  Do you have any scriptural basis for such a conclusion?  Or any other basis?  

 

BTW, a judgment for which there is, a priori, only one acceptable verdict is no judgment at all.  

 

 

This is the gospel according to hope_for_things.  I do believe we are all worthy in God’s eyes.  I don’t think God needs us to be performing life at a particular level in order to merit inclusion or acceptance.  This is my understanding of the scriptures and the gospel.  This is separate from the discussion of sin and unethical behavior.

 

I do believe bad choices affect us and have consequences.  I believe these effects are natural and influence our future and those around us.  I believe God wants us to be the best we can be, and repent and change for the better.  But I don’t think that is tied to our worthiness, I think that is a misapplication and misinterpretation of the gospel of Jesus.  This is my opinion today, but subject to change and growth as all of us are.

 

I’m too lazy to try and reference scriptures to support these claims.  Besides, just about anyone can find scriptures to support their view of the world, which is why we have so many different religions.  

[Calm]

Its an interesting accusation, especially considering that large organizations like scouting won’t let leaders pair off with individual scouts anymore. 

 

In all honesty I do worry that our overprotective society is hurting our children, and I wonder if I’m part of that problem.  However, we have a lot of evidence of abuse in the past that has led society to be more protective of children in our generation. 

Abuse is much more likely to occur in the home than at church. Do you want to create a law which will require no parent is allowed to be with a child without another adult present?

I wonder if the number of times a child has been able to appeal to a bishop for help with abuse at home because a parent isn't present and only the bishop is there so the child feels less threatened is more or less than the times a child has been abused in an interview.

[hope_for_things]

I believe it's in the hands of the leaders of the church to train the bishops properly. I do think there is good in saying out loud a sin that is/has bothered you, but specific sins such as WoW may IMO, be handled personally through the Lord and the sexual sin is probably more grevious and needs to be told to the proper PH leader. And more than likely a person doing this wouldn't want anyone else in the room. Especially a parent...but this is my conditioning in the church. Maybe the parent should be the go-to person, they know their child better than anyone else. Maybe it is they who should be trained. It's really a tough question. I know at one time I went to a Singles Ward and had a bishop interview. Got a lot of things off my mind and heart that I was dealing with. He was fantastic and helped me with choosing great works of literature to read, such as "Jesus is the Christ" by Talmage, although way over my head at the time.

But could have my parents been just as good, although I'm sure they might be disappointed or have feelings of guilt for not teaching me well enough, not sure. But can and do see how repentance through disclosure can be good. It's like being held accountable. And maybe the bishop can reassure you you aren't the worst person immaginable, or that Jesus Christ has your back. And teach how to repent by righting any wrongs and never doing it again, I say try.

 

Thanks for sharing.  I have had good experiences with my Bishops for the most part as well.  Just two comments.  You seem to rank sins according to their severity, and I don’t doubt that there are more severe sins than others.  I will say that our Mormon culture seems to emphasize this ranking as arbitrary and revealed.  I’m not sure that it is, and I don’t think it is wise to compare and rank sin, I think it can take us away from actual change at times.

 

Secondly, what if that Bishop had referred you to read the Miracle of Forgiveness by Kimball.  There are some really negative messages in there that can be hurtful to many people, and I know of bishops who still to this day, recommend that book.  There can be good and bad from these conversations from my experience.  

[Danzo]

Its an interesting accusation, especially considering that large organizations like scouting won’t let leaders pair off with individual scouts anymore. 

 

In all honesty I do worry that our overprotective society is hurting our children, and I wonder if I’m part of that problem.  However, we have a lot of evidence of abuse in the past that has led society to be more protective of children in our generation.  Only time will tell if this has more negative consequences in the long run for society.

 

Until then, I don’t want my child paired off with the Bishop, or a scout leader or anyone until they are an adult.  The church’s missionary policy also keeps them in two’s for their protection.  It’s funny to me that I’m getting accused of helicopter parenting in this instance where in many other instances the same policies for protection are already in place in our culture.  I would venture to say that you support those other examples of overprotection as valid since they are part of the status quo, but when it comes to changing the bishop/child practice you are against it?  Maybe you’re just opposed to change, and not opposed to the principle? 

 

I think that the policies mentioned are more for the protection of adults, than the children. Its not about the children.

 

I think that many children today are so coddled that they sometimes never grow up.

 

Maturity is a function of experience, not age and denying children experience will probably have very negative long term experiences.

 

Unfortunately, abusers of children do not seem to find it difficult to find victims.

 

For many youth (myself included, when I was a youth,) there often come a time when the parent child relation can be strained, and the parent isn't someone you can trust.

I have found peace and happiness in counseling with the bishop about my sins (when I was a teenager).  I might not have had the courage to see the bishop if I was forced to bring my parents along.  

I have never felt that the bishop was shaming me.  In fact, when I was a teenager, I was much more likely to feel shame from my parents than from my bishop.

If the policy you advocate had been put in place, I might still be suffering.

 

Sometimes, when we try to protect our children, we end up doing the opposite.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Danzo

[hope_for_things]

Unless you can answer honestly and correctly ALL of the Temple Recommend questions. Paying tithing is the least of your problems.

 

Are you saying that the tithing question is the least important of all the temple recommend questions?  Where do you get that concept from?  

[thesometimesaint]

This is the gospel according to hope_for_things.  I do believe we are all worthy in God’s eyes.  I don’t think God needs us to be performing life at a particular level in order to merit inclusion or acceptance.  This is my understanding of the scriptures and the gospel.  This is separate from the discussion of sin and unethical behavior.

 

I do believe bad choices affect us and have consequences.  I believe these effects are natural and influence our future and those around us.  I believe God wants us to be the best we can be, and repent and change for the better.  But I don’t think that is tied to our worthiness, I think that is a misapplication and misinterpretation of the gospel of Jesus.  This is my opinion today, but subject to change and growth as all of us are.

 

I’m too lazy to try and reference scriptures to support these claims.  Besides, just about anyone can find scriptures to support their view of the world, which is why we have so many different religions.  

 

As my mom always taught me "Show me what you do and I'll know what you believe". My dad always taught me "Your actions are yelling so loudly I can't hear a word you say".

Edited September 9, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Are you saying that the tithing question is the least important of all the temple recommend questions?  Where do you get that concept from?  

 

No. I said ALL of the questions. IE; If you don't have a testimony of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost the rest of the questions won't help you get into the Temple.

[KevinG]

This is the gospel according to hope_for_things. 

 

I think I spotted the issue with church authority right there.