The Worthy / Unworthy Dichotomy within the LDS Church

[Five Solas]

Unworthy music, unworthy feelings, unworthy thoughts, unworthy practices, unworthy touches, unworthy associations.  Unworthy is what you do. 

Unworthy baptism candidates, unworthy husbands, unworthy sons, unworthy priesthood holders, and various other sorts of unworthy persons—naturally including persons unworthy of temple recommends.  Unworthy is an identity, unworthy is who you are. 

And all of that from the first page & a half of lds.org search results—“unworthy” (and there are many, many more pages returned, should any care to take the analysis deeper).

Of course, I didn’t need to do that to know that, because I was there.  And this sort of thinking gets inculcated early in LDS minds, beginning in adolescence with behind-closed-doors one-on-one private interviews with adult male bishops—they call these “Worthiness Interviews.”   

Last week I authored a thread asking whether the temple “unworthy” had a duty to not discuss or disclose temple attire here or in any public forum—even when the attire was publicly accessible for viewing in the context of a funeral.  A few LDS said yes, most said no. 

But here’s a thing I didn’t expect (and not wishing to derail my own thread on an interesting subject, I decided to launch this new one): Several LDS members objected to my use of “unworthy”—saying they would never label me or use that term to identify anyone.  One even offered what he imagined to be a helpful euphemism--saying that his ward leadership simply identified members as whether or not they were temple recommend holders.  Hearing him tell it, the words “unworthy” or “not worthy” have been successfully purged from his ward’s lexicon.

What do others think about all this? 

--Erik

PS.  In Protestantism, we're all unworthy, outside of Christ

:0)

[Maidservant]

I think the term 'unworthy' has made a development over time, in any case; whether LDS or no.  Meaning, I don't think it was ever meant to signify something along the lines of personal value or self-esteem.  But now that it is almost always in that definition or contextual area, it becomes less useful of a word in the gospel; since we are all infinitely valuable as children of God.  So to use 'unworthy' as a condemnation I think goes beyond what was the original word (again, whether LDS or no; but certainly LDS adopted the use of the word for some time).

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) in the (way) past, to be worthy is more along the lines of a vessel--if it is cracked, it cannot hold water.  Or along the lines of preparation--for example, when someone has made the proper preparation, they are worthy to be an airline pilot, for example.

Thus, if the idea of preparation and/or structure is kept in mind, then worthy/unworthy may still be a proper idea in terms of being ready for the temple and of otherwise demonstrating a peace-filled, clean, and Christlike life.  Similarly, I used to be very upset to hear about clean/unclean, feeling that saying something was unclean was a condemnation.  But now in my life, I hunger and thirst for cleanness--I am so hungry to shed anything from my life that keeps me in chains and keeps me as a trash heap (uncleanness).  So now I understand it differently and it is a blessing.

I carefully select what words and ideas I use to describe my approach to the world, and normally worthy/unworthy is irrelevant to me.  I feel like it is still part of the LDS thought and speech, but not in-your-face perhaps as much as when I was a teenager.  But that may just be describing my particular experience, my particular family, community, and ward(s).

[Glenn101]

9 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

PS.  In Protestantism, we're all unworthy, outside of Christ

Unworthy of what?

LDS teaches the Biblical concept of being worthy. We do realize, as mortals, that we have all fallen short of the Glory of God. But that is why The Christ and His Atonement were necessary. Because of that we "may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man if we "watch therefore, and pray always." (Luke 21:36)

 

 

[rpn]

Truth is no matter how objectively far we are from God in perfection, we ARE perfect in Christ once we are baptized and so long as we are doing our personal best and quickly repenting.  That is what the atonement is all about.   So I don't get all this talk of worthy and unworthy over a temple recommend.    And for those who don't have them because of tithing, the term is particularly strange, since it isn't unworthiness that is the problem, it is God trying to protect one from making covenants to give ALL their time and resources to the Lord, when they cannot yet manage ten percent.    And I suspect that the WofW issue is about assuring that none of the covenants are made by people who are impaired.   One can be perfect in Christ (which can hardly be said to be "unworthy") even if it takes a whole life time to master some things that delay temple ordinances.  

Worthy/Unworthy as OP uses it sounds like a mortal judgment not really germaine to the eternal sphere.

[Five Solas]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Unworthy of what?

If this is a serious and not rhetorical question, suggest you start with Romans 3.  It provides some detail and declares (v. 23) all have sinned and fall short.  ESV, NIV, or NASB will serve you better than the 400+ year old & frequently archaic KJV prose that LDS favor. 

Hope that helps!

:0)

--Erik

[Glenn101]

4 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

If this is a serious and not rhetorical question, suggest you start with Romans 3.  It provides some detail and declares (v. 23) all have sinned and fall short.  ESV, NIV, or NASB will serve you better than the 400+ year old & frequently archaic KJV prose that LDS favor. 

Hope that helps!

:0)

--Erik

You cited the scripture for one of my points. So I guess we are pretty much on the same page there. But becoming worthy for further blessings and to be counted "among the sheep" is a prevailing theme in the Bible as well as LDS theology. I do not see a dichotomy.

Glenn

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

If this is a serious and not rhetorical question, suggest you start with Romans 3.  It provides some detail and declares (v. 23) all have sinned and fall short.  ESV, NIV, or NASB will serve you better than the 400+ year old & frequently archaic KJV prose that LDS favor. 

Hope that helps!

:0)

--Erik

Yes, but through Christ we are washed clean and ready to come closer to Him.  It is accepting Christ and His atonement that we are made worthy by Him.  And this doesn't mean without sin at all, or that we don't still need Him desperately.  Just that we are prepared to make the next step.

Those that refuse to be washed, or are working towards that step, are obviously not there that.  No, I would not use the word "unworthy" to describe a person-- the such phrasing is disgusting to me actually.  They are simply not there yet. 

LDS of course acknowledge a spectrum of people coming to Christ, step by step, growing line upon line.  In contrast I have experienced some Protestants groups that are extremely black-and-white, horrible-sinners-and-perfect-saints dictomny.  (I have also experienced other Protestant groups which are not like this.  There's a large variety). 

Edited June 5, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Unworthy music, unworthy feelings, unworthy thoughts, unworthy practices, unworthy touches, unworthy associations.  Unworthy is what you do. 

Unworthy baptism candidates, unworthy husbands, unworthy sons, unworthy priesthood holders, and various other sorts of unworthy persons—naturally including persons unworthy of temple recommends.  Unworthy is an identity, unworthy is who you are. 

And all of that from the first page & a half of lds.org search results—“unworthy” (and there are many, many more pages returned, should any care to take the analysis deeper).

Of course, I didn’t need to do that to know that, because I was there.  And this sort of thinking gets inculcated early in LDS minds, beginning in adolescence with behind-closed-doors one-on-one private interviews with adult male bishops—they call these “Worthiness Interviews.”   

Last week I authored a thread asking whether the temple “unworthy” had a duty to not discuss or disclose temple attire here or in any public forum—even when the attire was publicly accessible for viewing in the context of a funeral.  A few LDS said yes, most said no. 

But here’s a thing I didn’t expect (and not wishing to derail my own thread on an interesting subject, I decided to launch this new one): Several LDS members objected to my use of “unworthy”—saying they would never label me or use that term to identify anyone.  One even offered what he imagined to be a helpful euphemism--saying that his ward leadership simply identified members as whether or not they were temple recommend holders.  Hearing him tell it, the words “unworthy” or “not worthy” have been successfully purged from his ward’s lexicon.

What do others think about all this? 

--Erik

PS.  In Protestantism, we're all unworthy, outside of Christ

:0)

Personally, I don't think of people as worthy or unworthy. I have been commanded not to judge my fellow man. So these terms are foreign to my thinking. I think the temple interviews do try to make sure we are clean of sin or at least whether we consider ourselves to be in order to enter the temple. Here, even though I follow the word of wisdom, I don't think of drinking a cup of tea as a "sin", although the word of wisdom makes promises if we keep it. So, that particular question seems to me to smack of a little phariseeism. Otherwise, I don't really see anything wrong with the church attempting to guide people away from sin before they are admitted into the temple to enter covenants with their God. After all, I think the same emphasis is placed by most churches on baptism.

[JLHPROF]

The problem here is a simple one.
We are confusing the worth of souls with worthiness for a blessing.

Being unworthy for a blessing has zero impact on how much worth you have.
Being worthy for a blessing has zero impact on how much worth you have.

We don't want to call someone who is clearly not yet worthy for a specific blessing "unworthy" because it implies that they are worthless.
Which they aren't and is NOT what is meant.  This is just a case of a label hurting feelings.  But it doesn't change the worthiness requirements for some blessings.

[The Nehor]

How we should deal with the unworthy (strong language warning):

 

[Five Solas]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The problem here is a simple one.
We are confusing the worth of souls with worthiness for a blessing.

Being unworthy for a blessing has zero impact on how much worth you have.
Being worthy for a blessing has zero impact on how much worth you have.

We don't want to call someone who is clearly not yet worthy for a specific blessing "unworthy" because it implies that they are worthless.
Which they aren't and is NOT what is meant.  This is just a case of a label hurting feelings.  But it doesn't change the worthiness requirements for some blessings.

I'm curious who you think is doing the "confusing."  Is there a particular statement on either thread you could cite as example?

But leaving all previous posts & context aside, let me play devil's advocate for a moment.  Let me tell you why worthiness and the worth of a soul go together in Mormonism:  Only the worthy soul inherits the LDS Celestial Kingdom and thereafter enjoys infinite increase.  Now that's an infinitely more valuable soul, by mathematical standard. 

;0)

--Erik

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Unworthy music, unworthy feelings, unworthy thoughts, unworthy practices, unworthy touches, unworthy associations.  Unworthy is what you do. 

 

Unworthy baptism candidates, unworthy husbands, unworthy sons, unworthy priesthood holders, and various other sorts of unworthy persons—naturally including persons unworthy of temple recommends.  Unworthy is an identity, unworthy is who you are. 

 

And all of that from the first page & a half of lds.org search results—“unworthy” (and there are many, many more pages returned, should any care to take the analysis deeper).

 

Of course, I didn’t need to do that to know that, because I was there.  And this sort of thinking gets inculcated early in LDS minds, beginning in adolescence with behind-closed-doors one-on-one private interviews with adult male bishops—they call these “Worthiness Interviews.”   

 

Last week I authored a thread asking whether the temple “unworthy” had a duty to not discuss or disclose temple attire here or in any public forum—even when the attire was publicly accessible for viewing in the context of a funeral.  A few LDS said yes, most said no. 

 

But here’s a thing I didn’t expect (and not wishing to derail my own thread on an interesting subject, I decided to launch this new one): Several LDS members objected to my use of “unworthy”—saying they would never label me or use that term to identify anyone.  One even offered what he imagined to be a helpful euphemism--saying that his ward leadership simply identified members as whether or not they were temple recommend holders.  Hearing him tell it, the words “unworthy” or “not worthy” have been successfully purged from his ward’s lexicon.

 

What do others think about all this? 

--Erik

 

PS.  In Protestantism, we're all unworthy, outside of Christ

:0)

You left out "unworthily" as descriptive of someone who partakes of the Sacrament emblems unworthily, and that might give you a hint of the meaning it actually has:  It is primarily a self-asessment in LDS practice.  Some might not partake because they have not repented adequately (in their own minds).  Others because they are excommunicants, or have been disfellowshipped -- something which only they might know.  High church traditions usually apply similar standards, but actually barring excommunicants from taking Communion.

If one is not an excommunicant or disfellowshipped, one makes his own self-assessment during the temple recommend interviews with bishop and stake pres.

Mormons, just like Protestants, realize full well that only Jesus is truly worthy (we sing "worthy the Lamb"), but that is in an absolute sense, and necessary for His infinite atonement.  One supposes that Protestants know full well that Noah was not actually "perfect" in his generation (Gen 6:9), but rather that he was a worthy, righteous, and just man, as have been many other of the servants of the Lord.  For people, being "worthy" is a relative matter.  Sometimes such issues are matters of common English (and Hebrew) usage.  No need to strain out gnats and then swallow camels.

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I'm curious who you think is doing the "confusing."  Is there a particular statement on either thread you could cite as example?

But leaving all previous posts & context aside, let me play devil's advocate for a moment.  Let me tell you why worthiness and the worth of a soul go together in Mormonism:  Only the worthy soul inherits the LDS Celestial Kingdom and thereafter enjoys infinite increase.  Now that's an infinitely more valuable soul, by mathematical standard. 

;0)

--Erik

Well, if people are going to get an inferiority complex about the whole thing for all eternity I guess they might as well start now.

[mfbukowski]

If everyone is unworthy it is a useless word for describing people

It is like saying we are all human.  Yes that's true but so what?  Why would one even say that- I think we know we are all human.  Yes we all have noses, two eyes, a mouth, and are "unworthy."  Then what is "worthy"?  It is to be non-human!

Certainly it is a bad criterion for basing a religion around.  Of course we are all unworthy if all you are saying is that we have all sinned.  Like duh.  Whatcha gonna make of it?

No, we don't have four legs and so we are hampered in running as fast as a horse.  We do not see as well as eagles or smell as well as a bear, but we are smarter than either.   Is that useful to point out?  But even then you are comparing humans to other creatures- not humans to humans.

It's like adding zeros in front of a number- it has no meaning to say we are all unworthy.   "That loaf of bread will cost you $0000000003.00"   Why bother with the meaningless zeros?

Now if you say that we are all unworthy because we have inherited original sin- how is that NOT just adding more zeros?

We are all human so we have inherited original sin.   Really bad logic.  You might as well say that because we are human we are all xooomskwaddle.  All you are doing is adding a meaningless concept to "human"- just another zero in front of a number which makes no difference to the definition of the number OR the definition of "human"

Now if you want to define some humans as "unworthy" and others as "worthy" you have to make a defined contrast.  

There must be a DISTINCTION between being worthy and unworthy for it to even be a useful concept. It can't be said of everyone and be useful to say

Edited June 5, 2017 by mfbukowski

[rodheadlee]

I am one of the 3 that chose Option 1. I must be unworthy because they won't give me a TR or  a  patriarchal blessing . My sin is special, it's a WoW sin.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I'm curious who you think is doing the "confusing."  Is there a particular statement on either thread you could cite as example?

But leaving all previous posts & context aside, let me play devil's advocate for a moment.  Let me tell you why worthiness and the worth of a soul go together in Mormonism:  Only the worthy soul inherits the LDS Celestial Kingdom and thereafter enjoys infinite increase.  Now that's an infinitely more valuable soul, by mathematical standard. 

..................................................

Your all-encompassing theological statement here is not likely true, since "worthiness" is a highly relative term and translates various Hebrew and Greek words which vastly differ in meaning. When John the Baptizer declares in Luke 3:16 that he is not worthy to unloose Jesus' sandals, his original Aramaic word is rendered into Greek as hikanos "competent, worthy," while when Jesus declares the laborer worthy of his hire in Luke 10:7, his original Aramaic word is rendered as Greek axios "fit, proper, repentant."   So Ruth 4:11, Hebrew hayil "worthily," and 1 Cor 11:27,29, Greek anaxios "unworthily."

Do we really want to absolutize such terminology, and destructively base our theological systems on straining out gnats and swallowing camels -- as rampant denominationalism has already done?  Or is there a better way?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Five Solas said:

What do others think about all this? 

"A rose by any other name..." whether in Protestantism or Mormonism.

I felt the other thread was really about a difference in perception of how reverently or charitably a subject was discussed, not whether the subject should be discussed or not. This thread seems similar: Whatever word is used to convey whatever concept in whatever denomination, I would think an attitude of reverence and charity are called for.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I am one of the 3 that chose Option 1. I must be unworthy because they won't give me a TR or  a  patriarchal blessing . My sin is special, it's a WoW sin.

I am hoping though that you still feel worthy as a good person.  Worthy/Unworthy doesn't cover the whole of a person.  I love your honesty...but who doesn't break the WoW??

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I am one of the 3 that chose Option 1. I must be unworthy because they won't give me a TR or  a  patriarchal blessing . My sin is special, it's a WoW sin.

You eat meat when it isn't winter or famine?

Heathen. 

:::divesting of all McDonalds stock:::

(Seriously for the briefest of moments, have been toying/experimenting with the idea of a diet based largely on other, less violent sources of protein.) 

Edited June 5, 2017 by hagoth7

[Tacenda]

I dislike that someone may be found unworthy to hold a temple recommend over something like they drink coffee/tea or they didn't pay a full tithe, etc. Especially since at one time, neither of these would keep you from getting a recommend. 

"...the law of tithing is a voluntary law; that is, it imposes only a voluntary duty upon the people. No person’s standing as a member of the Church is jeopardized because he doesn’t pay his tithing.” - President Joseph F. Smith, General Conference, April 1915

 

Just before the turn of the century, in 1898, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve discussed the Word of Wisdom:

President Woodruff said he regarded the Word of Wisdom in its entirety as given of the Lord for the Latter-day Saints to observe, but he did not think that Bishops should withhold recommends from persons who did not adhere strictly to it. ^[9]

Edited June 5, 2017 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I dislike that someone may be found unworthy to hold a temple recommend over something like they drink coffee/tea or they didn't pay a full tithe, etc. Especially since at one time, neither of these would keep you from getting a recommend. 

"...the law of tithing is a voluntary law; that is, it imposes only a voluntary duty upon the people. No person’s standing as a member of the Church is jeopardized because he doesn’t pay his tithing.” - President Joseph F. Smith, General Conference, April 1915

 

Just before the turn of the century, in 1898, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve discussed the Word of Wisdom:

President Woodruff said he regarded the Word of Wisdom in its entirety as given of the Lord for the Latter-day Saints to observe, but he did not think that Bishops should withhold recommends from persons who did not adhere strictly to it. ^[9]

We are subject to the law we are given. If someday the Church were to decide that only left hand dominate people could go to the Temple. I would be disappointed but I still couldn't go to the Temple.

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I'm curious who you think is doing the "confusing."  Is there a particular statement on either thread you could cite as example?

Anyone who feels worthless because of the correctly applied use of the word "unworthy".
Why else would anyone have a problem with the usage of the words worthy/unworthy in connection with obedience to a requirement?
Is there another reason not to use these entirely correct words?

Quote

 Let me tell you why worthiness and the worth of a soul go together in Mormonism:  Only the worthy soul inherits the LDS Celestial Kingdom and thereafter enjoys infinite increase.  Now that's an infinitely more valuable soul, by mathematical standard.

I disagree.  "Worth" of anything has to do with how it is valued by those who possess the item.
If nobody wanted gold it would be worthless.
And in this case the possessors are God and Christ.  The righteous may be more worthy of blessings and have a greater potential for future progression, but that doesn't change how much we are worth to our Father.
If it did, there would be no atonement and no plan featuring repentance.

[halconero]

17 hours ago, Five Solas said:

If this is a serious and not rhetorical question, suggest you start with Romans 3.  It provides some detail and declares (v. 23) all have sinned and fall short.  ESV, NIV, or NASB will serve you better than the 400+ year old & frequently archaic KJV prose that LDS favor. 

Hope that helps!

:0)

--Erik

Jeeze louise, man. Can you cut the condescension a bit? I like my Oxford Annotated as much as the next guy, but there are much better ways to suggesting alternative readings that don't make you come off as a butt nugget.

"ESV, NIV, or NASB provide some modern translations that give it some good context that might be lost in the KJV!"

There, see how easy it is to be helpful?

Report me for board nannying, but sometimes this stuff grates on me and makes me, and others, less likely to listen to you.

[Five Solas]

8 hours ago, halconero said:

Jeeze louise, man. Can you cut the condescension a bit? I like my Oxford Annotated as much as the next guy, but there are much better ways to suggesting alternative readings that don't make you come off as a butt nugget.

"ESV, NIV, or NASB provide some modern translations that give it some good context that might be lost in the KJV!"

There, see how easy it is to be helpful?

Report me for board nannying, but sometimes this stuff grates on me and makes me, and others, less likely to listen to you.

If one of my kids talked like that, we'd take a time-out for conversation until there was an understanding (or at least acknowledgement) that such speech is inappropriate towards others--regardless of perceived provocation.  We can dispute our differences without labeling anyone a turd (implicitly, explicitly or otherwise).  But here it gets you reputation points from LDS. 

Click the heart & you can see who they are. 

--Erik 

PS.  But I really don't think it does them any credit, however satisfying it may have felt in the moment...

Edited June 6, 2017 by Five Solas
spelling

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

If one of my kids talked like that, we'd take a time-out for conversation until there was an understanding (or at least acknowledgement) that such speech is inappropriate towards others--regardless of perceived provocation.  We can dispute our differences without labeling anyone a turd (implicitly, explicitly or otherwise).

Those denying the existence of butt nuggets may be butt nuggets themselves.