An Atheist Walks into a Temple

[Brother Bear]

After reviewing the thread about John Dehlin’s patented, rejection-proof guide to Temple Recommend interviews©️ (available for $29.95 at mormonstories.org.....sarcasm, no such copyrighted document or offer exists to my knowledge) , I found some of the discussion regarding what beliefs should be disclosed in a TR interview interesting. Rather than derail the thread, I wanted to get your thoughts on what beliefs should, in your opinion, bar someone from obtaining a TR. 

let’s imagine there is a member in your ward who pays a full tithing, keep the WoW, law of chastity, magnifies their calling, always does home or visiting teaching, is an excellent member missionary, but for whatever reason holds and discloses in an interview (but doesn’t preach to members), a non-traditional belief. For example:

- The belief that the BoM or other standard works is inspired fiction

- Holding more of a trinitarian view of God than the three distinct personages view

- Having a non-literal of Mormon theology

- Believing there is no longer a need for prophets.

- Believing Darwinian Evolution and viewing Adam and Eve as purely symbolic figures

- Believing that there are many “true” churches

Obviously the list could go on. But what I’m really interested in hearing is not what beliefs you simply disagree with, but beliefs that you feel should disqualify or call into question one’s ability to obtain a recommend. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Brother Bear
Edited for clarity (hopefully)

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Obviously the list could go on. But what I’m really interested in hearing is not what beliefs you simply disagree with, but beliefs that you feel should disqualify or call into question one’s ability to obtain a recommend. 

Any belief that would prohibit a person from answering the TR recommend questions in the affirmative should disqualify a person.  A person can believe whatever they want so long as they answer the questions honestly and according to their conscience.  If there is any question where they stand, they need to be open with the bishop.   

[Duncan]

Well, if one is an Atheist I would imagine that would take care of most of the other questions. i.e if God doesn't exist then trinitarian views on him   are false or any views on him are, the BOM wouldn't be inspired by anybody, prophets can't be a spokesman for someone who doesn't exist, all churches are wrong, I think that believing in God would be a foundational belief in order to  make covenants with him

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

After reviewing the thread about John Dehlin’s patented, rejection-proof guide to Temple Recommend interviews©️ (available for $29.95 at mormonstories.org) , I found some of the discussion regarding what beliefs should be disclosed in a TR interview interesting. Rather than derail the thread, I wanted to get your thoughts on what beliefs should, in your opinion, bar someone from obtaining a TR. For example:

- The belief that the BoM or other standard works is inspired fiction

I would have a hard time with this one.

Quote

- Holding more of a trinitarian view of God than the three distinct personages view

This is fairly vague.  Not sure.

Quote

- Being agnostic or atheistic, but viewing Mormonism as a more nontheistic form of spirituality

This one is rather clearly outside the parameters of a TR.  

Quote

- Believing there is no longer a need for prophets

This one is rather clearly outside the parameters of a TR.  

Quote

- Believing Darwinian Evolution and viewing Adam and Eve as purely symbolic figures

Evolutionary theory is fine.  Adam and Eve as fictional . . . not sure.  That seems a bit far down the rabbit hole.  

Quote

- Believing that there are many “true” churches.

Again, vague.  Probably not.  Rejection of D&C 1:30 would seem to be potentially problematic.

Quote

Obviously the list could go on. But what I’m really interested in hearing is not what beliefs you simply disagree with, but beliefs that you feel should disqualify or call into question one’s ability to obtain a recommend. 

I want as many good and decent people in the Church as possible.  However, we are a community of faith.  We cohere around faith.  While the Church can and does accommodate a spectrum of beliefs as to many issues, that spectrum is not infinite.

My assessment, of course, would A) be limited to those within my stewardship, and B) be subject to ratification or supersession by those in authority above me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 26, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

After reviewing the thread about John Dehlin’s patented, rejection-proof guide to Temple Recommend interviews©️ (available for $29.95 at mormonstories.org)....

Is that true?  Seriously?  Wow!

I don't follow John Dehlin at all, so if he is actually printed something out and offering it for sale, I have not heard of that!

(If it's not the truth though....you shouldn't state that, IMO).  

 

[hope_for_things]

If we're going for a litmus test, how about these items 

• Belief in infallible prophets, that the thinking is done when they speak and that they can't lead the church astray
• Belief that the scriptures are always literal and historical
• Belief that every word written in scripture is directly from God and that the most simplistic contemporary surface level interpretation is the correct one  
• Believing that anytime someone "has a bad feeling about this" that this bad feeling is clear spiritual communication from God and that these things should always be avoided
• Belief that God is a capricious arbiter of rules and regulations, and that God is vengeful and angry and constantly watching what we do
• Belief in extreme end of the world predictions, especially when those beliefs lead to stockpiling resources and making unwise financial decisions
• And lastly my favorite - Believing that someone's beliefs are important criteria for participation in the temple.  The privileging of beliefs over behaviors.  The desire to set boundaries and judge differences of opinion in order to exclude people and put one person above another when it comes to who is worthy of worshiping God.  

[Brother Bear]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Is that true?  Seriously?  Wow!

I don't follow John Dehlin at all, so if he is actually printed something out and offering it for sale, I have not heard of that!

(If it's not the truth though....you shouldn't state that, IMO).  

 

Apparently sarcasm is dead...

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Is that true?  Seriously?  Wow!

I don't follow John Dehlin at all, so if he is actually printed something out and offering it for sale, I have not heard of that!

(If it's not the truth though....you shouldn't state that, IMO).  

 

Its not true to my knowledge, I just assumed the author was being sarcastic.   

This seems like a good use of the CFR rule, just to be clear.  Please produce evidence to support your claim of the $29.95 temple recommend guide, or withdraw it.  

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Brother Bear said:

Apparently sarcasm is dead...

Ahh, I was posting before I saw your reply.  My suspicion was right, sarcasm. 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Apparently sarcasm is dead...

I did wonder if you were just joking around.  But as you stated it (with the actual quoted price and a website for a source), some may read it and take it as the truth.  So, I did wonder if something had actually been published.

I'd remove it if I were you just to be fair.  And, do we really need another thread criticizing John Dehlin (or even discussing this topic again as I thought it was pretty thoroughly discussed on kiwi's thread and elsewhere recently)?

Of course, you can do what you wish.  It's your thread 

Edited January 26, 2018 by ALarson

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

After reviewing the thread about John Dehlin’s patented, rejection-proof guide to Temple Recommend interviews©️ (available for $29.95 at mormonstories.org.....no, not really) , I found some of the discussion regarding what beliefs should be disclosed in a TR interview interesting. Rather than derail the thread, I wanted to get your thoughts on what beliefs should, in your opinion, bar someone from obtaining a TR. 

let’s imagine there is a member in your ward who pays a full tithing, keep the WoW, law of chastity, magnifies their calling, always does home or visiting teaching, is an excellent member missionary, but for whatever reason holds and discloses in an interview (but doesn’t preach to members), a non-traditional belief. For example:

- The belief that the BoM or other standard works is inspired fiction

- Holding more of a trinitarian view of God than the three distinct personages view

- Being agnostic or atheistic, but viewing Mormonism as a more nontheistic form of spirituality

- Believing there is no longer a need for prophets.

- Believing Darwinian Evolution and viewing Adam and Eve as purely symbolic figures

- Believing that there are many “true” churches

Obviously the list could go on. But what I’m really interested in hearing is not what beliefs you simply disagree with, but beliefs that you feel should disqualify or call into question one’s ability to obtain a recommend. 

I think if such a person were to substitute “belief” for various recommend question words such as faith, testimony, sustaining, and other words dealing with behavior, conduct and attitude, and answer yes or no to the best of his ability, that is a step in the right direction and might help him prepare for an interview. But the interview is not so much about beliefs, so unless the sample points of belief you provided inform a “no” response, he should be good to go.

Do you [believe in] God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? Do you [believe in] the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer? Do [believe in] the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? Do you [believe in] the President … the prophets, seers, and revelators…and the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Do you [believe in] the law of chastity? Do you [believe in] the tithe? Do you [believe in] the Word of Wisdom?

Do you believe in the teachings of the Church as harmonious with your conduct relating to members of your family? Do you [believe in] meeting obligations to a former spouse and children?

Do you [believe in] any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church?

Do you [believe in] the covenants you have made, the value of attending sacrament and other meetings, and of keeping your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

Do you believe you are honest in your dealings with your fellowmen? Do you believe in honesty?

Do you [believe in] the covenants that you made in the temple and in wearing the garment …in accordance with the temple covenants?

Do you [believe in] resolving any qualifying sins or misdeeds in your life with priesthood authorities?

Do you [believe in] answering the temple recommend questions as formulated before you can consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

That said, I would think that someone putting that much thought into his beliefs and answers would have a good deal of empathy and honesty toward those formulating and asking the questions.

Edited January 26, 2018 by CV75

[Brother Bear]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I did wonder if you were just joking around.  But as you stated it (with the actual quoted price and a website for a source), some may read it and take it as the truth.  So, I did wonder if something had actually been published.

I'd remove it if I were you just to be fair.  And, do we really need another thread criticizing John Dehlin (or even discussing this topic again as I thought it was pretty thoroughly discussed on kiwi's thread and elsewhere recently)?

Of course, you can do what you wish.  It's your thread 

Noted. Clarified the sarcastic nature of the statement. And this thread is hardly an attempt to criticize John Dehlin. If I wanted to do that I would start a topic about interviewing styles that produce the same feelings as nails on a chalkboard.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Noted. Clarified the sarcastic nature of the statement. And this thread is hardly an attempt to criticize John Dehlin. If I wanted to do that I would start a topic about interviewing styles that produce the same feelings as nails on a chalkboard.

Then why even bring his name up in the OP?

Could this discussion not take place without that?

[Brother Bear]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then why even bring his name up in the OP?

Could this discussion not take place without that?

You’re just going to need to let this go and/or move on. 

[cinepro]

Maybe the Temple Recommend interview should just be one question:

Why do you want to go to the Temple?

That would probably tell the interviewer much more than all those other questions, and it would be much more clear.

 

 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Brother Bear said:

You’re just going to need to let this go and/or move on. 

As you wish 

I honestly would not like any OP starting out giving a false impression about anyone when it was not necessary.  I'd stand up for anyone....active...inactive...member or nonmember.  

(And, I think this topic has already been discussed to death recently....but carry on as maybe there's a different aspect you want to discuss regarding it....)

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

 But what I’m really interested in hearing is not what beliefs you simply disagree with, but beliefs that you feel should disqualify or call into question one’s ability to obtain a recommend. 

Temple recommends in my opinion should be subject to only two elements - worthiness and testimony.

If the person in question as you put it "pays a full tithing, keep the WoW, law of chastity, magnifies their calling, always does home or visiting teaching, is an excellent member missionary" then the worthiness requirement is met.

The second part, the key to your question, is the testimony part.
All ordinances of the temple feature covenants and doctrines performed with priesthood authority.  A lack of testimony in certain aspects of the temple should preclude a member from partaking in those ordinances, as that would unavoidably make a mockery of them.

For example
- If someone doesn't believe in priesthood sealing keys (and the authority of the men who hold them) they should not be permitted to participate in a sealing ceremonies. Any more than someone who doesn't believe in Christ should be permitted to be baptized in his name.  
- A member should not be placed under covenant to give time and talents to the Church if they don't believe the Church is God's Church.  
- A member should not be placed under covenant to wear the garment nor taught things in the temple if they believe these to be masonic elements that Joseph appropriated, and not of God.
- A person should not be placed under covenant to obey what is written in the Book of Mormon if they don't believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
etc.

So again, if worthiness considerations have been met, I do think testimony considerations do matter to receiving a recommend.

[Brother Bear]

35 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As you wish 

I honestly would not like any OP starting out giving a false impression about anyone when it was not necessary.  I'd stand up for anyone....active...inactive...member or nonmember.  

(And, I think this topic has already been discussed to death recently....but carry on as maybe there's a different aspect you want to discuss regarding it....)

Removed; mean

Edited January 26, 2018 by Brother Bear

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

I admire your bravery to stand-up for down-trodden victims of light-hearted jokes. I’m sure they find your efforts necessary.

To be fair (and honest), I read what you initially posted as if it was a fact that this was for sale on Dehin’s site. I actually searched, found his home page and looked for “products available” or anything he offered for sale.  I did think you were serious (now I see you were joking).

So, it’s good that you edited it and made that clear.  You had stated it so definitely originally.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

To be fair (and honest), I read what you initially posted as if it was a fact that this was for sale on Dehin’s site. I actually searched, found his home page and looked for “products available” or anything he offered for sale.  I did think you were serious (now I see you were joking).

So, it’s good that you edited it and made that clear.  You had stated it so definitely originally.

I agree.  This is a short thread and at least 3 readers wondered if what he had stated in the OP was the truth (as he'd represented it with such a specific claim).  Even a potential CFR was suggested:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This seems like a good use of the CFR rule, just to be clear.  Please produce evidence to support your claim of the $29.95 temple recommend guide, or withdraw it.  

In Bear's defense, most of us don't seem to know what his sense of humor is like.  Humor can be difficult to distinguish through written words sometimes.  I take him at his word that he was being sarcastic.

Edited January 26, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Temple recommends in my opinion should be subject to only two elements - worthiness and testimony.

If the person in question as you put it "pays a full tithing, keep the WoW, law of chastity, magnifies their calling, always does home or visiting teaching, is an excellent member missionary" then the worthiness requirement is met.

The second part, the key to your question, is the testimony part.
All ordinances of the temple feature covenants and doctrines performed with priesthood authority.  A lack of testimony in certain aspects of the temple should preclude a member from partaking in those ordinances, as that would unavoidably make a mockery of them.

For example
- If someone doesn't believe in priesthood sealing keys (and the authority of the men who hold them) they should not be permitted to participate in a sealing ceremonies. Any more than someone who doesn't believe in Christ should be permitted to be baptized in his name.  
- A member should not be placed under covenant to give time and talents to the Church if they don't believe the Church is God's Church.  
- A member should not be placed under covenant to wear the garment nor taught things in the temple if they believe these to be masonic elements that Joseph appropriated, and not of God.
- A person should not be placed under covenant to obey what is written in the Book of Mormon if they don't believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
etc.

So again, if worthiness considerations have been met, I do think testimony considerations do matter to receiving a recommend.

Well said.

[Brother Bear]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  This is a short thread and at least 3 readers wondered if what he had stated in the OP was the truth (as he'd represented it with such a specific claim).  Even a potential CFR was suggested:

In Bear's defense, most of us don't seem to know what his sense of humor is like.  Humor can be difficult to distinguish through written words sometimes.  I take him at his word that he was being sarcastic.

I’m not sure what Dehlin would find more offensive, my light-hearted joke or the fact that you guys didn’t think that such a gimmick was beneath him and actually had to verify that it was a joke.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Brother Bear

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

I’m not sure what Dehlin would find more offensive, my light-hearted joke or the fact that you guys didn’t think that such a gimmick was beneath him and actually had to verify that it was a joke.

Oh Brother (Bear)!  (That's a joke  )

I don't follow Dehlin at all and really only know what I read here about him.  You stated it as a fact.  It was confusing (as evidenced by at least 3 members here posting similar thoughts and even a potential CFR being issued).  So, you clarified, which was good to do. 

Get over it and move on....discuss what you really wanted to discuss on this thread.

Edited January 26, 2018 by ALarson

[Brother Bear]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Temple recommends in my opinion should be subject to only two elements - worthiness and testimony.

If the person in question as you put it "pays a full tithing, keep the WoW, law of chastity, magnifies their calling, always does home or visiting teaching, is an excellent member missionary" then the worthiness requirement is met.

The second part, the key to your question, is the testimony part.
All ordinances of the temple feature covenants and doctrines performed with priesthood authority.  A lack of testimony in certain aspects of the temple should preclude a member from partaking in those ordinances, as that would unavoidably make a mockery of them.

For example
- If someone doesn't believe in priesthood sealing keys (and the authority of the men who hold them) they should not be permitted to participate in a sealing ceremonies. Any more than someone who doesn't believe in Christ should be permitted to be baptized in his name.  
- A member should not be placed under covenant to give time and talents to the Church if they don't believe the Church is God's Church.  
- A member should not be placed under covenant to wear the garment nor taught things in the temple if they believe these to be masonic elements that Joseph appropriated, and not of God.
- A person should not be placed under covenant to obey what is written in the Book of Mormon if they don't believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
etc.

So again, if worthiness considerations have been met, I do think testimony considerations do matter to receiving a recommend.

I guess this gets to the heart of the issue for me. Should ordinances be restricted to those who believe in the “literal” (sorry, I know that’s not the best word) explanation for how and why the ordinances are performed? For example, should someone  who finds the highest practical value in Mormonism be barred from being sealed in the Temple if they are agnostic towards the ideas of priesthood keys and power? Even if they find the highest value in the symbolism and instructive nature of the ordinance and are perfectly committed to their spouse? 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Brother Bear

[Brother Bear]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh Brother (Bear)!  (That's a joke  )

I don't follow Dehlin at all and really only know what I read here about him.  You stated it as a fact.  It was confusing (as evidenced by at least 3 members here posting similar thoughts and even a potential CFR being issued).  So, you clarified, which was good to do. 

Get over it and move on....discuss what you really wanted to discuss on this thread.

👍