Scriptural Support of Worthiness Interviews

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"Mormons worship in meetinghouses around the world, and non-Mormons are always welcome to participate. These buildings might be a neighborhood chapel or even a space in a busy city building. It’s in these meetinghouses that members of the Church gather for various meetings, including Sunday services and weekly activities.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also has temples. Temples are different than meetinghouses. Even from the exterior, it’s apparent that a temple is intended to stand apart from the world. Literally a house of God, the temple is where members of the Church go to commune with Heavenly Father, feel His presence, and make covenants with Him that have eternal significance.

The temple is designated as a holy place, a site of beauty, peace, and purpose, worthy of God’s presence. As such, people who enter the temple are asked to be pure in heart and spiritually prepared for this sacred venue. That does not mean that those who attend the temple are perfect. Rather, they are striving to keep God’s commandments and the promises they made at baptism. Going to the temple is a demonstration of personal faith and a deep, ongoing commitment to God’s plan."

https://www.mormon.org/beliefs/temples

I don't see how any of those aspirations for what the Temple symbolically represents would change for the worse if the church completely revised its current process for temple access.  

One of the best things the church could do for the temple and for families would be to allow anyone to attend a temple sealing irrespective of their membership.  I contend that this would actually result in increased membership in the church, and it would be a huge boon for the church and relations with the outside world.  The day that a church president has the vision to make this one simple change will be an exciting day for Mormonism.  

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see how any of those aspirations for what the Temple symbolically represents would change for the worse if the church completely revised its current process for temple access.  

One of the best things the church could do for the temple and for families would be to allow anyone to attend a temple sealing irrespective of their membership.  I contend that this would actually result in increased membership in the church, and it would be a huge boon for the church and relations with the outside world.  The day that a church president has the vision to make this one simple change will be an exciting day for Mormonism.  

I very much doubt the Lord's prophets and apostles will ever follow your advice.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I very much doubt the Lord's prophets and apostles will ever follow your advice.

I very much doubt that I'll ever give my advice directly to the prophets and apostles, I don't have any familial connections.  Hopefully common sense or the spirit or a combination of the two will suffice.  

[CV75]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

All these examples are fine, but don't give support for there being a NEED.  There are countless other places and examples that don't require a gatekeeper.  Why not have a gatekeeper for regular church attendance?  Or to attend a historic site or museum?  

Surely you think this is a need, but you haven't made the case for why. 

Then evidently you don't know why you have a NEED for the modern gatekeeper practices, yet you complied with and benefited from them. But I do think you can answer your own question here if you think about it a little more.

[Reuben]

We're forgetting something important. What does worthy mean in the first place? How do the scriptures define it?

Can the definition justify the 15 questions currently used to determine worthiness? Can the definition justify having an interview to determine worthiness in the first place?

FWIW, I haven't found a good definition in the scriptures. From context, though, it seems that someone who is worthy is repentant, not rebellious... or as the sacrament prayers say, willing.

That idea is pretty far from the current checklist.

There's another important thing we're missing. Is there scriptural support for a bishop actively testing members to detect the unworthy ones? Or would passive detection be sufficient; e.g. could a bishop simply stop someone from taking the sacrament because he knows the person is guilty of a serious sin and is unrepentant?

[kllindley]

Worthy and worthiness don't have meaning outside of context. There has to be a "to." To what? Worthy to attend the Temple? Worthy to hold a calling? Worthy to partake of the sacrament? 

I agree that we do a disservice when we use "worthy" or "worthiness" separate from the context. 

 

[rongo]

59 minutes ago, Reuben said:

There's another important thing we're missing. Is there scriptural support for a bishop actively testing members to detect the unworthy ones? Or would passive detection be sufficient; e.g. could a bishop simply stop someone from taking the sacrament because he knows the person is guilty of a serious sin and is unrepentant?

Well, what if a bishop doesn't have hard evidence that a person is guilty of a serious sin and is unrepentant, but feels that the Spirit is telling him that they aren't? Would you be all right if individual bishops could simply determine on his own whether people qualify, in the absence of temple recommend interview questions? Sort of like when he declares tithing status at tithing settlement for people who won't come in? 

Somehow, I don't think the "no more interviews!" people would be any happier with that . . .

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Then evidently you don't know why you have a NEED for the modern gatekeeper practices, yet you complied with and benefited from them. But I do think you can answer your own question here if you think about it a little more.

Nice dodge at actually answering my question.  You may want to consider politics.  😆

[CV75]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Nice dodge at actually answering my question.  You may want to consider politics.  😆

Thank you! But I’m answering your question with a question because you don’t seem to accept direct answers such as those as given here: Posted Friday at 03:20 PM (edited) and elsewhere.

That post in particular shows from the OT example that thriving communities NEED to protect their people, values and material assets in order to continue to thrive. Gatekeepers are NEEDED as part of the community's order accomplishing this aim. They ensure acceptable and proper attitudes, behaviors and systems as community members advance in their capacity to engage with, contribute to and advance the progress of the community. Why couldn’t you get this from the post? This is why I suggest you NEED go do some research and think it through on your own.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Thank you! But I’m answering your question with a question because you don’t seem to accept direct answers such as those as given here: Posted Friday at 03:20 PM (edited) and elsewhere.

That post in particular shows from the OT example that thriving communities NEED to protect their people, values and material assets in order to continue to thrive. Gatekeepers are NEEDED as part of the community's order accomplishing this aim. They ensure acceptable and proper attitudes, behaviors and systems as community members advance in their capacity to engage with, contribute to and advance the progress of the community. Why couldn’t you get this from the post? This is why I suggest you NEED go do some research and think it through on your own.

 

Ok, now you're giving me something to go off, the ancient example didn't explain why it would be important in today's context.  So lets think about your claim that these gatekeepers are needed to ensure acceptable and proper attitudes, behaviors, and systems.  The basic assumption that you're making is that the gatekeeper process is either the best way or the only way to have the outcomes you'd like to see with respect to attitudes and behaviors.  

One study on job interview candidates found that 81% of the people in the interviews lied about themselves, so this brings into question the effectiveness interviews by a gatekeeper asking questions to ensure proper attitudes and behaviors.  

https://hbr.org/daily-stat/2013/06/vast-majority-of-applicants-li.html

But putting the effectiveness argument aside I would also question the premise that proper behaviors and attitudes should be policed in any kind of way.  Some of my core values about what the Mormon message represents runs contrary to this kind of thinking.  This value includes a love and acceptance for a diversity of attitudes and behaviors.  Its a value that everyone is loved and accepted and of worth for who they are.  Its a value that doesn't rule any person out based on their background or their ideas about things.  Its a value that says its not about what your think, but its about wanting to be a part of something that helps to build up Zion.  Its a value that says we're all flawed humans, but that we shouldn't focus on our flaws, we should focus on doing good and loving each other.  These are core values for me in Mormonism.  They aren't focused on the same kind of attitude and behavioral policing that many others are focused on.  Its a value for what I believe truly matters in the gospel message, so in that sense the gatekeeper program is actually creating a negative outcome by its very existence in perpetuating an ideal that runs counter to an essential element of the gospel.  

Now of course there need to be some boundaries at some level but I'm not sure that I want the temple to be the place where these boundaries are enforced.  I would never condone abuse and exploitation and other egregious actions.  

[CV75]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, now you're giving me something to go off, the ancient example didn't explain why it would be important in today's context.  So lets think about your claim that these gatekeepers are needed to ensure acceptable and proper attitudes, behaviors, and systems.  The basic assumption that you're making is that the gatekeeper process is either the best way or the only way to have the outcomes you'd like to see with respect to attitudes and behaviors.  

One study on job interview candidates found that 81% of the people in the interviews lied about themselves, so this brings into question the effectiveness interviews by a gatekeeper asking questions to ensure proper attitudes and behaviors.  

https://hbr.org/daily-stat/2013/06/vast-majority-of-applicants-li.html

But putting the effectiveness argument aside I would also question the premise that proper behaviors and attitudes should be policed in any kind of way.  Some of my core values about what the Mormon message represents runs contrary to this kind of thinking.  This value includes a love and acceptance for a diversity of attitudes and behaviors.  Its a value that everyone is loved and accepted and of worth for who they are.  Its a value that doesn't rule any person out based on their background or their ideas about things.  Its a value that says its not about what your think, but its about wanting to be a part of something that helps to build up Zion.  Its a value that says we're all flawed humans, but that we shouldn't focus on our flaws, we should focus on doing good and loving each other.  These are core values for me in Mormonism.  They aren't focused on the same kind of attitude and behavioral policing that many others are focused on.  Its a value for what I believe truly matters in the gospel message, so in that sense the gatekeeper program is actually creating a negative outcome by its very existence in perpetuating an ideal that runs counter to an essential element of the gospel.  

Now of course there need to be some boundaries at some level but I'm not sure that I want the temple to be the place where these boundaries are enforced.  I would never condone abuse and exploitation and other egregious actions.  

The principles are the same no matter the context. I am discussing this topic in the context of a religious thread. I can discuss secular contexts elsewhere, but am not interested in doing so here.

The need for gatekeeping having been established, let’s move on to your real issues, the effectiveness of worthiness interviews and whether they shouldn’t be conducted.

The powers that be select and authorize the gatekeepers. In the context of a free community this involves the common consent of the members. Effectiveness is established by the tolerance and trust levels of the community members. In the context of religion, this applies to the LDS temple, where the faithful believe that God also has levels of tolerance that He will act upon as He deems necessary. In a religion where the principle of agency undergirds even the Atonement of Christ, effectiveness is defined by providing opportunities for spiritual growth (worthiness interviews do just that), and measurement of that is personal.

LDS worthiness interviews do not perpetuate an ideal but rather validate for the interviewee and his community an acknowledgement of a baseline level of religious involvement that is designed to inspire his personal and the community’s continued spiritual progress. Check out the handbooks. If you want to consider this “policing,” which I think is as unnecessarily harsh as characterizing a parent’s role in this fashion, don’t overlook other policing roles such as mentoring, education, outreach, protection and rescue, on a parallel with resource officers in a school setting.

[Reuben]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

In a religion where the principle of agency undergirds even the Atonement of Christ, effectiveness is defined by providing opportunities for spiritual growth (worthiness interviews do just that), and measurement of that is personal.

While the interviews themselves are personal, their outcomes (the overall measurements) can be very, very public. They affect whether people can see their children married, whether they can take the sacrament, whether adults are told to not call on them to say prayers,  and whether they have to decline to accompany their children on temple trips. There's an element of shaming people into correct behavior because of how the outcomes are used, no matter how much we tell people to not be ashamed or to not judge each other. Policies speak more loudly than conference talks.

Please notice that the only people Jesus ever tried to shame into correct behavior were religious leaders whose policies separated good Jews from bad Jews.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

LDS worthiness interviews do not perpetuate an ideal but rather validate for the interviewee and his community an acknowledgement of a baseline level of religious involvement that is designed to inspire his personal and the community’s continued spiritual progress. Check out the handbooks.

I dispute the need for establishing a baseline. Isn't the point to keep the temple clean, not just clean enough?

The Book of Mormon never suggests that anyone who is converted is more or less clean than anyone else who is converted. In fact, it teaches that upon conversion, the believer is immediately and completely clean from receiving the Holy Ghost.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Reuben said:

While the interviews themselves are personal, their outcomes (the overall measurements) can be very, very public. They affect whether people can see their children married, whether they can take the sacrament, whether adults are told to not call on them to say prayers,  and whether they have to decline to accompany their children on temple trips. There's an element of shaming people into correct behavior because of how the outcomes are used, no matter how much we tell people to not be ashamed or to not judge each other. Policies speak more loudly than conference talks.

Please notice that the only people Jesus ever tried to shame into correct behavior were religious leaders whose policies separated good Jews from bad Jews.

I dispute the need for establishing a baseline. Isn't the point to keep the temple clean, not just clean enough?

The Book of Mormon never suggests that anyone who is converted is more or less clean than anyone else who is converted. In fact, it teaches that upon conversion, the believer is immediately and completely clean from receiving the Holy Ghost.

Clearly some people cannot handle the complexities of a faith community and the gatekeeper role therein, or abide by the lessons Jesus teaches. You are not listing outcomes but reactions. The actual outcome is an opportunity for personal spiritual growth which can be used or abused by the recipient.

Baselines are a Gospel principle as much as grace is. "In the beginning... line upon line... adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints... first and last... least of these [kingdoms]..." etc. The principle upon which grace is activated is itself a baseline.

[Reuben]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Clearly some people cannot handle the complexities of a faith community and the gatekeeper role therein, or abide by the lessons Jesus teaches. You are not listing outcomes but reactions. The actual outcome is an opportunity for personal spiritual growth which can be used or abused by the recipient.

Baselines are a Gospel principle as much as grace is. "In the beginning... line upon line... adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints... first and last... least of these [kingdoms]..." etc. The principle upon which grace is activated is itself a baseline.

You're right: Asking forgiveness and being willing to keep the commandments is a baseline.

Common, predictable reactions of members A, B and C to member D's personal outcomes are also outcomes for member D. A person's self-worth depends partly on others' opinions, whether we like it or not. Jesus understood this. What were the heavy burdens placed on the marginalized Jews by the Pharisees? Not all the rituals, but unnecessary guilt, shame and loss of social standing. These were outcomes of policy and teachings, and the culture they engendered.

If you haven't experienced these burdens before, you have no idea how heavy they can be.

Jesus said that his yoke is easy and his burden is light. What I see is Church policy and teachings, and the culture they engender, placing heavy burdens in a misguided attempt to protect the temple, the priesthood, and other sacred things, from being sullied by members Jesus already regards as pure.

The costs of maintaining the walls the Church builds around its sacred things are disproportionately paid by people who sin differently than you.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Reuben said:

You're right: Asking forgiveness and being willing to keep the commandments is a baseline.

Common, predictable reactions of members A, B and C to member D's personal outcomes are also outcomes for member D. A person's self-worth depends partly on others' opinions, whether we like it or not. Jesus understood this. What were the heavy burdens placed on the marginalized Jews by the Pharisees? Not all the rituals, but unnecessary guilt, shame and loss of social standing. These were outcomes of policy and teachings, and the culture they engendered.

If you haven't experienced these burdens before, you have no idea how heavy they can be.

Jesus said that his yoke is easy and his burden is light. What I see is Church policy and teachings, and the culture they engender, placing heavy burdens in a misguided attempt to protect the temple, the priesthood, and other sacred things, from being sullied by members Jesus already regards as pure.

The costs of maintaining the walls the Church builds around its sacred things are disproportionately paid by people who sin differently than you.

I can empathize perfectly with the feelings of the offended, and for this reason I know what a blessing the yoke of Jesus is, being the least worthy of beneficiaries. This is also why I understand that LDS can feel personally offended when they equate outward appearances of good-standing (getting baptized, partaking of the sacrament, going on a mission, attending the temple, having a calling etc.) with the motions of pride and shame, which can be as much self-imposed as inflicted (both real and imagined) by their peers. The gatekeeping policies and teachings of the LDS (which do not employ shaming, mind you) support the culture, not vice-versa.

Any culture involves standards and mores that contribute to informing the feelings and expectations of its members. This is why I mentioned emotional pride and shame – the LDS culture discourages these and encourages spiritual humility and honor instead. Outward appearance takes a back seat.

I’m not sure how many people have sinned differently than I, as I’ve covered quite a bit of ground. I’m just grateful that I sin less now than I did before. And many kinds of sins keep people from full participation, but the aim of gatekeeping is to offer opportunities for spiritual growth. Nephi 12:1 provides a very good example, where the gatekeepers bring one unto baptism but the Lord takes it from there (there is no worthiness interview between the outward and inner baptisms, just as we do today). Yet He commands us to abide by the words, ministering, service and power of His servants.

I forgot to mention “particle of faith” as another example of a baseline.

[MormonMason]

On 4/5/2018 at 12:25 PM, Gray said:

I wonder if it might have some connection to Masonry? It appears there is some kind of interview you have to go through before joining the Masons. I don't know how it was done in the 19th century. Just a thought.

 

https://www.quora.com/What-should-I-be-mindful-of-when-meeting-with-my-local-Freemasonry-Lodge-for-an-interview

Not really.  Masonic interviews and investigations can be far more intrusive.  Neighbors, family members, and others, often are consulted to help to determine the personal character of the aspiring candidate.  That's just for determination of suitability of the aspiring candidate.  The process was similar in the 19th century.  "Worthiness" interviews are not conducted with members of the Fraternity, only with aspiring candidates or aspirants.  In the Fraternity, Masons are concerned with overall moral character but not the specifics of one's belief system or personal views.  All that is required as to religion is a belief in a Supreme Being and no other specifics about that Being.