Temple Recommend Questions

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Assuming our connection/spiritual insight with the Spirit is equivalent on a issue, you are likely right.  However that is a big assumption.  

This does not the least bit imply though, imo, that all possibilities are equal or that we should look on the eternities as random or that this removes responsibility for acting on the inspiration we have at this moment now rather than dismissing some principle because we think it may change in expression in the future.

Of course for reasoned moral principles I completely agree that we should take them very seriously.  And in this case, I think I'm actually more closely examining the history of our theology than is typically done, and I'm not just following the spoon fed assumptions of recent tradition.  Of course a strong dose of humility ought to be used as well. 

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The person who thinks so won't seek a recommend (but if he wants one will talk to the bishop anyway); the person that doesn't think so will seek a recommend.

I want a recommend, but can’t in good conscience answer all of the TR questions “correctly.”  I love the LDS gospel in a lot of ways, but my faith is weak in some areas, and I’m honest about those.  I’m just wondering if there is a chance I can get mine renewed or not if my faith is weak in areas the TR questions probe.

I’m surprised there aren’t any current or former bishops or stake presidents here who know the answer to this question.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I want a recommend, but can’t in good conscience answer all of the TR questions “correctly.”  I love the LDS gospel in a lot of ways, but my faith is weak in some areas, and I’m honest about those.  I’m just wondering if there is a chance I can get mine renewed or not if my faith is weak in areas the TR questions probe.

I’m surprised there aren’t any current or former bishops or stake presidents here who know the answer to this question.

Surprised? It will vary, based on the leader, but in general, most won't issue a recommend if a person cannot honestly give the right answers. Which is as it should be.

I had a couple who wanted to return to the temple, but didn't believe in God, the atonement, etc. The best they could answer was "We would like to believe that." I commended them for their desire to get back to the temple, and told them that when they could honestly answer that they believe in God and in the atonement of Jesus Christ, then they can return.

It seems like some people want people to be able to answer, "I don't believe that, but I wish that I did." Or, "I believe that the Church believes this," and be approved. Why have any questions at all if beliefs like this are approved?

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I want a recommend, but can’t in good conscience answer all of the TR questions “correctly.”  I love the LDS gospel in a lot of ways, but my faith is weak in some areas, and I’m honest about those.  I’m just wondering if there is a chance I can get mine renewed or not if my faith is weak in areas the TR questions probe.

I’m surprised there aren’t any current or former bishops or stake presidents here who know the answer to this question.

I am a former bishop, and i answered it.

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why have any questions at all if beliefs like this are approved?

I somewhat agree. If the guidance is that these questions are binary black and white requirements for temple entrance, then I would hope local leaders would adhere to that policy.

But, in times past, there has been leeway given on certain questions that have been left to a local leader’s discretion to determine worthiness.

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am a former bishop, and i answered it.

I didn’t understand your response.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm thinking of the vision/dream Joseph had of his brother Alvin, being in heaven, even though he died before he was baptized.  How does that ideal square with later theological conceptions?  This dream happened before baptisms for the dead and temple rituals were innovated.  There is a strain within Mormonism of a more universal salvation, the BoM has some of this as well.  The way I look at it, you can't dismiss these elements within the tradition.  Some people might interpret them differently by saying certain ideas supersede others, but I don't think its that simple to dismiss certain concepts.  .................................

Very perceptive.  However, the LDS faith was and is primarily universalist.  A good many Mormons and non-Mormons have no idea what that even means.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If what is necessary is relative, then it can vary by person and context.  I agree with you that attempting to align our will with the divine will is a worthy endeavor.  

So you agree that it is NOT about our relative perceptions and will, but it is about God's absolute perception and will, correct?

 Aligning our will with the divine is not only a worthy endeavor, it is absolutely critical.  Think of the poem and parable The Blind Men and the Elephant. All of the blind men had different perceptions of what an elephant is, but their perceptions did not change what the elephant actually was.  The point is, that their perceptions of the elephant were relative, but the elephant does not bend to their faulty perceptions.  What I am saying is that what is necessary absolutely is NOT relative, only our perceptions are.  The point is to continue to feel around the elephant and learn line upon line.  Our perceptions of the divine will be enhanced.  That is how I see D&C 137.  It is an early perception of God's will, the more the prophets felt around, the more of the elephant was revealed.

One cannot dismiss ordinances as requirements on the sole basis and argument that our perceptions are relative.  We might be perceiving a part of the elephant that you are still blind to, and vise versa.  It is a matter of faith.   

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The church can also play a part, but I think too many people outsource their agency to the church.  Ultimately we ought to be more accountable for what we believe and be agents for ourselves not just acted upon by external forces like institutional authority. That’s Satan’s plan in my view of Mormon cosmology, and unfortunately the correlated marching orders feed this ideal.  I would point out that the BoM warns about the all is well in Zion mentality that we’re seeing promoted today in the church.  

The Church would not disagree with you about the bold part.  Your perceptions of the Church feeding into Satan's plan is a misguided though.  I don't see it that way at all.  I don't see the all is well in Zion mentality either - I really don't know why you think the church is promoting that view.  

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 I disagree as I don’t see baptism as a “work” and can’t recall any scriptural support for that interpretation.  Also the verses in 137 are pretty clearly emphasizing that baptism isn’t required as a saving ordinance for those who don’t have the gospel or arent at an understanding of accountability.  It says nothing about them needing baptism, and explicitly states they are celestial heirs without it.  In that sense it directly contradicts the later theology of vicarious baptism.  

 Again, D&C 137 was before the prophet encountered the tail of the elephant.  It was not whole or complete.  But it did not contradict any future revelation as baptism is absolutely a work - what else would it be?  A belief? A thought? A word?  We will be judged based upon our thoughts, words, and actions.  Baptism absolutely falls under the actions (works) category.   

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I didn’t understand your response.

If you want a temple recommend, talk to the bishop regardless of what you assess your chances (or the unknowns) of getting one to be.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I somewhat agree. If the guidance is that these questions are binary black and white requirements for temple entrance, then I would hope local leaders would adhere to that policy.

But, in times past, there has been leeway given on certain questions that have been left to a local leader’s discretion to determine worthiness.

One's good-faith desire for a recommend has to be stronger than his expectations or assumptions of how local leaders administer them.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

So you agree that it is NOT about our relative perceptions and will, but it is about God's absolute perception and will, correct?

 Aligning our will with the divine is not only a worthy endeavor, it is absolutely critical.  Think of the poem and parable The Blind Men and the Elephant. All of the blind men had different perceptions of what an elephant is, but their perceptions did not change what the elephant actually was.  The point is, that their perceptions of the elephant were relative, but the elephant does not bend to their faulty perceptions.  What I am saying is that what is necessary absolutely is NOT relative, only our perceptions are.  The point is to continue to feel around the elephant and learn line upon line.  Our perceptions of the divine will be enhanced.  That is how I see D&C 137.  It is an early perception of God's will, the more the prophets felt around, the more of the elephant was revealed.

One cannot dismiss ordinances as requirements on the sole basis and argument that our perceptions are relative.  We might be perceiving a part of the elephant that you are still blind to, and vise versa.  It is a matter of faith.   

I think you make a good point.  To build on your analogy, I would also say that each individual around the elephant has a unique perspective that is valid from their position.  The rough skin of the Elephant's leg, the hairy strings of the tail, the moist end of the trunk.  Each of these parts of the elephant require a different approach and have unique needs that are different than the other parts of the elephant.  So they are relative in that sense.  

As for God's will, I envision God from a more pantheist perspective, so God's will includes aligning to the needs of all life within the universe.  

As for dismissing ordinances as requirements one person might feel very strongly about the importance of the ritual, others may not.  What I do reject is the idea that another human can be the ultimate judge of some person's status with God.  That core ethic that we can't be the ultimate judge of others, is an important principle for me.  Otherwise this tendency that people have to judge others becomes too corrupting of an influence.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The church can also play a part, but I think too many people outsource their agency to the church.  Ultimately we ought to be more accountable for what we believe and be agents for ourselves not just acted upon by external forces like institutional authority. That’s Satan’s plan in my view of Mormon cosmology, and unfortunately the correlated marching orders feed this ideal.  I would point out that the BoM warns about the all is well in Zion mentality that we’re seeing promoted today in the church.  

The Church would not disagree with you about the bold part.  Your perceptions of the Church feeding into Satan's plan is a misguided though.  I don't see it that way at all.  I don't see the all is well in Zion mentality either - I really don't know why you think the church is promoting that view.  

From my vantage point, I see the all is well in Zion thinking constantly pervasive in our culture.  Whether its messages from conference or comments in my local ward, its everywhere.  One example would be from my Sunday School class this last Sunday where we had a lengthy discussion about standing in holy places like the temple.  The idea was expounded upon by multiple participants that we need to keep ourselves safe from the evils of this world in a literal sense by going to the temple as well as psychologically by not entertaining any conversations with worldly rational, including the infamous philosophies of men.  From my perspective this is contrary to the gospel Jesus preached.  He was the antithesis of this mentality, with his engagement with all those marginalized and evil secular and disease carrying people.  He didn't hide from the world, he engaged with it, and he fought against the principles of power of his day, instead of hiding away in powerful structures to separate yourself from the secular, and refusing to engage with society when you find it challenges your ways of thinking.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 I disagree as I don’t see baptism as a “work” and can’t recall any scriptural support for that interpretation.  Also the verses in 137 are pretty clearly emphasizing that baptism isn’t required as a saving ordinance for those who don’t have the gospel or arent at an understanding of accountability.  It says nothing about them needing baptism, and explicitly states they are celestial heirs without it.  In that sense it directly contradicts the later theology of vicarious baptism.  

 Again, D&C 137 was before the prophet encountered the tail of the elephant.  It was not whole or complete.  But it did not contradict any future revelation as baptism is absolutely a work - what else would it be?  A belief? A thought? A word?  We will be judged based upon our thoughts, words, and actions.  Baptism absolutely falls under the actions (works) category.   

Baptism is a covenant or promise between two parties about what our works will be.  Baptism is a commitment to do good works, but it isn't a work in and of itself.  It is meaningless if there are not works to back it up.  In the legal world, it would be like signing a contract without consideration.  The works are the consideration that make the contract enforceable, otherwise there is no point to the contract.  

As for the prophet feeling the tail of the elephant later when he revealed baptisms for the dead, the prophet may have only felt part of the tail and a future prophet could discover additional things that change our conception all together.  That is the whole point of on-going revelation.  These concepts have changed many times in the past and they will change many times in the future.  Which prophetic declaration is the true one, if they are constantly changing?  Its just like saying which part of the elephant is the true one.  They all have elements of truth to them that are relevant to the context within which they were observed.  But none of them are the full elephant.  I would venture to say that we will never have the full elephant, because not only are our perceptions so limited, but the elephant is also changing at the same time.  

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

If you want a temple recommend, talk to the bishop regardless of what you assess your chances (or the unknowns) of getting one to be.

 

 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

One's good-faith desire for a recommend has to be stronger than his expectations or assumptions of how local leaders administer them.

I found more depth and wisdom in these responses than all the others combined.  Thank you Bishop.

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

From my vantage point, I see the all is well in Zion thinking constantly pervasive in our culture.  Whether its messages from conference or comments in my local ward, its everywhere.  One example would be from my Sunday School class this last Sunday where we had a lengthy discussion about standing in holy places like the temple.  The idea was expounded upon by multiple participants that we need to keep ourselves safe from the evils of this world in a literal sense by going to the temple as well as psychologically by not entertaining any conversations with worldly rational, including the infamous philosophies of men.  From my perspective this is contrary to the gospel Jesus preached.  He was the antithesis of this mentality, with his engagement with all those marginalized and evil secular and disease carrying people.  He didn't hide from the world, he engaged with it, and he fought against the principles of power of his day, instead of hiding away in powerful structures to separate yourself from the secular, and refusing to engage with society when you find it challenges your ways of thinking.  

You can engage with people while still protecting yourself form the evils of the world.  Christ is an example of this.  He dinned with sinners, but He did not participate in any sinful activity.  He also took time away from teaching the masses to spend time with and privately teach His apostles.  He also took time to be alone and pray.

Likewise, we live in a secular world.  We spend all day working around people who are not of our faith.  We send missionaries to teach the gospel to all who will hear them, regardless of what sins they may or may not have committed in their lives.  We organize branches of the church in prisons and that serve homeless shelters.  We engage with all, but we do not participate in sinful activity.  Spiritual strength gained from standing in holy places, such as our homes, meeting houses, as well as temples helps us be "in the world, but not of the world."

We do need to keep ourselves and our families safe, but nowhere is it taught that we should hide from the world. 

[Bernard Gui]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I disagree as I don’t see baptism as a “work” and can’t recall any scriptural support for that interpretation.  Also the verses in 137 are pretty clearly emphasizing that baptism isn’t required as a saving ordinance for those who don’t have the gospel or arent at an understanding of accountability.  It says nothing about them needing baptism, and explicitly states they are celestial heirs without it.  In that sense it directly contradicts the later theology of vicarious baptism.  

A work is something that is done....in this case an act performed by someone on another person at the behest of the recipient. Baptism is clearly a work. It is a physical work as well as a symbolic act  of obedience. It is required of the children of men. Here’s all we need to know about baptism....

Quote

2 Nephi 31: 

4 Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

 10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

 12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

 

[hope_for_things]

51 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You can engage with people while still protecting yourself form the evils of the world.  Christ is an example of this.  He dinned with sinners, but He did not participate in any sinful activity.  He also took time away from teaching the masses to spend time with and privately teach His apostles.  He also took time to be alone and pray.

Likewise, we live in a secular world.  We spend all day working around people who are not of our faith.  We send missionaries to teach the gospel to all who will hear them, regardless of what sins they may or may not have committed in their lives.  We organize branches of the church in prisons and that serve homeless shelters.  We engage with all, but we do not participate in sinful activity.  Spiritual strength gained from standing in holy places, such as our homes, meeting houses, as well as temples helps us be "in the world, but not of the world."

We do need to keep ourselves and our families safe, but nowhere is it taught that we should hide from the world. 

According to the church hierarchy of his day, Jesus very much participated in sinful activity, and these church leaders were constantly calling him out for breaking the laws of the established religion, and he was redefining those laws.  All is well in Zion, and much of the Isaiah scriptures in the BoM are a direct critique of Israel (in other words, the members of the church in that day.)  Zion has fallen prey to prideful thinking, and this is emblematic in the church today, whether it is the prideful thinking that permeates an anti science ideology or the justification of bigotry towards the LGBT community, or the prideful thinking that has members constantly patting themselves on the back for being the one and only true religion, sounds a lot like the rameumptom every week to me. 

I'm not placing blame on individuals as much as I'm critiquing the culture and the lack of leadership to steer the ship in substantive ways.  We can do so much better and its a true shame that we're doing so poorly.  

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A work is something that is done....in this case an act performed by someone on another person at the behest of the recipient. Baptism is clearly a work. It is a physical work as well as a symbolic act  of obedience. It is required of the children of men. Here’s all we need to know about baptism....

 

Its just a promise between to parties and means absolutely nothing without actions to follow it up.  As I mentioned earlier as well D&C 137 takes the emphasis away from Baptism, and puts the focus on intent and works.  That is my point.  We'll have to disagree on this one. 

[ksfisher]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

According to the church hierarchy of his day, Jesus very much participated in sinful activity, and these church leaders were constantly calling him out for breaking the laws of the established religion, and he was redefining those laws.

Jesus was the source of the law, the great high priest, and thus the ultimate authority on what was sin or wasn't. 

 

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

All is well in Zion, and much of the Isaiah scriptures in the BoM are a direct critique of Israel (in other words, the members of the church in that day.)  Zion has fallen prey to prideful thinking, and this is emblematic in the church today, whether it is the prideful thinking that permeates an anti science ideology or the justification of bigotry towards the LGBT community, or the prideful thinking that has members constantly patting themselves on the back for being the one and only true religion, sounds a lot like the rameumptom every week to me.  

 

You're welcome to your opinions.  I would imagine that all of us could be more kind and loving towards all, but I don't find your blanket judgement of the church or its leaders justified.

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not placing blame on individuals as much as I'm critiquing the culture and the lack of leadership to steer the ship in substantive ways.  We can do so much better and its a true shame that we're doing so poorly.  

The church is led by revelation from God.  It is He to whom are leaders are answerable and whose example they follow.  We are always learning and growing, but again, I don't see your blanket condemnation of church leadership as justified.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

According to the church hierarchy of his day, Jesus very much participated in sinful activity, and these church leaders were constantly calling him out for breaking the laws of the established religion, and he was redefining those laws.

Jesus was the source of the law, the great high priest, and thus the ultimate authority on what was sin or wasn't. 

The point being that Jesus was pushing against the established church leadership, and critiquing it and sinning by the standards of the correlated church narrative of his day.  

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

You're welcome to your opinions.  I would imagine that all of us could be more kind and loving towards all, but I don't find your blanket judgement of the church or its leaders justified.

The people of Isaiah's day didn't find his "blanket judgements" justified either.  Thats the point, Isaiah was critiquing the members of his day and they weren't listening.  This is one of the most frequently recurring themes throughout the scriptures, that the members of the church are falling short, are prideful, are under condemnation for the status quo thinking, for not living the gospel as it should be lived.  Members today often seem more focused on pointing fingers at the world, than on pointing a finger at the current church culture.  It sounds a lot like those in the great and spacious building to me.  

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The church is led by revelation from God.  It is He to whom are leaders are answerable and whose example they follow.  We are always learning and growing, but again, I don't see your blanket condemnation of church leadership as justified.

One more critique I have of our culture.  Members look at this idea of revelation from the institutional hierarchy and worship it like an idol.  They've mailed in their personal authority and they consider this a virtue to be admired and emulated.  This is another huge problem in contemporary Mormonism.  

 

[ksfisher]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

The point being that Jesus was pushing against the established church leadership, and critiquing it and sinning by the standards of the correlated church narrative of his day.  

The people of Isaiah's day didn't find his "blanket judgements" justified either.  Thats the point, Isaiah was critiquing the members of his day and they weren't listening.  This is one of the most frequently recurring themes throughout the scriptures, that the members of the church are falling short, are prideful, are under condemnation for the status quo thinking, for not living the gospel as it should be lived.  Members today often seem more focused on pointing fingers at the world, than on pointing a finger at the current church culture.  It sounds a lot like those in the great and spacious building to me.  

One more critique I have of our culture.  Members look at this idea of revelation from the institutional hierarchy and worship it like an idol.  They've mailed in their personal authority and they consider this a virtue to be admired and emulated.  This is another huge problem in contemporary Mormonism.  

 

You really don't seem to like members of the church very much.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

You really don't seem to like members of the church very much.

Thanks, I'll consider that a compliment. 

[let’s roll]

I appreciate thoughtful reminders regarding humility, an attribute we’re told facilitates direction from God in our life, and that’s always welcomed.

[rockpond]

On 10/17/2018 at 10:23 AM, strappinglad said:

Why someone wants to lie, mislead, fudge on the questions confuses me. If you can't answer the authority questions then you are saying that all the work done in the temple has no eternal effect and you are just wanting a VIP ticket for the elites social club. Go join the Shriners.

I bet if you think about it, you could find a few reasons why someone in the church who no longer possesses and “orthodox” testimony might still want to maintain a temple recommend. 

[rockpond]

On 10/16/2018 at 5:56 PM, SouthernMo said:

Church leadership has laid out clear questions to determine one’s temple worthiness.

If someone answers “no” (or incorrectly) to any of the questions, does that put the bishop or stake president in a position in which they MUST not issue or renew the recommend?  Or, is there discretion given to local leaders to give leeway as they follow the spirit in instances in which a member does not affirm the questions correctly?

Asking for a friend...

The “correct” answers are not specified in either the temple recommend book or the handbook.  It’s at the discretion of one’s local priesthood leaders. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The point being that Jesus was pushing against the established church leadership, and critiquing it and sinning by the standards of the correlated church narrative of his day.  

The people of Isaiah's day didn't find his "blanket judgements" justified either.  Thats the point, Isaiah was critiquing the members of his day and they weren't listening.  This is one of the most frequently recurring themes throughout the scriptures, that the members of the church are falling short, are prideful, are under condemnation for the status quo thinking, for not living the gospel as it should be lived.  Members today often seem more focused on pointing fingers at the world, than on pointing a finger at the current church culture.  It sounds a lot like those in the great and spacious building to me.  

One more critique I have of our culture.  Members look at this idea of revelation from the institutional hierarchy and worship it like an idol.  They've mailed in their personal authority and they consider this a virtue to be admired and emulated.  This is another huge problem in contemporary Mormonism.  

 

You seem to have taken the lesson of the great and spacious building and turned it on it’s head. That is, you accuse the people of God for identifying and being aware of the pride of the world. 

[strappinglad]

To paraphrase a Jedi, " the Force ( of rationalization ) is strong with this one " . I suppose personal integrity enters into the decision to enter the temple for reasons other than to do the work of the Lord.

I'm sure the money changers felt they were justified in their actions. Jesus had a different opinion.

Edited October 19, 2018 by strappinglad