Temple Recommend Questions

[SouthernMo]

11 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.

What do you mean it has to be?  Will it make a difference?  If I want a temple recommend really bad, but don’t have enough faith to answer all of the questions correctly, what does it matter?

Did you give temple recommends to people who couldn’t answer the questions right, but who wanted it anyways?

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

You say nothing about 2 Nephi 31 and the words of the Father and the Son. It's crystal clear.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

I suppose personal integrity enters into the decision to enter the temple for reasons other than to do the work of the Lord.

Did someone suggest otherwise?

[Hamba Tuhan]

58 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Did you give temple recommends to people who couldn’t answer the questions right, but who wanted it anyways?

In my case, no.

[strappinglad]

I do remember years ago giving the answer to the question about GAs and prophets etc. as " Well, as long as they are translated correctly ". It elicited a small snort from the SP.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

What do you mean it has to be?  Will it make a difference?  If I want a temple recommend really bad, but don’t have enough faith to answer all of the questions correctly, what does it matter?

Did you give temple recommends to people who couldn’t answer the questions right, but who wanted it anyways?

“Has to be” = “must.” Yes, it makes a difference because good-faith desire brings the Spirit into the equation and helps both the interviewee and the interviewer to discern the meaning and significance of the responses and answers, and to counsel about them.  Of course you have to answer the questions to your mutual satisfaction in order to obtain a recommend, and that is what “correct” means in my book. I would advise you to have that interview and see what happens, as that is the best step I can think of toward getting one, if not this time, then eventually.

I don’t remember giving any recommends otherwise (that is, without an interview), and I don’t remember denying anyone a recommend. I don’t remember anyone having any trouble or hesitation answering the questions or answering them with less insight than in the previous interview.

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I'm pointing out that pride is found within the church as well, nobody is immune.  Its not turning the scriptures on its head, I think its taking the scriptures more seriously and applying the lessons to ourselves.  

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You say nothing about 2 Nephi 31 and the words of the Father and the Son. It's crystal clear.

I'm not under the illusion that every scripture by every author over the course of history somehow harmonizes.  

Edited October 19, 2018 by hope_for_things

[RevTestament]

16 hours 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.  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. 

15 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.  

Just thought I'd offer another viewpoint. I do see what you are saying. However, Yeshua didn't say it was wrong to do what the pharisees said to do, because they were in Moses' seat. He just said don't do what they do, because they are hypocrites. Judaism had become a culture of rules - these could be very stupid things like which shoe to put on first, because some rabbi said something about it. Jesus spoke of these things as their "traditions." They were not the law from God ie Tanakh. So, Yeshua healing on the Sabbath was not a sin. All the law says is to abstain from "servile" work. Well, the Jews turned this into all kinds of things such as whether brushing one's hair was "work." What the Jews didn't see was that it was OK to do God's work, and that He indeed expected that. That is the reason the day was set aside as a day of rest from labors. Jesus wasn't doing servile labor - He was performing acts of love - nothing for profit or gain. This is what the Sabbath was to be about. The priests doubled the sacrifices in the temple - why wasn't that prohibited work? Because it was a ritual designed to show one's love and dedication to God - to be willing to give one's best. To do acts of love for others is the point of the law. To show love to others was to show love to God. 

How does this translate to what you are saying? I personally usually accept the words of our GAs as words of inspiration and guidance. However, if they are taken to legalistic extremes we might feel expected to do everything they say. Over the years that can add up to a long list. I feel this becomes a syndrome of a checklist to perfection. This is how this works. My wife writes down everything the GAs say. This then gets put into a mental list of things to accomplish. If she doesn't do everything on this list, she feels like a sinner, and becomes depressed as she sees she doesn't do what person x does, person y, and person z, etc. To the extent that this is what you are talking about, I think you have a point. We don't need the long list of Judaism rules to be perfect. Suggestions and inspiring words don't need to be put into some checklist for perfection. I see them usually as guidance on how to accomplish the overall aim of the law - to teach us how to love our neighbor. Everything or anything we do in this regard is loving our neighbor whether it be a little or a lot.

So for instance, I have stated  on this forum that I don't believe drinking a glass of wine is a sin. Drinking tea and coffee are not a sin. There is nothing in our standard works to suggest that. Yet, the cultural norm is so strong that people can't get baptized if they are drinking tea. Now, if they become members and start drinking tea do they have to repent? Are they in danger of excommunication? It is meant to be a personal guide for the Lord to bless us, rather than some rule of cleanliness. The Lord did away with dietary laws in the NT because food doesn't make us unclean. The Lord designed our bodies, and He knows what is best for them. To receive additional blessings of the temple, one is expected to follow the word of wisdom, but making certain parts practically a sin, while allowing all the meat one wants, doesn't make much sense to me.

Things like following the word of wisdom can become a prideful thing. Not allowing your children to play with the  neighbor kids because the parents drink some wine might be an example. It kinda misses the whole point of why we have the word of wisdom - to bless our own health.  It's not some badge of honor. i think some get that, and some, not so much, but it is not quite fair to condemn the whole Church for things like this.

Quote

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.  

Maybe you could list some things you think are substantive ways - and maybe you should leave off "bigotry"  against the LGBQ community. You apparently don't feel homosexual acts are sinful, so call every Church teaching in that respect "bigotry." The Church has supported laws against secular nondiscrimination in housing, etc. Calling any failure to endorse homosexual acts "bigotry" is not going to fly with me. It's like saying excommunication for adultery is bigotry or excommunication for sin is bigotry. 

Quote

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.  

It's a huge problem for you. Jesus seemed to be somewhat OK with it. I call it the prophet worship syndrome, and personally abstain from it. I believe if they are inspired, I can receive confirmation of that if I have doubts and God wants me to follow it. However, to the extent that it causes the perfection checklist syndrome I first discussed, I do look at it as undesirable. Jesus called this type of thing "burdensome." I look on much of what  gets said in conference as words of inspiration, and personal opinion. I learn what I can, get inspirational ideas, and follow instruction. It is rare that something comes up I feel I need to pray about - I already either know the answer or have sufficient confidence in the inspiration of  Church GAs. I have not mailed in my "personal authority" and your tendency to generalize this way  and paint all members with a broad brush is a tendency which in itself can be a symptom of the very pride you claim to warn against.

[Coop]

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 2:37 PM, rongo said:

Did he give any hints as to what kind of changes?

The polygamy question number 7 that asks, Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"  He said that there were a number of members who pointed out that a literal interpretation of this question meant that anyone who affiliated with those who were in a same-sex marriage would be denied a Temple recommend.  In our ward that means that the parents of the three children in a same-sex marriage couldn't hold a recommend if they affiliated with their children.  He also mentioned that there were other questions that the brethren were considering changing but he didn't give any details.

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, Coop said:

The polygamy question number 7 that asks, Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"  He said that there were a number of members who pointed out that a literal interpretation of this question meant that anyone who affiliated with those who were in a same-sex marriage would be denied a Temple recommend.  In our ward that means that the parents of the three children in a same-sex marriage couldn't hold a recommend if they affiliated with their children.  He also mentioned that there were other questions that the brethren were considering changing but he didn't give any details.

One would hope they would change the question about sustaining our leaders, as it runs in direct contradiction to the principles of common consent as outlined in the D&C

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Just thought I'd offer another viewpoint. I do see what you are saying. However, Yeshua didn't say it was wrong to do what the pharisees said to do, because they were in Moses' seat. He just said don't do what they do, because they are hypocrites. Judaism had become a culture of rules - these could be very stupid things like which shoe to put on first, because some rabbi said something about it. Jesus spoke of these things as their "traditions." They were not the law from God ie Tanakh. So, Yeshua healing on the Sabbath was not a sin. All the law says is to abstain from "servile" work. Well, the Jews turned this into all kinds of things such as whether brushing one's hair was "work." What the Jews didn't see was that it was OK to do God's work, and that He indeed expected that. That is the reason the day was set aside as a day of rest from labors. Jesus wasn't doing servile labor - He was performing acts of love - nothing for profit or gain. This is what the Sabbath was to be about. The priests doubled the sacrifices in the temple - why wasn't that prohibited work? Because it was a ritual designed to show one's love and dedication to God - to be willing to give one's best. To do acts of love for others is the point of the law. To show love to others was to show love to God. 

Thanks for sharing your perspective.  I agree that Jesus was critiquing them for hypocrisy, but I think it was more than that.  The way you've contextualized a difference between the law and what was an appendage to that law, its a largely modern Christian reading of the history.  What the sabbath was to be about according to Christians, and not according to Jewish tradition.  

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

How does this translate to what you are saying? I personally usually accept the words of our GAs as words of inspiration and guidance. However, if they are taken to legalistic extremes we might feel expected to do everything they say. Over the years that can add up to a long list. I feel this becomes a syndrome of a checklist to perfection. This is how this works. My wife writes down everything the GAs say. This then gets put into a mental list of things to accomplish. If she doesn't do everything on this list, she feels like a sinner, and becomes depressed as she sees she doesn't do what person x does, person y, and person z, etc. To the extent that this is what you are talking about, I think you have a point. We don't need the long list of Judaism rules to be perfect. Suggestions and inspiring words don't need to be put into some checklist for perfection. I see them usually as guidance on how to accomplish the overall aim of the law - to teach us how to love our neighbor. Everything or anything we do in this regard is loving our neighbor whether it be a little or a lot.

I totally agree about the perfection checklist mentality, and that is way to common in our culture.  

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Things like following the word of wisdom can become a prideful thing. Not allowing your children to play with the  neighbor kids because the parents drink some wine might be an example. It kinda misses the whole point of why we have the word of wisdom - to bless our own health.  It's not some badge of honor. i think some get that, and some, not so much, but it is not quite fair to condemn the whole Church for things like this.

I also agree that this is a concern as well.  I'm glad to see you're thinking about these things.  While I am critiquing the dominant culture in the church, I'm not condemning it as a whole.  There are many good things that I'm proud to be a part with respect to my Mormon culture and heritage.  

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Maybe you could list some things you think are substantive ways - and maybe you should leave off "bigotry"  against the LGBQ community. You apparently don't feel homosexual acts are sinful, so call every Church teaching in that respect "bigotry." The Church has supported laws against secular nondiscrimination in housing, etc. Calling any failure to endorse homosexual acts "bigotry" is not going to fly with me. It's like saying excommunication for adultery is bigotry or excommunication for sin is bigotry. 

I could never leave off one of the most egregious problems in the culture, this one is glaring and front and center in my view and its contributing to suicide and major suffering.  That kind of evil I cannot ignore, although I understand you have a different opinion.  

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

It's a huge problem for you. Jesus seemed to be somewhat OK with it. I call it the prophet worship syndrome, and personally abstain from it. I believe if they are inspired, I can receive confirmation of that if I have doubts and God wants me to follow it. However, to the extent that it causes the perfection checklist syndrome I first discussed, I do look at it as undesirable. Jesus called this type of thing "burdensome." I look on much of what  gets said in conference as words of inspiration, and personal opinion. I learn what I can, get inspirational ideas, and follow instruction. It is rare that something comes up I feel I need to pray about - I already either know the answer or have sufficient confidence in the inspiration of  Church GAs. I have not mailed in my "personal authority" and your tendency to generalize this way  and paint all members with a broad brush is a tendency which in itself can be a symptom of the very pride you claim to warn against.

I see the problem as way worse than just the perfection list syndrome.  Its a developmental problem and its stunting the maturity and growth of an entire population of people.  I listened to a great podcast episode with Richard Rohr yesterday (he's amazing) and he spoke about this from an adult development perspective within the context of the topic of consent.  Really interesting in case you're open to listening to other Christians talk about contemporary issues out there.  

http://www.theliturgists.com/podcast/2018/10/18/christian-part-fohr

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

One would hope they would change the question about sustaining our leaders, as it runs in direct contradiction to the principles of common consent as outlined in the D&C

How so?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How so?

Thanks,

-Smac

Consent must be freely given, not coerced.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not under the illusion that every scripture by every author over the course of history somehow harmonizes.  

Interesting. Do you reject this important part of the Book of Mormon?

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting. Do you reject this important part of the Book of Mormon?

I'm fine with different passages contradicting each other, I'm not rejecting those passages, I'm trying to understand context and meaning.  I also don't read the scriptures as some kind of rule book for how we should live our lives.  Fundamentalists and literalists don't even comprehend any other way of approaching scripture.  I'm not sure where you fall along that spectrum, but it sounds like you want to put me into a binary position, and that is what I reject.  

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

Consent must be freely given, not coerced.

By that logic, aren't all conditions for entry to the temple "coercive?"

Requiring belief in the Godhead is "coercive."

Belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer is "coercive."

Belief in the Restoration is "coercive."

Living the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom is "coercive."

Requiring honesty with our fellow man is "coercive."

And so on.

Do you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a developmental problem and its stunting the maturity and growth of an entire population of people.

Please explain what aspect of the Church's consent dynamic represents a developmental problem stunting the maturity and growth of an entire adult population, and how.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I see the problem as way worse than just the perfection list syndrome.  Its a developmental problem and its stunting the maturity and growth of an entire population of people.  I listened to a great podcast episode with Richard Rohr yesterday (he's amazing) and he spoke about this from an adult development perspective within the context of the topic of consent.  Really interesting in case you're open to listening to other Christians talk about contemporary issues out there.  

http://www.theliturgists.com/podcast/2018/10/18/christian-part-fohr

Rather than being critical another way to approach the situation is to offer a collective path to salvation - unless you picture being in heaven alone... If you speak it well and in accordance with God's wishes, you may just get called to do it more....  

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm fine with different passages contradicting each other, I'm not rejecting those passages, I'm trying to understand context and meaning.  I also don't read the scriptures as some kind of rule book for how we should live our lives.  Fundamentalists and literalists don't even comprehend any other way of approaching scripture.  I'm not sure where you fall along that spectrum, but it sounds like you want to put me into a binary position, and that is what I reject.  

You are putting yourself in an awkward position.

I'm trying to understand how you pick and choose scriptures that support your positions.  What other scripture contradicts this? Do you believe the Father and the Son said these words? How do you parse this to suit your purposes?

I do not see how this is open to a lot of interpretation no matter where one may be on some sort of spectrum. Help me understand how you interpret this.

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 dothe things which ye have seen me do.

Later, Jesus said this to his disciples:

Quote

33 And it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he said unto his disciples: Enter ye in at the strait gate; for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein, until the night cometh, wherein no man can work.

What is the strait gate and the narrow way? 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Coop said:

The polygamy question number 7 that asks, Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"  He said that there were a number of members who pointed out that a literal interpretation of this question meant that anyone who affiliated with those who were in a same-sex marriage would be denied a Temple recommend.  In our ward that means that the parents of the three children in a same-sex marriage couldn't hold a recommend if they affiliated with their children.  He also mentioned that there were other questions that the brethren were considering changing but he didn't give any details.

I've never, and I don't think anyone has really, interpreted that to mean affiliation = "acquaintance-ship." That is, simply being related to or interacting with polygamists (or other groups --- polygamists aren't the only ones referred to in this question when it comes to "support" or "agreeing with" them) does not denote "affiliating" with them. It seems clear to me that what it meant is active advocacy.

I worked with a COP (child of polygamy) as a ward mission leader in Salt Lake, and I had a member of my ward who was an adult daughter of a polygamist father. Both had to be interviewed by an apostle to be baptized, but there were no temple recommend issues after that with them having polygamist family. They renounced and dis-affiliated themselves from it, and that suffices as long as the leaders feel they are sincere. Blood relation or even friendship/acquaintance-ship doesn't constitute a strike with question #7.

I would be fine with changes that clarify this, but I don't think they are necessary.

Edited October 19, 2018 by rongo

[Gray]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

By that logic, aren't all conditions for entry to the temple "coercive?"

Requiring belief in the Godhead is "coercive."

Belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer is "coercive."

Belief in the Restoration is "coercive."

Living the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom is "coercive."

Requiring honesty with our fellow man is "coercive."

And so on.

Do you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

No.

"Vote for me or lose your privileges."

Coercive or not?

Edited October 19, 2018 by Gray

[smac97]

On 10/19/2018 at 2:09 PM, Gray said:

Quote

By that logic, aren't all conditions for entry to the temple "coercive?"

Requiring belief in the Godhead is "coercive."

Belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer is "coercive."

Belief in the Restoration is "coercive."

Living the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom is "coercive."

Requiring honesty with our fellow man is "coercive."

And so on.

Do you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

No.

Well, you'll have to explain that.  Your reasoning doesn't make sense to me.

Quote

"Vote for me or lose your privileges."

"Believe in God or lose your privileges."

"Keep the Word of Wisdom or lose your privileges."

"Be honest in your dealings with your fellow men or lose your privileges."

Quote

Coercive or not?

Not.

And if is it "coercive," then so is requiring belief in God, and in the atonement of Christ, and compliance with the WoW/LoC/LoT, etc. are also "coercive."  And that makes no sense at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 28, 2019 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Rather than being critical another way to approach the situation is to offer a collective path to salvation - unless you picture being in heaven alone... If you speak it well and in accordance with God's wishes, you may just get called to do it more....  

Interestingly, in that podcast I linked to, they spoke a lot about collective salvation, which I found to be surprisingly similar to much of early Mormon cosmology.  Take a listen, you may find some nuggets inspirational.  

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please explain what aspect of the Church's consent dynamic represents a developmental problem stunting the maturity and growth of an entire adult population, and how.

Sometimes when people ask me questions I get the impression that they aren't seeking to understand my perspective, but instead are seeking to find points of disagreement.  I'm getting that vibe here.