Change to TR Interview Question?

[smac97]

A friend of mine who is in a bishopric just told me that he noticed what appears to be a change in the online list of temple recommend questions for limited-use recommends.  Specifically, question 7 states:

Quote

Do you support any group or person whose teachings oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The corollary question for regular temple recommends is:

Quote

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.

Anyone know anything about this?

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

"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."

I don't like this change (if it is true) because it is fairly broad.  President Trump has many practices that are contrary or opposed to practices accepted by the church.   Does that mean if one supports Trump, they don't get a TR?

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

"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."

I don't like this change (if it is true) because it is fairly broad.  President Trump has many practices that are contrary or opposed to practices accepted by the church.   Does that mean if one supports Trump, they don't get a TR?

and what about Guns and Roses? does anyone think about them?😑

[JLHPROF]

It's funny how this question really originated out of concern about polygamy, but since has expanded to be much more far reaching.

Who knows who will fall under its umbrella in the future.

[Duncan]

how do they define "affiliate"? like if you work with someone who is gay married or lives common law with someone? like yeah, I affiliate with them but I don't live like them

[Hamba Tuhan]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Who knows who will fall under its umbrella in the future.

I feel certain I won't.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Anyone know anything about this?

I haven't heard anything, but I hope it's true. I think I had to explain that question to every single youth I ever interviewed ... and half the adults.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I feel certain I won't.

You may be surprised.  At many times in Church history a great many faithful members found themselves unexpectedly in opposition to the church they believe in.

In fact, I  believe it's a requirement for us to reach that point so that we can be tried in all things.

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

At many times in Church history a great many faithful members found themselves unexpectedly in opposition to the church they believe in.

Been there, done that. A few times. Each time, the Lord has corrected me and guided me back.

Quote

In fact, I  believe it's a requirement for us to reach that point so that we can be tried in all things.

Absolutely! 

[Calm]

 

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Does that mean if one supports Trump, they don't get a TR?

If only it did.

(My politics are peeking out)

[sunstoned]

58 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I feel certain I won't.

Do you affiliate with anyone who drinks or smokes?  I know I do.  Those are word of wisdom violations and are  "practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

[bsjkki]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

If only it did.

(My politics are peeking out)

😢

[Rain]

What is changed here?  Several mention "affiliate", but that has been there a long time. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

What is changed here?  Several mention "affiliate", but that has been there a long time. 

Do you support any group or person whose teachings oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

vs.

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.

29 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Do you affiliate with anyone who drinks or smokes?  I know I do.  Those are word of wisdom violations and are  "practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Hence my comment that this update would be a good improvement. I think we all know what the question is supposed to capture, but then it often turns into a silly response. I know I've personally joked in the past by responding, 'Well, do you mean other than working for the university?' And now that I work in the parliament, well ...

Edited November 8, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

Nvm, hamba was more accurate 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Do you affiliate with anyone who drinks or smokes?  I know I do.  Those are word of wisdom violations and are  "practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Not really. The Word of Wisdom is one of the commandments that only applies to the Saints (says so itself) so non members who drink or smoke are not opposed to our doctrine.

[The Nehor]

Also affiliate implies an official attachment to a person or group, not just working with or being a friend to someone.

Taken literally this question does mean you cannot belong to any political party I am aware of.  

[sunstoned]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not really. The Word of Wisdom is one of the commandments that only applies to the Saints (says so itself) so non members who drink or smoke are not opposed to our doctrine.

Well, if we are spitting hairs, and apparently that is what we are doing, then really the Wow is not a commandment.  God said it was just a "word of wisdom".  Some man man changed that latter on.  

[Rain]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you support any group or person whose teachings oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

vs.

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.

Hence my comment that this update would be a good improvement. I think we all know what the question is supposed to capture, but then it often turns into a silly response. I know I've personally joked in the past by responding, 'Well, do you mean other than working for the university?' And now that I work in the parliament, well ...

Smac said one was for limited use and one was for regular recomends. Does this mean only the limited qiestion was changed? The last time I got a limited use recommend was in 1986 or around there so I don't have any recollection of what it said.

That is one of the reasons I am confused. Did the regular one change at all? Some of the comments seem like some think affiliate was added, not taken away, but maybe I am reading those wrong.

[Storm Rider]

The definition of affiliate is:  "officially attach or connect (a subsidiary group or a person) to an organization."  Obviously, just being in friendship with another is not to affiliate with them. To affiliate with another, you must "officially" attach with them - you join an organization. 

[JAHS]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think we all know what the question is supposed to capture, but then it often turns into a silly response. I know I've personally joked in the past by responding, 'Well, do you mean other than working for the university?

I would respond by saying "besides the Boy Scouts ?".

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Well, if we are spitting hairs, and apparently that is what we are doing, then really the Wow is not a commandment.  God said it was just a "word of wisdom".  Some man man changed that latter on.  

It was a prophet and not a “man man”. The other part did not change and it is not splitting hairs to acknowledge that.

[ksfisher]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

A friend of mine who is in a bishopric just told me that he noticed what appears to be a change in the online list of temple recommend questions for limited-use recommends.  Specifically, question 7 states:

The corollary question for regular temple recommends is:

Anyone know anything about this?

-Smac

Sounds like a good change.

Prsonally, when interviewing youth I had been skipping that question with the youngr kids.  It just confused them.

 

[Doctrine 612]

It’s less harsh by what I read.

you now can associate with them but not support.

[stemelbow]

I have a hard time seeing anyone possibly answering that question with a clear no.  Everyone has a boss, a co-worker, a grandma, child, cousin, neighbor who teaches or does something contrary to the teachings of the Church and yet everyone should support in some sense these people in their lives.  It sounds like they are trying to get members to avoid people outside the Church at all costs.  

The other day I was talking to a friend who said she had a long time friend who "decided to be gay".  That friend, an active member of the Church, said as if explaining something to me, "I don't associate with her anymore.  I need to stay away from that kind of stuff and can't advocate any support for her".   I guess she's trying to take this question literally.  I find such behavior completely wrong-headed and told her so.