Change to TR Interview Question?

[Navidad]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We see this differently. To me, the process of formally accepting an in-group which is able to attend the temple for the most meaningful worship the church offers, OR formally rejecting (even if temporarily) from the group, thus making them an out group. People in the church are quickly identified as endowed, or TR holding members. Many callings require TR worthiness, so it seems very much about creating a desired class of Mormon and then encouraging others to join that class. But until they do, they aren't part of the "in" group.l

Yeah, I can see that   But I think we often take for granted what words mean when in fact they can mean many different things.

No. Being a mason wouldn't disqualify a member from temple worthiness. As I'm sure you know, historically there were MANY church leaders who were masons. While that has dwindled significantly, I still know a few TR holding members who are also masons.

But yes, bishops have the right to make decisions based on their own interpretation and understanding. It would be impossible for a bishop not to. Bishops are generally knowledgeable about doctrines but everyone has a slightly different understanding of things. Personal interpretation of scriptures, and even the unconscious decision about which scriptures, rules, policies they believe are most important, will inevitably lead to differences in application throughout the church.

Thanks. I wasn't sure about a Masonic affiliation in this day and age. There are some excellent books about the history of "Mormonism" and Freemasonry. Interesting stuff.

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Boundary maintenance - a term I have not heard. Now you have piqued my interest. Dare I ask? Does the "us" equal Latter-day Saints and the "them" non-Latter-day Saints? Is it really the Church's declared intent to maintain a border wall between itself and the "other?" I do enjoy these kinds of threads; they show much more vitality than the usual declarative statements.

My understanding is that it is a sociological term, which is OK for observing and explaining things from a purely sociological perspective. But I think the Church is more than a societal entity and the recommend interview more than a social mōs within it.

Boundary maintenance describes how societies distinguish between themselves and others (hence my use of "us" and "them"). In this case, it would imply that the Church values temple attendance so greatly that she, on a social level, distinguishes between those who hold to her values and mores and those who do not. There is no segregation socially in this regard. All are welcome to participate socially as brothers and sisters, whether member or non-member.

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I like that. But, when Mormons or Mormon groups join with other Christian groups (see how I keep sliding that in?) to facilitate disaster relief, support against LGBQT issues, ERA-type issues, etc. might they be in violation of this question? I have seen Mormons on platforms with Billy Graham. This by the way is one of the big differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists. I feel supported by the folks in our ward, is there an exception for those considered investigators?

Disaster relief is in support of people and not teachings/ideas.  You feeling supported in your ward is about supporting people, not ideas/teachings.  Being on a platform with Billy Graham is not in support of ideas that are contrary to the church, but are rather in support of ideas/teachings that are supported by the church, namely brotherly kindness, fellowship, and sharing/advancing common interests.  When the question is more about supporting opposing ideas/teachings, rather than about supporting people, I think it's intent becomes more clear.  I just don't see your examples as supporting opposing ideas/teachings of the church. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Quick question - would the Church consider affiliation with the Masons an affiliation in violation of this question? Do individual bishops have the right to make decisions based on their own beliefs about what the Church teaches? I suppose it is inevitable that they do that.

No, I know several members who are also Masons. Though the bishop has discretion as led by the Spirit, there are pretty clear guidelines what does and does not allow attendance in the temple. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We see this differently. To me, the process of formally accepting an in-group which is able to attend the temple for the most meaningful worship the church offers, OR formally rejecting (even if temporarily) from the group, thus making them an out group. People in the church are quickly identified as endowed, or TR holding members. Many callings require TR worthiness, so it seems very much about creating a desired class of Mormon and then encouraging others to join that class. But until they do, they aren't part of the "in" group.

You see established social classes along the lines of holding a recommend; those who attend the temple and those who do not; those who are endowed or not; callings that require recommends and those that don’t.

This would mean a recommend-carrying elders quorum president is demoted to a lower social class when he is released and called to be a primary teacher, affecting his former social associations. This would mean a member’s priority is to know who has a recommend or endowed and respecting that boundary by treating everyone according to class level. I’m just not seeing that in practice or in the Gospel message. Such behavior seems to me to be more of a personal idiosyncrasy than a social norm within the Church.

ETA: previous post: My understanding is that boundary maintenance is a sociological term, which is OK for observing and explaining things from a purely sociological perspective. But I think the Church is more than a societal entity and the recommend interview more than a social mōs within it.

Boundary maintenance describes how societies distinguish between themselves and others (hence my use of "us" and "them"). In this case, it would imply that the Church values temple attendance so greatly that she, on a social level, distinguishes between those who hold to her values and mores and those who do not. There is no segregation socially in this regard. All are welcome to participate socially as brothers and sisters, whether member or non-member.

Edited November 9, 2018 by CV75

[CV75]

@Navidad@HappyJackWagon

Some follow up thoughts on this: boundary maintenance is to keep the society and by extension its classes in tact; the classes serve a societal purpose. A Zion society, by the descriptions we have, is classless. The aim of its members, who have taken upon them the name of Christ, is to become unified as one, and in a way that they can be one with God (John 17). I don't see the Church's aim to keep members as members and non-members as non-members, or to keep non-recommend holders in their place but rather to bring them along to have a recommend. Temple-recommend holders can grow as much as anyone else by having callings that do not require recommends.

Edited November 9, 2018 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

You see established social classes along the lines of holding a recommend; those who attend the temple and those who do not; those who are endowed or not; callings that require recommends and those that don’t.

This would mean a recommend-carrying elders quorum president is demoted to a lower social class when he is released and called to be a primary teacher, affecting his former social associations. This would mean a member’s priority is to know who has a recommend or endowed and respecting that boundary by treating everyone according to class level. I’m just not seeing that in practice or in the Gospel message. Such behavior seems to me to be more of a personal idiosyncrasy than a social norm within the Church.

ETA: previous post: My understanding is that boundary maintenance is a sociological term, which is OK for observing and explaining things from a purely sociological perspective. But I think the Church is more than a societal entity and the recommend interview more than a social mōs within it.

Boundary maintenance describes how societies distinguish between themselves and others (hence my use of "us" and "them"). In this case, it would imply that the Church values temple attendance so greatly that she, on a social level, distinguishes between those who hold to her values and mores and those who do not. There is no segregation socially in this regard. All are welcome to participate socially as brothers and sisters, whether member or non-member.

First, I never stated that an EQ Pres would be demoted socially when they are released and called as a primary teacher. That's a straw man argument. But there is a differentiation in the church, both socially and administratively between people who are endowed and current TR holders, and those who are not. I'm surprised that you would disagree with that.

I think your definition of boundary maintenance as only a social distinction is too narrow.

Quote

Boundary Maintenance. Definition. Boundary maintenance describes the act of maintaining boundaries in the presence of others in a physical or a digital space. Boundary-making can manifest as maintaining boundaries of one's social class or maintaining the boundaries of one's secondary self online.

Yes, I think that the church values temple worthiness so greatly that there are definite differences to how members are allowed to participate, based on whether or not they are a TR holder. But even more basic than that, is the literal, physical boundary maintenance when a person is NOT allowed to physically enter a temple to worship. Quite literally the boundary of the entrance to the temple creates an us/them quality in the church. For example, I suspect that most people at a temple to support a couple being sealed would see boundary maintenance and possible a differentiation in social class if they are allowed to enter and sit in the sealing room versus being required to wait in the waiting room and not actually witness the sealing.

Further, there is doctrinal separation between those who are worthy and receive their temple ordinances versus those who aren't/don't. There are actual separations of glory based on this. I understand the discomfort with my comparison to class, but I think it is apt. Are there different classes in the eternities? Is someone who receives exaltation different than someone in the telestial kingdom? Do we know exactly how these different classes are even permitted to intermingle in the eternities? I don't think so.

BTW- I don't use "boundary maintenance" as necessarily a negative thing, nor would I describe it as necessarily positive. But I do think it's descriptive. The church and its doctrines create separations between people. If there weren't boundary maintenance in the church there wouldn't be worthiness interviews at all. There wouldn't be excommunication or disfellowshipment. There wouldn't be baptism or even membership. Boundary maintenance is necessary for any group or institution to exist in any kind of unique way. With no distinction there is no reason for different groups at all.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

First, I never stated that an EQ Pres would be demoted socially when they are released and called as a primary teacher. That's a straw man argument. But there is a differentiation in the church, both socially and administratively between people who are endowed and current TR holders, and those who are not. I'm surprised that you would disagree with that.

I think your definition of boundary maintenance as only a social distinction is too narrow.

Yes, I think that the church values temple worthiness so greatly that there are definite differences to how members are allowed to participate, based on whether or not they are a TR holder. But even more basic than that, is the literal, physical boundary maintenance when a person is NOT allowed to physically enter a temple to worship. Quite literally the boundary of the entrance to the temple creates an us/them quality in the church. For example, I suspect that most people at a temple to support a couple being sealed would see boundary maintenance and possible a differentiation in social class if they are allowed to enter and sit in the sealing room versus being required to wait in the waiting room and not actually witness the sealing.

Further, there is doctrinal separation between those who are worthy and receive their temple ordinances versus those who aren't/don't. There are actual separations of glory based on this. I understand the discomfort with my comparison to class, but I think it is apt. Are there different classes in the eternities? Is someone who receives exaltation different than someone in the telestial kingdom? Do we know exactly how these different classes are even permitted to intermingle in the eternities? I don't think so.

BTW- I don't use "boundary maintenance" as necessarily a negative thing, nor would I describe it as necessarily positive. But I do think it's descriptive. The church and its doctrines create separations between people. If there weren't boundary maintenance in the church there wouldn't be worthiness interviews at all. There wouldn't be excommunication or disfellowshipment. There wouldn't be baptism or even membership. Boundary maintenance is necessary for any group or institution to exist in any kind of unique way. With no distinction there is no reason for different groups at all.

I was offering examples of how the boundary maintenance concept would play, not quoting you. If the original sense of the term is too narrow, then another broader term might be better, especially when bringing up class as you did.

Of course there are people with and without recommends, and there is a administrative aspect to that (records, callings, entrance to the temple, etc.), I’m not seeing a social purpose for using such a distinction.

Without using a precise definition, I’m not sure how to discuss your points. Proof texting a dictionary and misapplying social terms doesn’t seem to be a good way to do that.

For example, are the kingdoms of glory imposed, voluntary or neither (and is that a positive or a negative moral condition, or neither?), what broader society are they a part of, and what purpose to they serve within that society?

[cdowis]

On 11/7/2018 at 9:19 PM, carbon dioxide said:

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?

Yes, if you a Trump supporter, you will not be able to renew your temple recommend.

Sorry.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Yes, if you a Trump supporter, you will not be able to renew your temple recommend.

Sorry.

I'm pretty sure if that were the case, it would include most politicians, even the ones that are the opposite party of Trump.

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, Anijen said:

I'm pretty sure if that were the case, it would include most politicians, even the ones that are the opposite party of Trump.

Failing to see the problem here.

[rockpond]

On 11/8/2018 at 11:24 AM, blueglass said:

I think question 7 is primarily a rainbow flag question.  If you are an ally of LGBT constitutional rights to marry, HRC, or other non-profit organizations which promote LGBT marriages in a positive light, then depending on the views of the presiding authority conducting the interview they may decide to deny a temple recommend.   For example I believe at BYU no professors are allowed to post support for gay marriage or post rainbow flags on facebook without losing their job. 

 

 

The US Constitution does give gay couples the right to marry.  That's been decided.  Do I have to disagree with it to hold a recommend?

If this is what they want to ask, they should ask it.  Clearly.

However, I find one phrase in your post troubling:  "depending on the views of the presiding authority conducting the interview".  Should temple worthiness really be determined based on the view of the priesthood leader asking the question?

[blueglass]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

The US Constitution does give gay couples the right to marry.  That's been decided.  Do I have to disagree with it to hold a recommend?

If this is what they want to ask, they should ask it.  Clearly.

However, I find one phrase in your post troubling:  "depending on the views of the presiding authority conducting the interview".  Should temple worthiness really be determined based on the view of the priesthood leader asking the question?

We believe in "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”  Not sure if you have to disagree.  My last stake president would only withhold a temple recommend if the person volunteered that they were in full support of marriage equality.  He interpreted this as advocacy to false doctrine in the temple recommend interview and as a Yes on question7, and would stop the interview.  This was after passing the bishop interview who had a different view.   When I was a counselor and conducted interviews no one trained me on what to do when people respond with a "YES" on question 7.  

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, blueglass said:

We believe in "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”  Not sure if you have to disagree.  My last stake president would only withhold a temple recommend if the person volunteered that they were in full support of marriage equality.  He interpreted this as advocacy to false doctrine in the temple recommend interview and as a Yes on question7, and would stop the interview.  This was after passing the bishop interview who had a different view.   When I was a counselor and conducted interviews no one trained me on what to do when people respond with a "YES" on question 7.  

I fully support marriage equality.  And that isn't advocacy to false doctrine.  Your stake president was wrong to deny a recommend on those grounds.

 

[MustardSeed]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

I fully support marriage equality.  And that isn't advocacy to false doctrine.  Your stake president was wrong to deny a recommend on those grounds.

 

Amen to that. Sheesh.