Temple recommend interview questions

[mfbukowski]

On 10/7/2019 at 12:55 PM, Calm said:

Otoh, I have heard of a few cases where teens have been denied participating in the sacrament for months and even years because of being unable to achieve complete control over porn or masturbation.  And this leads to a loss of anticipation for a mission since they end up believing it will never change or attending a church school, temple marriage, etc.

I hope the shift lessens these situations, where recognition of effort is given way before the youth settles into despair on the subject.

I recall a disciplinary council where an adult brother  (45-ish?) was coming back from a lot period of repeated and often repeated sexual immorality with a lot of women, including prostitutes etc.  He had faced a council a year before and the decision was that he cease his immoral behaviors and be on "probation"  for a year and for the council to reconvene at that time.

The time had come.  He had made some progress, but his repeated returns to his old ways were still happening though with less frequency.

Typically everyone has the option of questioning gently and with compassion and love, especially "in front of everyone"  but some information about transgressions is vital to making decisions about excommunication vs disfellowshipment vs "probation" etc.  There are guidelines for such things.

One of the harder-line, older,  Council members asked the brother straight out - in front of 12 HC members, the Stake Presidency and the brother's Bishop

"Do you have a problem with masturbation ?"

Usually that level of directness in questioning would be avoided and be saved for a more private moment if it came up at all.  The questioner and the defendant were on opposite sides of the long table, almost directly across from each other.  That word nor any direct references to any particular sexual practice had not been mentioned before that, and everyone was clearly avoiding such references out of politeness and decorum 

The room went totally silent 

Heads snapped around, and everyone was staring at both the brother and his questioner.   A few seconds went by, then the brother answered.   I will insert punctuation and emphasis to represent a little better the tone of his response, which was calm and measured but still clear in its meaning:

"No, I don't have a "problem" with masturbation."

One or two seconds passed and suddenly virtually everyone in the room began "coughing" and covering their mouths and looking down, taking sudden interest in their notes or closely examining the wood grain of the table, trying hard not to totally "lose it"

I saw that as an interesting turn which perhaps showed a progression in thought between the "old guard" and the younger brethren, but even that explanation was ambiguous because the brother's response WAS funny and probably was intended to be.  But of course laughter was inappropriate in the context!

I think it is clear that the church's stand has been to avoid the issue in the last 5 years or more, since the infamous pamphlet depicting the male reproductive system as a little "factory" went out of style, and then out of print, 3 years ago, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Young_Men_Only,  and that has caused confusion between seniors who remember the old stance on masturbation as it was taught in their childhood, (totally prohibited and violating the law of chastity) , with perhaps a more ambiguous view today, moving perhaps toward the "transgression" side of the spectrum.   

And of course now we have the protests against asking youth direct questions about their sexuality which now also complicates the issue of judging someone's sexual practices if we cannot ask about them.   The subject clearly has always been better left alone in my opinion, and as a bishop I never brought it up and would not even consider it if it was mandated.  But of course it was not ever mandated.    I would not want my kids being questioned that way and I surely was not about to do it myself.  Frankly as an adult convert, I was surprised to hear so many saying that some Bishops pushed their interviews that far, I personally had never been asked such questions.

The new view it appears is really just presenting euphemisms leading perhaps to a revision of the definition of "chastity" in the future which distinguishes between direct "sexual relations" between adults and some kind of "moral cleanliness" better defined than it is today for those abstaining from sexual relations.

It seems we want to move toward a more progressive view but do not want to make a direct statement doing so for fear of yet again contradicting previous beliefs.

And of course now we have the protests against asking youth direct questions about their sexuality which now also complicates the issue of what it is proper to speak of in interviews.   The subject clearly has always been better left alone in my opinion.

But this all rolls the ball a little bit more in the right direction imo.

Edit PS:  IIRC, The brother ended up being commended for his progress, but still not ready for full fellowship, and it was recommended that the issue could be addressed in another year if the brother so desired.   I haven't seen him around much.

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Express my love and respect in some other way than by giving insincere congratulations for behavior I see as morally wrong and, in the long run, fraught with harm. 
 

President Oaks did not teach that we must condone homosexual behavior or pretend we do by congratulating people for it. 

Nope he didn't. But general human decency does. 

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Express my love and respect in some other way than by giving insincere congratulations for behavior I see as morally wrong and, in the long run, fraught with harm.

How might you do that?

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Oaks did not teach that we must condone homosexual behavior

Of course not...

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

or pretend we do by congratulating people for it. 

And yet he did say that we need to show love and respect to them.

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Some other expression might.

I'm really curious what that expression might be.

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is a false dichotomy and emotional blackmail to insist that the only way to show love and respect is to condone behavior one finds morally repugnant. 

I'm not insisting on that.  I'm asking how you do it.

In order for President Oaks' words to have real meaning, they would need to be backed up by action.  Not attending a family member's wedding because it is a same gender marriage (when one would otherwise attend a family member's wedding) doesn't show love and respect.  Claiming that we love and respect someone but not doing anything to demonstrate that love and respect is rather hollow.

For me, communicating to someone that you love and respect them but cannot possible attend their wedding because you find it "morally repugnant" will not make that person feel loved and respected.

[Ahab]

Just now, Teancum said:

Nope he didn't. But general human decency does. 

What planet are you living on?

Human decency teaches that we must condone homosexual behavior or pretend we do by congratulating people for it?

Where are you getting the idea that we must condone any sinful behavior or pretend that we do by congratulating people for it?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How might you do that?

Of course not...

And yet he did say that we need to show love and respect to them.

I'm really curious what that expression might be.

I'm not insisting on that.  I'm asking how you do it.

In order for President Oaks' words to have real meaning, they would need to be backed up by action.  Not attending a family member's wedding because it is a same gender marriage (when one would otherwise attend a family member's wedding) doesn't show love and respect.  Claiming that we love and respect someone but not doing anything to demonstrate that love and respect is rather hollow.

For me, communicating to someone that you love and respect them but cannot possible attend their wedding because you find it "morally repugnant" will not make that person feel loved and respected.

It would depend on the circumstances, of course. But just because you lack the imagination to consider alternative ways it might be expressed does not mean it is impossible. Again, you are engaging in the fallacy of the false dichotomy. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Who?   This hypothetical person you are just making up?

Yes, speaking hypothetically.

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If I had a niece who wanted to marry another woman and she wanted me to attend, she would know why I didn't attend and didn't show my approval for her "marriage" to another woman. 

She might think (who knows what a hypothetical person might think?) that means I do not love her or have a high regard for her as a person (respect in that sense) but I would, anyway, even if she did not think so.

As I indicated in my response to Scott:  Loving them without showing it, respecting them without them feeling respected... seems hollow to me and renders President Oaks counsel rather meaningless.

[Ahab]

Just now, rockpond said:

Yes, speaking hypothetically.

As I indicated in my response to Scott:  Loving them without showing it, respecting them without them feeling respected... seems hollow to me and renders President Oaks counsel rather meaningless.

I show my love and respect for people by pointing the way to how they can learn to be happy, letting them know what I know about how to be happy, and teaching them how to learn how they they can know for themselves about how to be happy.

Wickedness and living in sin never was happiness and never will be.  If people want to reject what I tell them about how I know to be happy, and why we should avoid sin, I allow for the idea that they need to learn by what I call "the hard way".

They'll have to experience for themselves why they should not have done what they did which led to them not being happy, either in this life or the next.  A marriage to someone of the same sex will not last forever, no longer than their mortal life time.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It would depend on the circumstances, of course. But just because you lack the imagination to consider alternative ways it might be expressed does not mean it is impossible.

I don't need to consider alternative ways... I know how to show love and respect in the situation I proposed.  It's easy.  It seems that you lack the imagination to consider alternative ways since you haven't suggested how you might accomplish it.  Or you realize that anything you do to show love and respect would also imply that you condone the "morally repugnant" behavior of her making a lifelong commitment to her wife.

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, you are engaging in the fallacy of the false dichotomy. 

The fallacy of the false dichotomy is when one suggests that there only two possible alternatives.  I have not done that.  I welcome an explanation of another alternative that meets the standard set forth by President Oaks.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I show my love and respect for people by pointing the way to how they can learn to be happy, letting them know what I know about how to be happy, and teaching them how to learn how they they can know for themselves about how to be happy.

Wickedness and living in sin never was happiness and never will be.  If people want to reject what I tell them about how I know to be happy, and why we should avoid sin, I allow for the idea that they need to learn by what I call "the hard way".

They'll have to experience for themselves why they should not have done what they did which led to them not being happy, either in this life or the next.  A marriage to someone of the same sex will not last forever, no longer than their mortal life time.

So much loving and respecting.  I'm overwhelmed.

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What planet are you living on?

Human decency teaches that we must condone homosexual behavior or pretend we do by congratulating people for it?

Where are you getting the idea that we must condone any sinful behavior or pretend that we do by congratulating people for it?

I live on planet earth.

It is decent to support people I may disagree with as long as their behavior is not a threat to me or society in general.I does not just apply to homosexual behavior.

Your definition of "sin" is formed by your belief that the people who define it as such are speaking with some supernatural power for which we have little solid evidence for existing. Thus you definition of "sin" is not a good way to to judge people by nor withhold at least your supprt that they may be happy. Keep in mind there are millions of people who are Muslim who believe you are an infidel because their prophet said so and killing you is a good thing.  This is how religion can ruin humanity.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

We were just taught by President Oaks to show love and respect to all, including LGBT persons.

When a family or close friend invites me to their wedding, I make every effort to attend.  Afterward, I give them a hug and congratulate them.

To do otherwise because the family member is marrying someone of their own sex would not be showing love and respect.

What would you do if your niece was marrying a woman and invited you?  Attend but not congratulate them?  Not attend?

Surely, a person would have to make sure that any of their children under 12 did not attend the wedding, as it might push them to have discussions about adult topics that the child isn't ready for.   Right?  

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So much loving and respecting.  I'm overwhelmed.

I have a feeling that you're being sarcastic but yes it really is a lot of love and respect.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I have a feeling that you're being sarcastic but yes it really is a lot of love and respect.

Glad you sensed that.

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I show my love and respect for people by pointing the way to how they can learn to be happy, letting them know what I know about how to be happy, and teaching them how to learn how they they can know for themselves about how to be happy.

Wickedness and living in sin never was happiness and never will be.  If people want to reject what I tell them about how I know to be happy, and why we should avoid sin, I allow for the idea that they need to learn by what I call "the hard way".

They'll have to experience for themselves why they should not have done what they did which led to them not being happy, either in this life or the next.  A marriage to someone of the same sex will not last forever, no longer than their mortal life time.

This is a great demonstration of the hubris that dogmatic conservative religions create in their true believers. 

Newsflash-you and the LDS Church do not have the only prescriptions for happiness. If it works for you great. Stop trying to shove your dogma down the rest of the worlds's throat.

and oh by the way, your marriage likely isn't lasting forever either.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Surely, a person would have to make sure that any of their children under 12 did not attend the wedding, as it might push them to have discussions about adult topics that the child isn't ready for.   Right?  

That would be a decision for the parents in consideration of their child.  I'm confident that I've been consistent on that point.

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That would be a decision for the parents in consideration of their child.  I'm confident that I've been consistent on that point.

But then that parent would not be showing love and respect, if they would normally bring their child to another wedding.  Because as you said: "To do otherwise because the family member is marrying someone of their own sex would not be showing love and respect."

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I live on planet earth.

What part?  I don't think I would ever want to end up where you are.

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is decent to support people I may disagree with as long as their behavior is not a threat to me or society in general.I does not just apply to homosexual behavior.

Supporting as in helping them to do good things, sure, but you shouldn't be helping them to do anything that is bad for them, even if they really really want you to help them do a bad thing.  That's like being an accomplice, aiding and abetting.  Not good things for you to do.

 

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Your definition of "sin" is formed by your belief that the people who define it as such are speaking with some supernatural power for which we have little solid evidence for existing. Thus you definition of "sin" is not a good way to to judge people by nor withhold at least your support that they may be happy. Keep in mind there are millions of people who are Muslim who believe you are an infidel because their prophet said so and killing you is a good thing.  This is how religion can ruin humanity.

I define "sin" as doing what I know for myself to be something that is not what I know or believe God would want me to do.  Next time just ask me how I define sin instead of supposing that you can speak to define it for me.

Basically anything that I don't feel comfortable with on a moral level, anything that goes against what my conscience or sense of right and wrong tells me is good.  I don't want to do anything I feel is not right, including not wanting to give anyone else the idea that I support them in doing anything that I believe and feel is not right.  If I don't feel good about it I don't do it and I feel that nobody else should do it either if I feel that it is wrong for them to do it.

Religion itself is not a bad thing. Religion is simply a way of life, whatever way of life you accept as the way you want to live.  I accept the religion I have because it is what feels right and good to me, even if other people say it doesn't feel right for them.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

But then that parent would not be showing love and respect, if they would normally bring their child to another wedding.  Because as you said: "To do otherwise because the family member is marrying someone of their own sex would not be showing love and respect."

If my niece were to marry another woman that would be a good reason to have any necessary conversations with my children not just so that they could attend the wedding with us but because they would be with the niece and her wife at family gatherings.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't need to consider alternative ways... I know how to show love and respect in the situation I proposed.  It's easy.  It seems that you lack the imagination to consider alternative ways since you haven't suggested how you might accomplish it.  Or you realize that anything you do to show love and respect would also imply that you condone the "morally repugnant" behavior of her making a lifelong commitment to her wife.

The fallacy of the false dichotomy is when one suggests that there only two possible alternatives.  I have not done that.  I welcome an explanation of another alternative that meets the standard set forth by President Oaks.

You are indeed giving a false dichotomy: Either attend the wedding and express pretended congratulations or you can’t show love and respect. 

I can scarcely believe you can’t come up with options on your own. But here are a few possibilities that come to mind:
 

— A phone call, letter or direct conversation expressing love and respect.  
 

— Bringing them home-cooked or baked food or garden produce. 
 

— Inviting their involvement in family gatherings and activities. 
 

— Remembering them at Christmas time or on birthdays with cards and/or gifts.

— Visiting them when they are sick, injured or hospitalized. 
 

— Running errands or doing other tasks for them when they are incapacitated  

— Taking them to or from the airport, bus or train station when needed.

— Helping them find employment opportunities. 
— Attending school or college commencement exercises or other special occasions (that do not involve celebrating homosexual behavior).

— Tutoring them or teaching them useful skills. 
— Asking their help with something.

If you really do need help imagining ways to show love and respect — ones that don’t involve giving insincere congratulations for repugnant behavior — consider this passage from Matthew 25:

“35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
“36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Newsflash-you and the LDS Church do not have the only prescriptions for happiness.

Yes we do.  There is only one way to be happy and I and the "LDS" Church (as you call it) do know which way that is.

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If it works for you great. Stop trying to shove your dogma down the rest of the worlds's throat.

Not shoving. Just offering. You can always exercise your free will to choose by rejecting what you are offered.

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and oh by the way, your marriage likely isn't lasting forever either.

Actually, likely, it will, and it likely won't be much longer until I find out for sure that it will.

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes we do.  There is only one way to be happy and I and the "LDS" Church (as you call it) do know which way that is.

So all non-LDS folk aren't happy...?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

So all non-LDS folk aren't happy...?

No, there are other true Christians in the world who are not members of the true church of Jesus Christ.   Christians who have found Jesus and know at least a little about how to be happy, even if they haven't found and joined the true Church of Christ.

We invite everyone to join with us, or if not to at least be the best kind of Christian that they know how to be.  Only through Christ can we become happy, and the more we know him the more we know about how to be happy.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are indeed suggesting a false dichotomy: either attend the wedding and express pretended congratulations or you can’t show love and respect. 

Again, I haven't since I have never suggested that those were the only options.

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

— A phone call, letter or direct conversation expressing love and respect. 
 

— Bringing them home-cooked or baked food or garden produce. 
 

— Inviting their involvement in family gatherings and activities. 
 

— Remembering them at Christmas time or on birthdays with cards and/or gifts.

— Visiting them when they are sick, injured or hospitalized. 
 

— Running errands or doing other tasks for them when they are incapacitated  

— Taking them to or from the airport, bus or train station when needed.

— Helping them find employment opportunities. 
— Attending school or college commencement exercises or other special occasions (that do not involve celebrating homosexual behavior).

These are great examples.  Thank you.

So, if you invite the newlyweds to a family gathering, send them birthday cards/gifts, call or write them to express your love and respect, etc. you feel that doesn't condone the homosexual behavior?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So all non-LDS folk aren't happy...?

I think he was saying the knowledge is found among the Latter-day Saints, not that others don’t possess the knowledge to one degree or another. But I could be wrong about what he is saying. 

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, there are other true Christians in the world who are not members of the true church of Jesus Christ.   Christians who have found Jesus and know at least a little about how to be happy, even if they haven't found and joined the true Church of Christ.

We invite everyone to join with us, or if not to at least be the best kind of Christian that they know how to be.  Only through Christ can we become happy, and the more we know him the more we know about how to be happy.

So all non-Christians are unhappy...?