Jump to content

Penalties for not being vaccinated?


Recommended Posts

A relative has reported that in their area temple recommends are being withheld from people who choose not to be vaccinated for COVID on the grounds that they are not sustaining the First Presidency. What think ye?

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
Just now, bluebell said:

I don't think that will stand and I think that the bishop or stake president who is doing it is misguided.  Strict obedience to the prophet's requests or teachings has never, in and of itself, been necessary to be worthy to go to the temple.

 

I've been in a lot of wards and stakes where leaders came up with insane local rules. Our bishop in Texas, for example, made the Relief Society room off-limits for any meetings other than Relief Society, as it was a sacred room consecrated for one purpose. Needless to say, it caused a problem when there wasn't enough classroom space during Sunday School. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A relative has reported that in their area temple recommends are being withheld from people who choosing to [not?] be vaccinated for COVID on the grounds that they are not sustaining the First Presidency. What think ye?

I'm assuming you are missing a "not" in the above?

As for what I think, I suppose if they are likewise withholding temple recommends from women with multiple piercings, members who watch rated "R" movies, those who imbibe in energy drinks, etc. then I suppose they would at least be consistent in their zealotry, but it definitely sounds like they are taking things too far.

If I were them, I would run this up the chain of command and get my temple recommend renewed.

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm assuming you are missing a "not" in the above?

As for what I think, I suppose if they are likewise withholding temple recommends from women with multiple piercings, members who watch rated "R" movies, those who imbibe in energy drinks, etc. then I suppose they would at least be consistent in their zealotry, but it definitely sounds like they are taking things too far.

If I were them, I would run this up the chain of command and get my temple recommend renewed.

 

Thanks. I fixed it. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A relative has reported that in their area temple recommends are being withheld from people who choosing not to be vaccinated for COVID on the grounds that they are not sustaining the First Presidency. What think ye?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

It is a terrible idea to do that.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A relative has reported that in their area temple recommends are being withheld from people who choosing not to be vaccinated for COVID on the grounds that they are not sustaining the First Presidency. What think ye?

 

I think it's a load of nonsense. You're not supposed to add additional conditions to the recommend questionnaire. 

An observation: the National Health Service in the United Kingdom employs a lot of health professionals. They set a deadline by which all NHS employees had to receive at least 1 vaccination or be terminated. So many NHS doctors and nurses (and others) refused to get the jab that a week or two before the deadline they had to cancel the plan. If they had gone through with it, health services in the entire country would have become a complete mess. Lots of people in the NHS think the "jab" is a load of hooey, either because they don't believe the vaxx have been tested adequately, or they don't believe it is truly effective while having negative potentials. My wife is a NHS nurse, and she got the "jab", as did I. Her son is a porter in an NHS hospital; he has refused the vaxx. At least one of my wife's fellow nurses has refused the vaxx as well. My wife and I both caught Covid last month. My stepson, despite working full time in a hospital, and living with us, hasn't gotten Covid, and neither has my wife's fellow nurse.

Monkeypox, anyone?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have it on good authority the primary method of transmission is gay orgies. I have decided to only attend every other month out of an abundance of caution.

We need a month long gay sex ban to slow the spread. And maybe even a whole year of things go like they did with Covid and masks

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A relative has reported that in their area temple recommends are being withheld from people who choose not to be vaccinated for COVID on the grounds that they are not sustaining the First Presidency. What think ye?

 

If the person answered “no” to the question of sustaining the first presidency due to their position on vaccination…

If they can’t answer the question in the affirmative, why should they get one?   If it caused them to lose faith in our leaders - no recommend.  I have seen it happen. There are LOTS over on ldsfreedom foreign who have publicly testified of their loss of faith in the prophet, and even the church. 

It would be the same as someone saying they don’t sustain church leadership anymore because of their position on blacks and the priesthood, etc.

If however the person still sustains church leadership despite their admonishing on vaccines, then they should get a recommend.  
 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A relative has reported that in their area temple recommends are being withheld from people who choose not to be vaccinated for COVID on the grounds that they are not sustaining the First Presidency. What think ye?

 

IF this clearly and actually happened then it should be stopped.

People will make their own rules, sometimes stupid, at times and that should be stopped. Others who go see leaders will misunderstand what was done or mix things up etc.  So sometimes it is not the leader who has the problem.

Personally, in this case, I would have to ask the specific leader, "If your ward member isn't vaccinated, but is worthy in every other way, will you sign his or her reccomend?" before I will believe that someone is being penalized for not being vaccinated.

Link to comment

I am wondering who is provoking this. Leaders adding additional questions (believable, it happens in my stake)? Or members trying to provoke a showdown by asking if rejecting the counsel of the prophet means they aren’t sustaining the prophets or answering “no” to that question and explaining it that way (also very believable)?

Edit: Others said it better. took too long to post.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A relative has reported that in their area temple recommends are being withheld from people who choose not to be vaccinated for COVID on the grounds that they are not sustaining the First Presidency. What think ye?

 

The relative has got to be making this up or misunderstood something that he heard. I can see them asking members to wear masks to protect all the old temple workers who may be vulnerable but that would also not be a temple recommend requirement. 
The Sacramento temple site says. "Masks may be required depending on local government restrictions." Nothing about vaccinations.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JAHS said:

The relative has got to be making this up or misunderstood something that he heard. I can see them asking members to wear masks to protect all the old temple workers who may be vulnerable but that would also not be a temple recommend requirement. 
The Sacramento temple site says. "Masks may be required depending on local government restrictions." Nothing about vaccinations.

He says he knows such people in his stake and surrounding stakes. I suspect there is probably more to their stories than they are letting on..

Link to comment
15 hours ago, JAHS said:

The relative has got to be making this up or misunderstood something that he heard. I can see them asking members to wear masks to protect all the old temple workers who may be vulnerable but that would also not be a temple recommend requirement. 
The Sacramento temple site says. "Masks may be required depending on local government restrictions." Nothing about vaccinations.

I can believe that a Stake Presidency is asking additional Temple Recommend questions on their own authority. It is bad but it is completely believable.

I can also believe that individuals are protesting the prophet’s counsel of vaccines by intentionally contesting the questions in the interview to hold their own recommend hostage to make a point. Insert Willy Wonka meme: “No. Stop. Don’t.” This is also believable.

It could even be the Stake Presidency asking more searching questions and others using this as a pretext to intentionally contest the questions and both are true.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I can believe that a Stake Presidency is asking additional Temple Recommend questions on their own authority. It is bad but it is completely believable.

I can also believe that individuals are protesting the prophet’s counsel of vaccines by intentionally contesting the questions in the interview to hold their own recommend hostage to make a point. Insert Willy Wonka meme: “No. Stop. Don’t.” This is also believable.

It could even be the Stake Presidency asking more searching questions and others using this as a pretext to intentionally contest the questions and both are true.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time local leaders went "beyond the mark." 

Link to comment
On 8/1/2022 at 3:28 PM, Bernard Gui said:

A relative has reported that in their area temple recommends are being withheld from people who choose not to be vaccinated for COVID on the grounds that they are not sustaining the First Presidency. What think ye?

 

Ask then for a CFR IRL

Link to comment

IF the situation is as described, the member should go to the 70 and complain.  The Ward / Stake is waaaaay out of line here.  It could be true as our SP for a time was making up his own rules and line of questioning for missionaries before he would sign their papers.

Hopefully thereis more to the story than what the relative related to OP.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Durangout said:

IF the situation is as described, the member should go to the 70 and complain.  The Ward / Stake is waaaaay out of line here.  It could be true as our SP for a time was making up his own rules and line of questioning for missionaries before he would sign their papers.

Hopefully there is more to the story than what the relative related to OP.

What happened with your SP?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...