- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t post here very much, OK, maybe not at all, but mostly on NOM and RfM. But I’d like a more “in the church” perspective than “out of the church” perspective on this question. The question is, suppose you had to relinquish your recommend to the Bishop. You consider yourself worthy in every way to attend the temple, and want to attend the temple regularly. However, the bishop has decided that you are not worthy to attend the temple for his own reasons. For example, your spouse no longer pays tithing, so the bishop takes away your spouse’s recommend and your recommend. Would you consider yourself “disgraced” or “shamed” in any way? Or would you simply relinquish the TR without a second thought? At this point in my journey I have let my recommend expire without much turmoil, and I can envision going to a wedding or such without any worry about whether I am inside or outside the temple. And maybe next year I will get one again. Who knows. But it seems for me the current answer is that I would hope to simply take it in stride knowing that it is merely an earthly innovation with no real necessity for me personally. I would hope to consider any feelings of attachment to the recommend as indications of my own personal bondage to the chains of the sleep of mortality (the ego sleep). And if I felt them, I would probably go read the Tao Te Ching or Tolle’s “A New Earth”.
Quote:For example, your spouse no longer pays tithing, so the bishop takes away your spouse’s recommend and your recommend.
All other questions about how I would feel aside for the moment, the situation above should never happen, unless there is more to it than what is written above. One spouse isn’t supposed to lose their recommend because another spouse stops paying tithing. There’s no question about it – no gray area – no personal interpretation power with the Bishop; it shouldn’t happen. Period. Full stop. End of discussion. There are multiple thousands of members, at least, who have a temple recommend and a spouse who doesn’t pay tithing. So, in this scenario, I would not give up my recommend – and I would appeal to the Stake President or higher, if necessary, when it came time to renew my recommend.
The situation can and will be seen by some people as a public shaming, no doubt about that. As Tom pointed out we ultimately choose how we are going to feel about any situation however. My initial response was more like Ray’s — normally if someone considers themself worthy to attend the temple (the last interview question) they should be able to. That is the direction that I would personally take the issue.
The reason I ask is that this borders on extortion, but it really isn’t extortion. Here in California, in order to prove extortion, which is a felony, there has to be threat of some sort. Threat of physical harm, threat of having a secret revealed, a threat of being disgraced, or a threat of being reported to authorities. The threat of having a TR taken away isn’t really a threat, once I thought about it. Having a TR is basically a priviledge that the church as a private organization grants to someone, and they have the right to take it away if they want to. I believe there is even verbiage on the TR that states as much. Maybe it isn’t extortion, but I agree, threatening to take someone else’s recommend away for non-payment of tithe still wrong. A person on their way out may not care if they lose their TR priviledges, so some bishops figure they will use any leverage they can, even if it includes potentially disrupting a marriage. I used to visit visit teach a sister in our ward who was told by her bishop that unless she loved her husband (who was cheating on her and hit her) she would loose her TR. Her teenage son and other kids testified this happened to me and that their step dad even punched their mom in the stomach while pregnant. This sister and her kids were so shocked that this bishop would act this way, so she went over his head to the SP. The stake president asked her if she loved her husband and she said, “No, he is cheating on me and hits me, so no I don’t love him.” He told her that there are so few priesthood holders in the area and that they need her husband so to continue to love him. When she said “No, I can’t, he told her to give him her TR and that she should no longer wear her temple garments. There was a good ol boy system going on there because her husband was in the high council. Finally, with the help of her dad in another state and with avadavids of the women he cheated with, these corrupt men got taken down. I was simply shocked that this kind of thing happens in the church, but it is not something we should put up with. [Let me make this very clear as an admin:Worthiness standards for holding a temple recommend can be discussed freely, as well as how those standards are enforced and power abused in individual situations, but equating the enforcement of standards to extortion will not be tolerated. It isn’t extortion or anything like unto it, as a general rule. Period.
We aren’t that type of site. Everyone who participates here knows there’s no anger in that response. I’m simply stating that there are some lines we won’t cross here – and that is one of them.]
Now, as to the actual scenarios that have been presented, they both are egregious and WRONG. They should not happen – and they don’t happen often – but they do happen.
“It is our sad experience . . . unrighteous dominion . . . a little authority, as they suppose.”The question at this site is what we should do in situations like that. In both cases, I would keep my recommend, keep wearing the garment, keep attending the temple and appeal all the way to the top, if necessary – quietly and calmly and resolutely. I wouldn’t broadcast it agressively to everyone, but I absolutely would raly the support of understanding leaders. Ain’t no way I’d give up my recommend because of those situations. Jut ain’t no way.
There will always be bishops/BP who will use their position and power unjustly. The scenarios I’ve read in this thread, if true and all the facts have been stated, are examples of horrible abuse of power. I personally doubt that we are getting the whole story, no offense to anyone meant, but often times there is a ton more details that we miss when trying to summary a particular situation like this. I’m also glad to hear that the leaders in BN case were “corrected”. I don’t like the extortion terminology. I think that is a gross overstatement of the way the church politics work. Sure the church (like ALL churches) will use “shame and guilt” to try to control one’s behavior and faith. I don’t think it is intentionally malicious necessary, but shame and guilt are part of religion, and I think when one has been taught that temples are the ultimate form of worship and righteousness , and the “end-all cure-all” ultimate goal and focus within mormonism, this kind of thinking is bound to happen within the culture. I certainly believe we have a caste system or a tier system within the church – those who have TR and those who don’t.
And that is a shame.I think Tom’s response is how I would respond to. I no longer have a TR – been expired for two years this March. I haven’t been to the temple in at least 11 years. I find that the temple and the LDS teachings of the temple really don’t work for me, and I only got a TR a few years back so I could hold certain callings in the branch. So I would have given up the TR, and walked away. It, and the temple are no longer the focus and goal of my membership within the LDS church.
I agree with Ray that it doesn’t sound like the correct application of church policy, knowing the limited information we have from your description. So it boils down to this: 1. If you want a TR — fight it. I think you would be in the right. Take it up the chain.
2. If you don’t want a TR — it doesn’t really matter, but you still have to deal with the shame/guilt cultural aspect.
I haven’t had a TR in a good 6+ year, by my own choice. I just am not interested enough, and I have other reasons. It’s a calculated decision that I make. That is why I brought up #2 above. I am somewhat active in church. I go most Sundays and participate. Guess what? In all those years, I doubt more than a handful of people know I don’t have a TR. It was kind of amusing to find out how little people care, hehe.
If anyone asks, I tell them (with a kind smile on my face, and in a serious voice) “I’m just not into the whole temple thing right now,” and I leave it at that. They really don’t want to know, so that ends the topic. It’s none of their business anyways. One of the hardest things for us to do in our faith journey is to STOP needing validation from people. It’s also the most rewarding.
It would probably bother me at first. But in the end, I don’t really care much for the TR and the Temple Experience. It would also relieve me of the pressure I feel to do certain things because I hold a TR. It would probably accelerate my demise in the Church somewhat, particularly if my children were grown. It would also support my current state of not wanting any significant leadership positions for a while. I have to face something like this in tithing settlement since the numbers I’m putting out for tithing are nowhere near 10% of my income, but I think I have sound financial calculations to offset my income (losses) that justify the amounts paid. We have a new and apparently floundering Bishop, so I don’t know how he will interpret my payment of tithing. If he revokes my recommend…then….I will have to deal with it then. The biggest kicker for me is that my son is getting baptized in the first quarter of 2011, and I don’t know how hard the new Bishop will be on me about it.
That would be the hardest aspect to swallow of losing my TR. I would probably opt for a small ceremony with someone close to me performing the confirmation so it wasn’t widely known of was TR-less.
Just for the record, the new CHI is crystal clear that not having a temple recommend does not disqualify someone automatically from baptizing his children. The only thing that is mentioned as a reason for exclusion is “unresolved serious sins”. I know that’s ambiguous enough to be a concern for those with hardcore, extreme Bishops, but it also leaves tons of room for someone to have all kinds of “issues” and still allow someone to baptize his children (and ordain his sons to the Aaronic Priesthood). I know I wouldn’t view Word of Wisdom issues as “serious sins” – unless someone was a fall-down drunk, perhaps. I also wouldn’t view non-payment of tithing as a serious sin – and I think the vast majority of Bishops would agree with me on both of those cases.
SilentDawning wrote:We have a new and apparently floundering Bishop, so I don’t know how he will interpret my payment of tithing.
FYI if you pay tithing electronically directly to Salt Lake your bishop will not have the opportunity to interpret the amount.
We have a really great bishop in this way. At tithing settlement he makes an obivious point of not looking at the dollar amount. He says his job is to make a note of our declaration to the Lord, not to interpret or investigate it.
Hey A recomend is given or not depending upon your worthiness not that of your spouse. If your bishop won’t go by the Church HandBook of Instruction, then ask a member of the stake presidency. Do you have any friends that are former bishops? Perhaps someone that can clue the man in that he is oversteping his authority?
Good luck
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.