- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
11. Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations? No poll needed on this question. Not sure what to discuss on this question.
I have seen this question being used as a weapon in divorces, and then I’ve also seen people somehow get by on not paying child support and still maintain a TR.
Personal opinion? If someone has an obligation toward a former spouse or children, then they oughta pay it. I’m not sure how it equates to temple — i kind of think it is covered with the ‘honest in your dealings’ question.
If anyone has thoughts here, please post away.
It’s a redundant question that was added to address a specific problem (a very serious problem, imo) that must have been (still is?) large enough to make it be a separate question. In theory, this is what I don’t want to happen (more specific questions), but I can see and respect the reason for this one. I’d like to see it disappear, but I’m not invested emotionally in it in any way.
N/A to me and seems redundant given the earlier questions about family relationships. My guess it that this question was reactionary to a real issue. n/a = not applicable. I was married in the temple back in 1972. At that time, this question wasn’t asked. I wish it would of been.
As I’ve mention before, I’m a convert to the church. I joined with the my first wife.
About (2) weeks after being baptised, she decided she wanted a divorce.
About (2) years later I met my current wife & we decided to be married in the temple.
My Bishop knew about the divorce & new the circumstances.
We got to Utah & went to get our marriage license. There is a state requirement that you must show you are current in support payments & have permission
from the county where the divorce took place. We really had to jump through hoops to full fill this requirement. My exwife had to get involved, etc.
It was a mess.
We just celebrated our 40th anniversary. Talk about miracles.
Mike from Milton.
mike, that’s really touching. Congrats of 40 years. This is now the 2nd question that I could answer correctly 
For this one I don’t have a problem with the concept of keeping up with support payments. But the more jaded side of me thinks the question made it into the TR questions because the church got tired of making welfare payments to single mothers whose fathers had abdicated their financial responsibility. I see the question’s presence in the TR rooted more in management than in morality. More in serving organizational interests than in helping coax others to a higher road. I don’t condone the fathers’/mothers’ behavior in avoiding support payments, and agree that a person should keep those obligations. However, the possible linking of church financial interests to this issue is what bothers me here. Smart from a business standpoint, however, you know how I feel about what I call Churchitis. That is what this question means to me.
I have never been divorced and would keep those obligations if I had them, I know it, so I could answer Yes to this question.
SilentDawning wrote:…I see the question’s presence in the TR rooted more in management than in morality. More in serving organizational interests than in helping coax others to a higher road.
Perhaps this insight could be said about several of these questions?
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
It’s an important issue for sure. But I don’t think the temple recommend interview is the right place to preach or enforce it. It’s a strange place to police this social problem in our day.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.