- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Most looked the same, or similar enough. This one stood out: Before:
Quote:Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
After:
Quote:Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
If we could nail down what a doctrine was I’d probably find myself supporting a contrary doctrine.
I am in the process of asking my local leaders if the Church just prohibited me from attending the temple. I am fairly certain that is happening a lot right now. There’s still wiggle room. “Support or promote” doesn’t mean the same thing as “agree with.” Still, it’s baffling how in 2019 the temple recommend has more than one question. Of course I’d like to do away with temple recommend interviews altogether. Maybe that makes me have to answer yes to this particular question.
🙂 When it comes to good works taught in the church, I used to get so annoyed when many Christians outside of the church would accuse of believing our works save us and not grace, as the old argument/debate goes. Now after my faith transition, I think in many ways they’re right. Unfortunately, too many of these Christians tend to get too pushy when it comes to sharing the Gospel, according to what I’ve experienced. nibbler wrote:
There’s still wiggle room. “Support or promote” doesn’t mean the same thing as “agree with.”Still, it’s baffling how in 2019 the temple recommend has more than one question. Of course I’d like to do away with temple recommend interviews altogether. Maybe that makes me have to answer yes to this particular question.
🙂
I can’t say I have expressly promoted gay marriage but I do support it and agree with it. I’m not of a mind to ask the question of my SP at the moment, although if the topic comes up I will. My recommend is good until next year and I suppose I will ask then. FWIW, I haven’t actually been to the temple in almost 2 years and there are no family temple events in the horizon. I’m good for the moment.
My new Bishop doesn’t know me very well yet, and I have not met my new Stake President, so I decided to talk with a two friends I have known for quite a while about it. They both have been Bishops and served in multiple bishoprics (and other ward and stake leadership callings). They also are totally committed to the Church. Their answers were very similar. My summary is:
Quote:If it meant disagreeing with any policy, doctrine, or practice, there would be very few members left – so it can’t mean that. Therefore, it has to mean the same basic thing it has been understood to mean in the past, just not limited to polygamous groups. In shorthand, it used to mean support of organizations that oppose the Church itself and publicly promoting opposition to the Church. That still is how I am going to view it, because I don’t want to take away the temple recommends of nearly all members within my stewardship.
One of them mentioned movements inside the Church to force change that weren’t organized into a particular “organization” (like Denver Snuffer) as a possible reason why “organization” was removed.
I agree with that view. Unless there is clarification from SLC, that is how I am going to interpret it – and stick with a simple “no”.
Another friend with a similar background mentioned that “support” was in the last version, so the difference is between “affiliate with” and “promote”. Promote actually is a more active verb, so he thinks the new version allows affiliation as long as active promotion doesn’t occur. He sees it as more narrow than the last one. I personally think that might be a bit of a stretch, but it is enlightening that many traditional, orthodox members and leaders are looking for ways to keep it from being used as an excuse to take away recommends. (One friend did mention the possibility that some Bishops with “Gospel hobby horses” might abuse it, but he pointed out they probably were doing so already if they were inclined that way.)
As long as I stay anonymous, I’m not worried. At least, not for now. I don’t think everyone agrees with the church on all items anyway. The more experienced you get, the more you see things more clearly, or more “grayly”. Side by side wording comparisons. Quote:Old Timer wrote:Quote:publicly promoting opposition to the Church.
To me, this really says it all. My previous bishop knew about my affiliation with Mormons Building Bridges and was fine with it. He didn’t see it as a group that was promoting opposition to the church and I certainly don’t. Since I’ve discussed it with him at length, and have his blessing, I figure I don’t have to run it by every bishop I have in the future. Obviously the LGBT issues, including the POX, aren’t the only issues members might have problems with, but for me, it’s the biggie, and for me, the matter is solved.
Do you think these new questions make it more difficult for someone with unorthodox views to get a recommend? I think a lot of these questions, if taken very literally could weed a lot of people out. Question 9 seems to cover personal views that go against the Church, even if they are not made public. If someone personally thinks gay marriage is OK, they could see Question 9 as disqualifying them from having a recommend. I wonder if we will see a dip in people getting recommends and if these will be quietly adjusted. Quote:Do you think these new questions make it more difficult for someone with unorthodox views to get a recommend? I think a lot of these questions, if taken very literally could weed a lot of people out. Question 9 seems to cover personal views that go against the Church, even if they are not made public. If someone personally thinks gay marriage is OK, they could see Question 9 as disqualifying them from having a recommend. I wonder if we will see a dip in people getting recommends and if these will be quietly adjusted.
I see it as opposite. On another thread Nibbler explained that we are losing people, at least apathetically, my guess is temple attendance is also on the down turn. These are grayer, you can slide through better.
mom3 wrote:
Quote:Do you think these new questions make it more difficult for someone with unorthodox views to get a recommend? I think a lot of these questions, if taken very literally could weed a lot of people out. Question 9 seems to cover personal views that go against the Church, even if they are not made public. If someone personally thinks gay marriage is OK, they could see Question 9 as disqualifying them from having a recommend. I wonder if we will see a dip in people getting recommends and if these will be quietly adjusted.
I see it as opposite. On another thread Nibbler explained that we are losing people, at least apathetically, my guess is temple attendance is also on the down turn. These are grayer, you can slide through better.
That’s a good point, and RMN did preface the announcement with a statement about wanting as many people as possible to be able to enjoy the blessings of the temple.
felixfabulous wrote:
Do you think these new questions make it more difficult for someone with unorthodox views to get a recommend? I think a lot of these questions, if taken very literally could weed a lot of people out. Question 9 seems to cover personal views that go against the Church, even if they are not made public. If someone personally thinks gay marriage is OK, they could see Question 9 as disqualifying them from having a recommend. I wonder if we will see a dip in people getting recommends and if these will be quietly adjusted.
I think the previous questions if taken exactly literally could also “weed” people out. I honestly don’t think that’s mostly their intent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.