- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My recommend expired back in May and originally I didn’t pursue going to an interview because I was busy with a newborn. But as time has passed and I’ve been experiencing more questions and the discomfort/uncertainty those bring, I haven’t felt right about getting my temple recommend just yet. I have a difficult time doing something if it doesn’t feel genuine, and I just don’t feel the time is right for me to answer some of those questions (although I do know there are various ways to interpret the questions and honestly answer them). I’ve been inactive lately, partly due to my baby, and partly due to the fact that I haven’t been “feeling it” lately. My husband is fully active however, and every week the bishopric approaches him and asks him when I’m going to renew my recommend. Is this normal? I have never had this happen where they have been so persistent and inquiring about this. Shouldn’t it be something I come to
themabout instead? I don’t feel comfortable confiding in them regarding my “faith crisis” because frankly, I know that they will just worry about me and try to reactivate me. Just wondering if this has happened to you, because this is the first time this has happened to me in past 12 years. Also curious how you would choose to respond. Thanks for any feedback
Yes, this seems to be a new thing. I tend to think that it’s a stat the wards are now paying attention to, like it’s the “real” active members number. I am guessing that’s what’s behind it is a leader-level push to have as many TR holders as possible. Anyone whose TR has lapsed is at risk. I’m not a fan of the pushiness of it, and frankly doing it every two years is buggy the older I get. It feels like it’s always coming up for renewal.
Wards have used percentage of temple endowed members holding a current recommend as an indicator for a LONG time, and local leaders vary radically in how proactive they are (or pushy) about it. Ideally, each person would be the one who initiated the renewal conversation, but the leaders truly believe it is important, so I don’t begrudge the focus. As with everything, some people will be upset by the reminders, while others will be upset and feel ignored without them.
Fwiw, I am glad the renewal period changed fro one year to two. Five would be nice, but I understand the logic of it not being longer than two.
As a former clerk I recall that the quarterly report included an entry for current recommend holders as percent of endowed. It’s a ready made list in the old MLS system and easy to access. The report is reviewed by the SP and then goes on to the area presidency. Elder Rasband was area president at the time and was serious about reports coming in on time so he could review the numbers. Some twenty-five years ago I remember hearing Jan Shipps talk about the church changing focus to temple attendance and as Ray said it’s used to estimate faithfulness though not in an official way like tithing and sacrament meeting attendance. I expect if you’re getting bugged it reflects either pressure downward or a bishop/branch president trying to figure out why endowed members aren’t current with their recommends. Yeah, it is a matter of leadership roulette in how pushy the bishopric is, and sometimes they are being prompted by the SP. Sometimes we just need to be willing to say “I’ll do it when I’m ready, thank you.” This situation is a little more complicated because they’re not asking you, they’re asking your husband. I’m not sure what your relationship is, but were it someone asking me about my wife I’d tell them to ask her (and she does the same). There’s a list of members that have expired temple recommends. Some stakes make it a goal to get everyone off that list or that list becomes the go to place to point out the people that need to be helped (for lack of a better word). When I was in a bishopric not too long ago, it certainly was “go find those sitting on the fence hand either get them on-board, or figure out who needed to be a project”. The SP is the one that kicked it into high gear. I had some experiences with a VERY pushy Executive Secretary about 1.5 years ago. My wife complained to the bishop and the ES later apologized.
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4879&hilit=secretary&start=30 Just this morning my bishop extended a calling for me to be scout leader for the 11 yr old scouts. I accepted and he ended the meeting by inviting me to return to paying tithing. I thanked him for the invitation and generally agreed that I needed to do that (this fits in with my general strategy of noncommittal/non-confrontational responses). He told me that I needed to take my wife to the temple and I responded that it would be a good thing for us.
Slightly ironic in that I haven’t had a calling in almost a year and as soon as I accept I get
invitedto do more and more. 😈 On the positive note, I feel that my bishop is making the invitation out of personal concern for what he thinks is best for my family and not to inflate his numbers or look good on any report.
When I was HPGL, the Bishopric required the HP leadership to approach everyone who didn’t have a recommend, or approach them, and ask them why they didn’t have one. As a good soldier, I did it, and it DID make people uncomfortable. I had my secretary make the calls a couple weeks before TR’s expired too, and he did it, but then called back and said it made people uncomfortable. He said he didn’t want to do it anymore.
I eventually asserted myself to the Bishopric about it, indicating it was not my responsibility, that issues are sensitive and needed to be handled by the Bpric who are the only ones authorized to do interviews. They ignored me, and followed up the next week with the report, and my progress with it. I asserted myself again, simply repeating myself. They stopped asking after that.
How to answer?– I told our Stake Presidency a couple years ago that “a temple recommend isn’t something I’m passionate about right now. But I am willing to do X, Y, Z in the church”. Also, coach your husband what to say — I have always thought it “weany” of leaders to pump the spouse for information. My wife knows to tell leaders to talk to me directly about their questions — and surprisingly, they rarely do.
I feel for you, no one likes the overly pushy. I wish it wasnt so. The way I see it, as I’ve been in callings where I’ve had to do the uncomfortable thing of calling people or asking them if they need an interview, that when I’m approached I understand first that it’s their job, and they’re trying their best to do a good job etc. Volunteers with no training. Second that I can respond as I wish. I have learned one of my favorite phrases, “Let me think about that and I’ll get back to you.” I agree that there are ways to redefine our viewpoints that allow room for our own answers to TR questions. I am intellectually and spiritually honest in my answers, but I don’t need to explain them.
I just received a text from the new Executive Secretary (note I had a horrible run in with the last one, DW went and complained to the bishop and the bishop told him to back off). The text reads: Bro. [Roy], I noticed that your Temple Recommend has expired. Would you be able to meet at the church tonight a 7PM for an interview? Bro. [Exc. Sec.]
I panicked some but I was thankful that this was a text message and gave me some time in determining how to form a response.
I replied: Hi Bro. [Exc. Sec.], Bishop and I are working on renewing my temple recommend. No interview will be necessary at this time. Thank you. Bro. [Roy]
He wrote back, “Thanks Bro. [Roy], I appreciate the feedback. Bro. [Exc. Sec.]
For me this was a successful experience of politely asserting boundaries without overreacting.
nomadicgal wrote:I’ve been inactive lately,
Then it sounds like maybe they’re just using the TR as a slightly more subtle way of saying “get your butt back in here on Sunday mornings.”
Roy wrote:I just received a text from the new Executive Secretary (note I had a horrible run in with the last one, DW went and complained to the bishop and the bishop told him to back off).
The text reads: Bro. [Roy], I noticed that your Temple Recommend has expired. Would you be able to meet at the church tonight a 7PM for an interview? Bro. [Exc. Sec.]
I panicked some but I was thankful that this was a text message and gave me some time in determining how to form a response.
I replied: Hi Bro. [Exc. Sec.], Bishop and I are working on renewing my temple recommend. No interview will be necessary at this time. Thank you. Bro. [Roy]
He wrote back, “Thanks Bro. [Roy], I appreciate the feedback. Bro. [Exc. Sec.]
For me this was a successful experience of politely asserting boundaries without overreacting.
I’ve always thought you were really good at these interactions with the leaders. Your response diffuses the situation, asserts your position, and keeps your options open.
The problem you run into is when you get the actual “judge in Israel” trying to get you to talk for the first time. I have had two such incidents in my life.
The first was a Bishop, and I stonewalled indicating I wasn’t comfortable sharing wjy I didn’t have a TR. But indicated sin wasn’t the reason. Stressed I had a testimony, but left it at that. When you stonewall a judge in Israsel like that there is a strong risk they, or one of their reportees, will go to your wife or family member to get your side of the story — particularly if they are fully active and have a TR. So, you have to coach your family members to make sure they don’t talk. When I refused to spill the rice and beans, he asked to meet with me annually, and at the third year, I finally shared some of my experiences that led me to feel reluctant to get a TR. The Bishop tried to convince me otherwise, but somehow I got out of there still “feasible” in the eyes of the church, but without a TR — just like I wanted. I was doing HT at the time and occasionally had a calling.
But my disclosure caused an upleasant situation — the problem was that the two concerns I shared — how hard it was to get the church to help me when I needed non-financial help during an adoption, and how I saw that same “tight-fistedness” when people came to the church for church welfare (not me). They would pay tithing all their life and then, when they had financial trouble, seemed to owe the church with chapel cleaning, expected to serve in callings, hold a TR in some cases, and cut their minimal cable bill (at the time) to get “self reliant” etcetera — lots of strings attached and expected in spite of having given 10s and 10’s of thousands of dollars to the church, foregone many comforts and sometimes necessaries of life. it didn’t seem right to me, after people would give up so much money their whole life without any strings attached at all.
I said it made it hard for me to feel it was worth it to pay my tithing. That I had been let down so many times (I had other big stories like this) that I questioned if this organization would ever be present t help me if I ever needed anything in the future I could not provide myself. I said I didn’t see the church as reciprocal in giving up its resources to others even though I would normally make huge sacrifices to pay tithing.
I wondered if my BP ran to our SP because in in our next STake Conference, I was sitting in the audience and a member of the SP said “if you have a problem with tithing or the church welfare program then you can’t have salvation in the CElestial Kingdom” — and he looked straight at me when he said it. End of full disclosure to my BP thereafter. I wondered if the SP comments was really was directed at me, or if it was a coincidence, but it seemed to close in time to my disclosure to my BP, and he did seem to lock eyes right at me.
The other run-in was with a SP. This was after the BP experience, and after years of holding a TR again.
It was clear to me a GA was coming to town, because the Stake Exec sec set up the appointment, and it got to the TR pretty quick. Having learned from the BP experience years previously, I simply said “a TR isn’t something we are passionate about right now”. I stressed it wasn’t due to sin, just that we had discussed it and didn’t feel that a TR was something we wanted at this point. But that we hoped we might in the future. Nonetheless, what shut down the conversation was my statement that “We’ve been in the church long enough that a discussion of point and counterpoint about the pros of a TR probably wouldn’t be productive”. For some reason, they didn’t push the issue. But there was a force field between their thoughts and us, in the meeting after that. There were circumstances they might have known about — we had left the stake for our church attendance due to bullying of my daughter, they had isntalled a really BAD Bishop in the Ward who had offended everyone (and this SP was too proud to release him) — perhaps they made their own assumptions about our reasons.
I made a phone call after the meeting and learned an Apostle was coming to the local Stake and had asked the SP to find “the one” — which was a lost sheep the Apostle could meet with an “challenge” to come back to full church activity. This was the SP’s reason for swooping down into our home. At least they thought we were feasible!
I was tempted in the meeting with SP to counter his question “We don’t you have a TR?” with the statement “An Apostle is coming to town for a Stake Conference soon, that’s why you’re here — right???”. But that would have been too sarcastic. So I kept silent about that. The other advantage of this meeting was my wife was present, unlike in the BP meeting I quoted previously. She decided just to nod her head in support and do what we could to send the SP and his Exec Sec on their way. I think if your spouse is present, and supports you in what you are saying, there is a chance no one will hunt them down for a more candid discussion about your reasons for not wanting a TR. As a result, there were no consequences to our meeting I am aware of.
Anyway, every leader is different.
These kinds of polite assertions that keep your options open do a lot of bring these conversations to a soft landing so you can get out of there.I feel that if I went back to church and requested a TR, it would be a matter of obeying a couple of the non-moral commandments again and answering the questions based on shades of belief and I could have one.
I am thinking that shutting it down at the Exec Sec level is better — avoid the appointment altogether. In the latter case I quoted here, we didn’t now the purpose of the visit as the Stake Exec Sec wouldn’t tell me on the phone. In this case it’s harder because you don’t want to “snub” a priesthood leader by not letting them come to you. So, you have to be prepared with strategies for possible paths the discussion might take. If the question is about your commitment, or your TR, then giving no story, assurances that sin is not the issue, that you have hope and some shade of testimony helps keep your options open.
My husband requires that I hold a TR, but he doesn’t require that I attend the temple. (In the nearly 2 years since we renewed, I have been to the temple 0 times, and he’s been on a youth temple trip, but hasn’t done an endowment session.) He’s the one who makes the appointments when it’s time to re-up, although he doesn’t sweat it if they lapse for a few months. (Even though our SP looooooooves to tell a story about shaming people whose TRs have expired, by pointing out that you’d never let your driver’s license or your credit card expire.) So actually I am grateful that my husband basically shields me from any ecclesiastical badgering. It’s a lot easier to explain to my husband that I don’t want to GO to the temple (he doesn’t either, but for different reasons) than it is to explain to the bishop why I don’t feel the need to hold a TR. The only reason I have shared with Bishop about my faith crisis is the stillbirth of my daughter and my shock and dismay at not receiving God’s divine protection. I believe that this is the least threatening posture that I can take because it does not point criticism or blame at the church. I went through some emotional trauma and I am still dealing with it. That is the posture that I take.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.