- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Of course, there is history of actual church policy, and then there is how bishops and SPs interpret and enforce the policies, which could lead to a wide deviation from the standard, from ward to ward. That leads to many people sharing interesting stories over time…like “I know someone denied a recommend because they drank coke.” I’m sure it happens.
The wording about honesty doesn’t include the word “completely”. It is simply: “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?” I’ve also thought the question about supporting, affiliating with or agreeing with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the church is a somewhat odd and ambiguous question. Does this mean we cannot vote for a political candidate who committed adultry? Cannot join a professional organization that has position statements on homosexuality that doesn’t agree with the church? Cannot hang out with someone who is “Pro-Choice”? Cannot pay for cable television? ha.
I also have a suspicion that the majority of those who conduct temple interviews (even bishops and stake presidents) are secretely hoping you’ll answer with simple yes’s and no’s in the right places and not ask too many questions that would require explanations they don’t have.
Many people don’t know this, but those conducting the interview are also supposed to read a blurb about garment wearing–basically a rehash of what is told to temple patrons on their first visit. Most do not bother to read this. It can come across as patronizing and stodgy.
Heber13 wrote:“I know someone denied a recommend because they drank coke.”
This happens when extremely odd members try to get a TR, who like to drink liquid cocaine, or also an even stranger beverage made from the ashy coal product (coke) used as a fuel or in iron smelting.
They aren’t talking about Coca-Cola
😈 
Major problem with the WoW though… since giving up alcohol, I now drink industrial quantities of soft drinks. Cnsl1 wrote:I also have a suspicion that the majority of those who conduct temple interviews (even bishops and stake presidents) are secretely hoping you’ll answer with simple yes’s and no’s in the right places and not ask too many questions that would require explanations they don’t have.
When I went to the temple for the first time, I lived with a lawyer family, and he said “I’m going to coach you on your interview.. repeat after me…”
Yes…I said “yes”
Yes..I said “yes”
No….I said “no”.
Yes..[you get the idea]
Yes
No
No
There – you should do fine! He said.
Quote:Most do not bother to read this.
I doubt that, but it’s just my opinion.
You can read about and see an illustration of interview questions asked the Saints in 1857 before they could enter the Endowment House here: http://byteline.blogspot.com/2007/03/temple-recommend-questions.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://byteline.blogspot.com/2007/03/temple-recommend-questions.html They reflect the context of the times, including questions about branding an animal that you did not own and using another person’s irrigation water.
montereyredfox. thank you for the link. Very interesting information. I’ve always wondered what the early TR interviews were like & how they’ve changed over the years.
The most important part for me is in the 1st paragraph & the quotation from 1st Corinthians 11:28.
Quote:But let a man (& woman) examine himself (herself), and so let him (her) eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”
This is one of the reasons I like this site. I get information I can’t find on my own. Or, don’t necessarily think of on my own.
It doesn’t mean I automatically accept it. I always have apply common sense, prayer & consult with others before I completely change my mind.
Thanks again,
Mike from Milton.
The only valid question should be “do you consider yourself worthy to enter the house of the lord”. It is obvious that the rest change based on the whims of who is in power at church HQ. Brown, while I love the fact that the last question is phrased as it is, I do want some other qualifying questions – even if only to focus the person who is asked the last question on examples of introspection that ought to inform the answer to the final question. I don’t want a man who is a serial rapist of his own wife, a beater of his children, a drunk and an addicted gambler who doesn’t feed his children as a result, an unrepentant liar, a habitual cheater, etc. to be able to attend the temple just because he thinks those things are fine and dandy – that they don’t affect his spirituality. I want those who participate at least to be trying to be good people by some reasonable measure. It’s a fine line to walk a line by imposing a line, and it’s SO easy to cross it and get too restrictive – but, at the most fundamental level, I really do want there to be some sort of “objective” standard(s) for entrance into the “House of the Lord”.
Old-Timer wrote:I don’t want a man who is a serial rapist of his own wife, a beater of his children, a drunk and an addicted gambler who doesn’t feed his children as a result, an unrepentant liar, a habitual cheater, etc. to be able to attend the temple just because he thinks those things are fine and dandy …
But such a person
can(and likely do) attend the temple. All he has to do is lie about it. It’s not like the first time you find out it’s not okay to rape your wife is at the TR interview. I think I agree that there’s something inherently flawed about going through a list of “do”s and “don’t”s, and that the last question is really the only appropriate one. I think I’m okay with TR questions…just not some of the ones we are currently using. I mean, I can, I did tell my BP just two weeks ago that I feel that I am worthy in every way to attend the temple…
But I won’t…because I know that I can’t honestly answer many of the rest questions as expected.
Could I nuance through it – questions like WoW and tithing and sustaining the prophets and the restoration, like is talked about in the How to Stay article? Probably. But until the church accepts that kind of faith, I just don’t feel comfortable with it, and doing so for years – it has pretty well been a disaster for me.
Quote:I think I’m okay with TR questions…just not some of the ones we are currently using.
I can agree with that wording. It’s not so much the focus of the questions, but the strict wording of some of them. If the “do you ____________” ones were reworded as “do you strive to _________ to the best of your ability” – I really wouldn’t have a problem with any of them.
It will always be an imperfect process to try to systematize or standardize criteria for judging the heart of another person. We can change the questions around, but will be left with the same problem in the end. So, I can live with the current way they are trying to do it, and honestly answer in a way that is comfortable to my conscience. Quote:Do you wash your body and have your family do so, as often as health and cleanliness require and circumstances will permit?
Yeah, cause nobody wants to smell yer whole family’s butt funk when we’re all crammed into the pews together on a hot Sunday morn’. Even the Spirit flees from yer fleas!
😆 Just sayin’… If they had to ask this question, it must have been a problem.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.