- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was talking with a friend today who is in a calling where he conducts temple recommend interviews. We got to talking about those interviews (a subject we had not discussed previously), and he shared the following: Quote:When I was getting married, my Stake President insisted I cut my hair before he would sign my recommend. Nobody’s personal opinion should keep anyone else from attending the temple, so my interviews are short and to the point. I ask the questions; people answer the questions; it isn’t my job to challenge those questions in any way; if the person answers properly, I sign the recommend. Their worthiness is between them and God, not them and me.
I mentioned that I tell people all the time that they don’t have to understand the questions the same way the people asking the questions understand them, and he nodded vigorously and said he agrees completely and would never ask anyone to explain what they thought the questions meant.
This person is a totally active, faithful member. His views aren’t all traditional or stereotypical, but nobody questions his worthiness or faithfulness. I would say he has a personal, nuanced faith. It was another witness to me that more people are like us here in important ways than we tend to realize.
I have to ask the question: If it’s between me & God, why is there a PIA (person in authority) asking me the questions? The answer is probably, this is the church policy.
He actually mentioned that he sees his role as being one of three witnesses to the declaration of worthiness: the person being interviewed and the two interviewers. I thought that was a great perspective and totally forgot to share it in the post. Thanks for the reminder.
I like that idea. Never looked at that way. Thanks for sharing, Ray. I agree that there are more nuanced members out there than we sometimes realize. They may not be as nuanced as people here, but I think there are degrees (for lack of a better word). It has been a long time since I was in a bishopric, and I was much more orthodox and hardline in those days. Still, I never saw my role as that of an inquisitor. I used to think (and still believe) the TR questions are more about personal reflection than they are about judgment. I think we are meant to be our own “judges” in those interviews. I never probed beyond the written questions (the instructions say not to anyway), and frankly the interviews I disliked most were the ones where people felt like they had to explain their answers and/or give me more detail – I really didn’t want to hear it. I thought that if someone lied they were really only lying to themselves and it was between them and God anyway. Rather than seeing myself as a judge, I saw myself as just someone who asked the questions on behalf of God. (I no longer believe the questions are actually from God, but I do think they are
for the most partmeasures of being and doing “good.”) I could buy the witness idea as stated above. That said, there is always good old leadership roulette. Last month it was time for my recently returned missionary son to get his recommend renewed (mission president TRs aren’t good for as long as regular ones anymore). He is pretty nuanced for someone his age and status, thanks in part to his mission president. So, he was prepared to go in to his BYU bishop (who he hadn’t interviewed with before) and just answer yes and no as required. He was shocked (shocked enough that he called me right after the interview) when the bishop in the “pre-interview” asked him about porn and masturbation. While he wanted to say it was none of his business, he also wanted a TR and ecclesiastical endorsement. He answered, and the bishop shocked him even further by asking him if he had any issues with porn or masturbation
beforehis mission. How is that even relevant? I will note here that he was not asked about either in his interviews prior to serving – by either our bishop or SP. So, the BYU bishop sidestepped the question by asking before the written questions. There are indeed both types of leaders out there and everything in between – we just happen to have a good luck of the draw here. DarkJedi wrote:There are indeed both types of leaders out there and everything in between
I agree. So what is the advice on teaching our children to prepare for or know how to answer these?
As Ray’s story points out…even the compassionate stake presidency member had a leader ask very off-script questions which impacted him to be different, but it will vary, and is likely to happen.
It can be hard to explain to kids how to answer, because I don’t know if they will be mature enough to tell a leader “Those aren’t the questions you should ask me.” Most likely, my kids would not lie and be subject to a “out of bounds” worthiness interview, because you can’t just not answer. This could lead to delays in missions or temple marriage (and their dad getting protective and upset).
What’s the advice for prepping our kids for interviews?
Good question. I actually got a bit agitated at the SP holding up one of my sons mission papers because he had masturbated a few months back. I even got him to admit that it is not defined as a sin per some leaders comments but he then said we still need to make sure he does not have the habit. I couldn’t respond without starting a fight. It delayed him about a month+ and that impacted him on his return home and getting ready for school. I wish I would have known SP’s were still holding that line as I have heard others that were not. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is a good question. My son went in all prepared for the yes or no questions and got blindsided. In an interview like that I could get away with saying things that he might not be able to. While I’m not quick on my feet, in retrospect, and were it me, I might say “If you’re asking me if I live the law of chastity, then yes I do. Are you asking the questions out of order for a reason?” But I’m not sure most young men would do that or could get away with it. Old-Timer wrote:I was talking with a friend today who is in a calling where he conducts temple recommend interviews. We got to talking about those interviews (a subject we had not discussed previously), and he shared the following:
Quote:When I was getting married, my Stake President insisted I cut my hair before he would sign my recommend. Nobody’s personal opinion should keep anyone else from attending the temple, so my interviews are short and to the point. I ask the questions; people answer the questions; it isn’t my job to challenge those questions in any way; if the person answers properly, I sign the recommend. Their worthiness is between them and God, not them and me.
I mentioned that I tell people all the time that they don’t have to understand the questions the same way the people asking the questions understand them, and he nodded vigorously and said he agrees completely and would never ask anyone to explain what they thought the questions meant.
This person is a totally active, faithful member. His views aren’t all traditional or stereotypical, but nobody questions his worthiness or faithfulness. I would say he has a personal, nuanced faith. It was another witness to me that more people are like us here in important ways than we tend to realize.
I think this is more the norm than the exception. I think I recall a leader asking clarifying questions in a TR interview in the distant past, but nothing like that for the past 10 years or so with a sample of 6-7 different priesthood leaders.
In the past 15 years I’ve had one leader go off script with the questions. He was a counselor in stake presidency and it was a fairly innocuous question – something regarding testimony. For pre-missionary interviews the bishop and stake president have enormous discretion about what types of questions. My stake president raked me over the coals for my mission interview – it lasted about 90 minutes. And I didn’t really have much to talk about.
This would be the very simplest of things to standardize, wouldn’t it? (In the leaders’ handbook or in training meetings….) Why does the church choose not to? ITT I see a few people talking about the SP interview for prospective missionaries. Does a TR interview alone qualify someone to serve a mission or might we expect leaders to “go beyond” in those circumstances? Ann wrote:This would be the very simplest of things to standardize, wouldn’t it? (In the leaders’ handbook or in training meetings….) Why does the church choose not to?
I believe they have. In the past I distinctly remember it being announced (maybe in PH?) that all TR interviews would include a question about viewing pornography. I have trouble with the passage of time but I want to say it was over a dozen years ago. I remember one interview under that policy but it was quickly changed. Now, for the longest time, our local leaders have done a
verygood job of sticking to the written questions. They have the book with the written questions open and they read the language exactly as written, sacrament prayer style. Heber13 wrote:What’s the advice for prepping our kids for interviews?
Tell them what questions to expect. Tell them that they aren’t expected to answer any questions beyond what is dictated by the current policies. Tell them what the questions are asking and what the questions aren’t asking. That comes first and will probably cover 90% of their experiences.
The real issue is how to prepare them for when leaders do go off script. That’s a toughie. Perhaps I could borrow a page out of the leader 101 manual and coach my kid to answer the question they should have asked rather than the question that they asked.
Q: Do you drink tea?
A: I keep the Word of Wisdom.
Q: Do you [insert latest beat around the bush phrase to avoid saying the word masturbate]?
A: I live the law of chastity.
etc.
Some parents opt to be present during interviews with their children.
Has a Bishop or SP ever said: You (as a parent) can’t be present during the interview? Do they (leadership) have the right to say no you can’t be present?
IMO that should be the accepted way to do it.
They will have less of a tendency to go off script.
I’ve only heard a few anecdotal stories but in most cases the request was honored. There were a few cases where the parents got some push-back but in those cases the parents opted to push back harder. Minyan Man wrote:Do they (leadership) have the right to say no you can’t be present?
They can say it but from everything that I’ve read I’d say that they’d be in the wrong.
I haven’t pushed to be present with my kid. There may be something that my kid is more willing to talk about with an ecclesiastical leader, something that they wouldn’t ever discuss with a parent. If they really aren’t ever going to tell me maybe it’s best they talk about those things with a bishop than a peer? I don’t know.
nibbler wrote:ITT I see a few people talking about the SP interview for prospective missionaries. Does a TR interview alone qualify someone to serve a mission or might we expect leaders to “go beyond” in those circumstances?
Ann wrote:This would be the very simplest of things to standardize, wouldn’t it? (In the leaders’ handbook or in training meetings….) Why does the church choose not to?
I believe they have. In the past I distinctly remember it being announced (maybe in PH?) that all TR interviews would include a question about viewing pornography. I have trouble with the passage of time but I want to say it was over a dozen years ago. I remember one interview under that policy but it was quickly changed. Now, for the longest time, our local leaders have done a
verygood job of sticking to the written questions. They have the book with the written questions open and they read the language exactly as written, sacrament prayer style. Heber13 wrote:What’s the advice for prepping our kids for interviews?
Tell them what questions to expect. Tell them that they aren’t expected to answer any questions beyond what is dictated by the current policies. Tell them what the questions are asking and what the questions aren’t asking. That comes first and will probably cover 90% of their experiences.
The real issue is how to prepare them for when leaders do go off script. That’s a toughie. Perhaps I could borrow a page out of the leader 101 manual and coach my kid to answer the question they should have asked rather than the question that they asked.
Q: Do you drink tea?
A: I keep the Word of Wisdom.
Q: Do you [insert latest beat around the bush phrase to avoid saying the word masturbate]?
A: I live the law of chastity.
etc.
Some parents opt to be present during interviews with their children.
I might be getting us too far from the OP, or misreading the discussion. I’m thinking of my daughter’s pre-mission interview. She was completely blindsided by masturbation questions. She thought it was really awkward, but in her very earnest, cooperative state of mind, she answered openly and honestly. She looks back on it now a little differently.
You don’t know that you will be asked, or not everyone is asked…. Just seems like a bit of a procedural flail to me.
I think young people are accepting of the intrusion at the time, but, for instance, my brother looks back on this kind of questioning as the beginning of his estrangement from the church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.