- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
We, I put it off for a couple of months, but my wife and I finally decided to go ahead and get our temple recommends renewed. It was to the point that the Executive Secretary was publicly accosting us in the hall (with lots of other members around) about when we were going to renew our recommends. We are both struggling with the church and with testimonies, for some common and some separate reasons.
At issue was whether to totally ‘come clean’ on our attitudes about the church.
I have read some of the posts elsewhere about how to handled recommend interviews. Some of it works for me and some of it is a little harder.
Let me also say that my wife and I both can answer the ‘commission’ kinds of questions correctly; W of W, Tithing, Garments, Relationships, Chastity, etc.
I am currently laying low in some callings that don’t cause me a lot of dissonance; chorister and stake activity committee. I know the day is coming when they will call me to other callings where I won’t feel I can be honest and do the calling as they would have me do (most callings will fall into this category, including teaching, missionary work, young men’s and priesthood leadership.). There is not much I think I can bear testimony too at this point. I guess this is a separate issue, but I thought it sort of finishes painting the picture about me.
My wife has issues with priesthood and authority, after a ‘blessing’ experience that nearly killed her. (See one of my earlier posts for a description of this.) She chose the route of actually trying to bring up the issue on the ‘Do you support your local priesthood authorities?’ question with both the bishopric and the stake presidency member. Her response was basically, “Most of them”. Surprisingly, neither of them would bite. It seemed they both could not get past that issue quickly enough and were most interested in just getting that thing signed. No further questions. No referral to bishop. My wife does not have all of the theological, historical and doctrinal issues that I have, though she has plenty of issues with the pervasive Utah LDS culture and issues with male domination of the church and LDS culture.
I frankly, weaseled my way in my mind around several questions:
– Do you believe in the restoration? – well yes, I think events happened that brought about the church, but I’m not on board with in in the same context you are asking’ ANSWER: Yes
– Do you (and I won’t be the words right here) sustain President Monson as the prophet and the only person to exercise all priesthood keys? – well, yes, I acknowledge that he is the leader of the church, a good man, mostly, and that he heads the ‘priesthood’ for the church as you understand it in that context. I am much less sure that there really is a priesthood. ANSWER: Yes
– The ‘Do you belong to or sympathize with any groups contrary . . ‘ was a little tricky. I don’t belong to any ‘groups’. I don’t think this site is contrary. But I sympathize with a lot of positions that are contrary to the official church positions.
There were several question/answer scenarios like this and I think you can probably get the idea.
In the end, I didn’t feel totally honest, but I don’t think I’m unclean, just doubting. Well, probably quite a bit beyond doubting. I kind of have a problem with theoretically being able to be called on the carpet, prevented from participating in temple ordinances and even in callings and weekly ordinances, just based on what I think rather than what I do. I have a problem with their right to know every aspect of my life. I really struggle to stay active as a non-believer.
I based my decision to go ahead with it on the following:
1. Wanting to avoid trauma for my kids in finding out where I really stand. My daughter at least is at an impressionable, idealistic age (13). I didn’t not want her to have to endure the pity parade from her leaders if it all came out.
2. Wanting to avoid similar trauma for my father-in-law who assumes all is well in Zion and would not even be able to understand doubting.
3. Wanting to and feeling entitled to attend family wedding events in the coming two years. (Don’t even get me going on how I feel about the church excluding people from their most important family events.) Wanting to avoid the questions, looks and snide behind-the-back remarks, if I don’t. (I’ve been around long enough to have a realistic view of what happens.)
4. Feeling like I was ‘clean’ as the next guy, though admittedly flawed in many ways.
5. Wanting to avoid becoming a bishop’s or a ward’s pet project, i.e., stay off the radar.
6. Not feeling like priesthood leaders would really even understand my issues, much less be willing or able to talk through them. I can tell myself to study and pray just as well as the next guy. Actually study and prayer is what got me into this mess!!!
I’m not saying I did the right thing or the wrong thing. I am glad it’s over. I would be interested in your experiences and comments.
This can be a really hard facet of church membership at this time for some of us. I wasn’t able to do it without resolving in my mind that the recommend was less important to me than the truth. I’ll probably be ending a year-long recommend gap in the next few weeks. I’m pretty much open about my position, and I don’t mind answering some of the questions “wrong”. To me, honest exploration is deeply important to my peace and happiness. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Tom
Thanks for sharing SS. I can certainly relate to the struggle on several topics. Here is my approach to the questions you highlighted: Restoration – similar to what you said in some ways, I don’t worry about or try to guess what anyone else’s interpretation is – I worry about if my interpretation is okay with God. The human facilitator asking the questions is not the authority, I look to and answer to higher.
Pres. Monson as Prophet – Yes, he is the only man authorized to lead the church on the earth. I see this as a question to root out those who really follow the authority of splinter groups.
Groups contrary to teachings of church – I also look at as aimed toward either splinter associates or those who honestly would like to see the church fall. I am neither. There is much fuzzy ground between what individual humans teach, what the “church” promotes or has “taught” in the past that is not really doctrine, and what is sound doctrine of Christ’s gospel of love. In my opinion the higher authority is trying to work through the church to teach the higher law. I have no sympathies that go against that in any way — thus my answer to this question is in that spirit.
For me it all boils down to “does God want me to have a recommend?” and “can I answer the last question affirmatively?”
Thanks both for the insights. Tom I will be interested in your report. Well done! It sounds like you worked through it the best you could, YOUR WAY, and in a way that balances all the conflicting and competing variables. Life is a messy business. You just gotta do the best you can, and make decisions that work the best for those you love and care about. If God doesn’t approve of that, well … He should have made a different world. Gotta work with what we find down here Big Guy (speaking up to the sky). *shrug* I would answer very similar, if asked or cornered for a personal answer. I choose not to bother with the TR, and haven’t for many years. But I have different variables in my life to balance. I don’t for a second consider myself “unworthy” or less. My current position, which I reserve the right to change at any time, is a calculated decision to position myself in relationship to the larger Mormon community in a way that I can best accomplish what I want to do in serving. I don’t have those family pressures other people might have. Not having a TR gives me more freedom to be a little more edgy and challenging. It also automatically disqualifies me for most of the callings I don’t currently want to do. It’s been a while since anyone even bothered to hound me about it, but that’s because I have been pretty clear and up front about not wanting one. I just tell them firmly “It’s not something I am interested in right now, but thanks anyways” with a smile and a nice handshake. Beyond that, it really isn’t any of their freakin’ business. If I don’t want a TR, most decent and reasonable church leaders get the message. They know deep down they aren’t supposed to give one to someone who flat out tells them something like that.
FWIW, Here’s my personal take on answering the question:
*Faith in God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
Answer = Yes.
Clarification in my mind that doesn’t need to be spoken: I don’t really know for sure what those beings are anymore. But I have faith, or at least a hope, that God exists. I really do think that SOMETHING is out there. That’s my testimony at the moment, so sure. I have a “testimony” and faith.
*Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
Answer = Yes.
Clarification in my mind that doesn’t need to be spoken: I think a really awesome and enlightened guy we named “Jesus” died like they said. I think he understood what it meant to be a Son of God, a Savior and a Redeemer. He was those things for billions and billions of people, at a minimum. So sure. I have a “testimony” of that. Jesus definitely fills that role. The teachings we attribute to someone we named Jesus helped me personally get “right with God,” so I have no problem with this question.
*Restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
Answer = Yes.
Clarification in my mind that doesn’t need to be spoken: The our “gospel” has a history. The LDS Church is a restorationist-style church. It exists in these latter days. So yes, I believe in the restoration of the gospel in these latter days. I think there are some really cool, inspiring and exalting ideas in Mormonism. I believe that Joseph Smith started a restorationist gospel movement.
*Sustain the President of the Church as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? … and sustain all other leaders, etc?
Answer = Yes.
Clarification in my mind that doesn’t need to be spoken: I don’t think anyone else is the ultimate boss of the LDS Church on this earth. I think that is really the reason for this question, historically, but I don’t have a problem with it either way. FWIW, I really do want all the leaders to be effective and successful leaders, as best as they can, and to help them make the Church a nice community. That may sometimes require me to disagree with them. But I think it does leaders a great disservice to always be a “yes man” toady and a sycophant. That tends to make leaders less effective and detached from the information that helps them.
*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?
Answer: No.
Clarification in my mind that doesn’t need to be spoken: Wow … best of luck to you if you want to try and nail down the teachings and practices of the Church, so defining the contrary is a stretch. I’m all in for the general basics of what they are getting at though, and I don’t want to be a part of a splinter fundamentalist group, or any group that encourages people to damage the LDS Church. I like latter-day saints… at least most of the time
SS, I think your answers are good, valid ones, and I’d hate to think of you left feeling dishonest about giving them. What you (and Brian) said mirror very closely how I have come to view what my answers to TR questions can and ought to be. I understand the anxiety about not answering necessarily in the way that the person asking the questions might have meant them, but we have gone way beyond that. This is between us and God now. For those of us with temple-attending spouses and family, temple attendance is at the very least a cultural norm, with possibly serious familial consequences if we don’t at least outwardly conform. This is not a situation that you or I created. In some ways, it was thrust upon us, and if we have to be creative about dealing with that situation, so be it. In the end, all that really matters is that last question. Do you feel worthy to be with your family in the temple? I have made it simple to get a recommend if I actually wanted one. Since the church insist that I believe the unbelievable to get a recommend then I see no issue with giving them the answers they want. I really respect those who feel to maintain their integrity they must answer honestly and I understand this point of view. For me it is just not worth it anymore. I am beyond convinced that the church is at best not what it represents itself to be and most likely it is all fiction. How can any organization that maintains fiction as fact require you to suspend reason and require you to believe in order to get a ticket to the big house. It would be like when you turned 10 and learned Santa Claus was not for real. Then when you turned 12 your were told unless you committed to believe Santa was real you would not get any presents for christmas. You can not believe something you know to be false, yet you are coerced into stating you believe so you get the presents. You tell your parents what they want to hear. This is the dilemma that many of us face who have come to the conclusion it is not true. There is just nothing we can do to believe again, yet we are held hostage in a way so we can be part of our children’s or other family members weddings and such. It is a frustrating situation to be in and I just see no alternative but to tell them what they want to hear. I really hate the bind the church puts me in on this. I feel for ya, Cadence. I have always liked Brian’s statement
Quote:The church is as true as a ham sandwich.
I don’t think the church is asking us to believe false teachings any more than I could be asked to believe in a false ham sandwich.
I think about the questions deeply, and answer honestly. I’m not concerned with whether the interviewer is asking them deeply or literally, the interview isn’t about them. It is not mental gymnastics for me, it is personal.
Heber13 wrote:I feel for ya, Cadence.
I have always liked Brian’s statement
Quote:The church is as true as a ham sandwich.
I don’t think the church is asking us to believe false teachings any more than I could be asked to believe in a false ham sandwich.
I think about the questions deeply, and answer honestly. I’m not concerned with whether the interviewer is asking them deeply or literally, the interview isn’t about them. It is not mental gymnastics for me, it is personal.
The church believes for the most part that they are asking us to believe all the doctrine is true because they believe it is true. the problem it is not from my perspective. Hence the dilemma. I can not believe it yet I want to participate and when it comes to the temple there is no accommodation for me. A sane approach would be to let those like us at least attend weddings. I really do not care if I never do another endowment session or baptism for the dead. Another option would be to remove the stigma from civil weddings and leave the temple to just sealings. But I am afraid I have become jaded and a skeptic. I think the church knows all this and the temple is their great control mechanism to keep tithing flowing. They think they are doing it for our own good. They do not have the capacity to realize they may be wrong and are causing damage to the very institution they hold so sacred the family.
Excellent comments. I agree about the social expectations. Really, I am maintaining the recommend so that I can attend family weddings. There will be very little of endowment sessions unless my son happens to get married soon. I have a number of issues that make me uncomfortable with regular temple attendance and perhaps that’s a topic for another post.
One question that I always think is incongruous is the one that asks whether you keep all your temple covenants. Regarding laws of sacrifice and consecration, I don’t think any modern members live those laws in any way close to their intention, yet, my stake presidency member seemed to have no comprehension of that idea. So we glossed over it.
silentstruggle wrote:One question that I always think is incongruous is the one that asks whether you keep all your temple covenants. Regarding laws of sacrifice and consecration, I don’t think any modern members live those laws in any way close to their intention, yet, my stake presidency member seemed to have no comprehension of that idea. So we glossed over it.
Hehe, good point. We covenant to live the Law of Consecration, but the Church doesn’t practice the Law of Consecration. Instant fail on the personal level if you actually take this literally, and then are asked if you keep ALL the covenants.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.