- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I had my SP interview tonight and thought I would fill you all in on the result. I met with the Stake President and found the interview to be very uncomfortable. He began by saying that he was open to any comments I had about each question and that he would be expounding on them a bit through out the interview. After my interview at the ward level I felt comfortable answering positively the belief questions so I did. After those first 4 questions the SP preceded to tell me specifically what saying yes to those questions meant. He told me what I needed to “know” to answer yes. He was quite specific and I began to feel very uncomfortable. He emphasized knowledge of certain truths etc. I didn’t say much. He then went on to the obedience questions saying how being able to follow those commandments was contingent on the foundation of the first 4 questions, meaning we won’t keep the word of wisdom if we don’t know the truth of the atonement of Christ etc. He asked me the last questions and then signed the recommend. He read to me the required thoughts on the wearing of garments and told me that he saw the garments as being symbolic of the atonement and all we had to do was ask the question, “Do I need the atonement today?” if we are wondering whether or not to wear our garments in a certain activity etc. I thought that was a little bit strange. He congratulated me on being worthy of a temple recommend and I went on my way. While I realize that technically the “StayLDS How to Stay” article is helpful in helping us answer the TR questions, the reality of how some leaders see things is very different. Though we are told that leaders are only to ask the specific questions word for word, some feel it is important to expound on their interpretation of the questions and what answering yes means.
It is done now and I’m trying to have an open mind as to how things will play out 2 years from now. I don’t know where I will be regarding my faith by that time.
CANADA
That is, well, wow. According to everything Ray has told us about the TR process, your SP is not following the counsel of his church leaders. I think your SP is out of line – and abusing his authority, and personally I would not be able to just sit back and allow it to happen. This kind of abuse needs to be reported, but I don’t know where or to who one would do so.
ughh! I am just jealous that you have two more years of not having to worry about it. My TR expires in a couple months. I don’t know what I am going to do, but I cannot even begin to express the problems that will arise among my family and in-laws if I don’t have one. I have a sister who I talk to on a daily basis who wouldn’t talk to me last year for about a four month period because I raised a question about the church in a conversation with her. She is being sealed to an adopted baby next week, and I am glad I can attend. My in-laws who are concerned about me gave me a speech a couple months ago about how church comes before marriage, and it is vital their son has a wife that can follow him to the CK!!! I
needa TR to keep my family relations in tact. About the only question I think I could answer honestly would be the last question… Do you feel worthy to attend the Temple. Strange that I feel more worthy now than I ever did before. I wish that were the only question that mattered. Flower, I’m so sorry your in-laws said something so hurtful and so uncharitable. It is such a dilemna and it has been so hard to examine my current beliefs and try to align them with the TR questions. It takes a lot of soul-searching and I still don’t feel quite right about it except that at this point my ability to keep family relations on an even keel seems to be dictating my actions. My dh’s advice before I left today was to give short and to the point answers, ie yes, no because I had already worked through some things with my bishopric member so I stuck with the plan even though the SP didn’t stick to his part.
Even though I agree that we should be more concerned with the living then the dead, I have had profound spiritual experiences in the temple. I have found it to be a place where I am able to meditate and be taught by the spirit. The endowment is more of a symbolic ritual to me that I go through as I learn personal things because I am quiet. So for me it is for the living.
I also feel that I can strongly answer yes to the last question, more so than ever in my life and yet the other questions are so difficult. I wonder why that is the case? I know others who feel the same way.
Maybe we’ll find that answer the more we focus on giving and opening our heart to others. I hope so.
CANADA
flowerdrops wrote:About the only question I think I could answer honestly would be the last question… Do you feel worthy to attend the Temple. Strange that I feel more worthy now than I ever did before. I wish that were the only question that mattered.
Amen to that – feel the same way. And I am a beer drinker!
😯 canadiangirl wrote:While I realize that technically the “StayLDS How to Stay” article is helpful in helping us answer the TR questions, the reality of how some leaders see things is very different. CANADA
Exactly. That’s why I would let some of his comments wash over me, in recognition that this particular temple recommend interview was riddled with his personal interpretations.
If everyone had to KNOW, then I think most of the Church would be left without TR’s.
He was wrong, plain and simple. If the member has questions about the meaning of certain questions, the interviewer has the right to clarify, but to provide interpretations upfront and require the member accept them? Abso-stinking-lutely not what should happen. To insist that the member be able to say they KNOW? Abso-stinking-lutely not! I cringe whenever I hear of things like this, because they just aren’t what is supposed to happen.
My advice to everyone is to be comfortable with your own understandings and stick to the actual required answers – which are NOTHING more than, “Yes” or “No”. The interview is NOT supposed to be in accordance with someone else’s understanding of what’s being asked. It’s supposed to be about answering the questions according to the dictates of your own conscience. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.
If someone gets a temple recommend “unworthily”, there is NO “transfer of guilt” to the interviewer for not being omniscient. If someone is openly fighting the Church – or taking alcohol to church activities and drinking it in front of everyone – or in the middle of criminal charges – etc., that’s one thing. If a member simply can’t say they “know” everything (or certain things) but professes a desire to believe and be blessed by the temple, that puts them in company with a HUGE number of members who are worthy to attend the temple.
Congratulations on getting your recommend – and try to understand that he was the one out-of-line, not you.
On a related note, you might be interested in the following from my personal blog. I wrote the first one in March and the second in May as a follow-up:
“The Genius of Mormonism” (
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2010/03/genius-of-mormonism.html “Management vs. Ministry: The Genius of Mormonism” (
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2010/05/management-vs-ministry-genius-of.html Old-Timer wrote:He was wrong, plain and simple.
I second the motion.
The person interviewing is responsible for making sure that the questions are understood, but this should not include attaching any personal interpretations as mentioned by Ray. Usually the interviewer starts out by saying “If you have any questions, or need clarification, please ask.” If they don’t ask for clarification I don’t see why any explanations should ever be offered. The new handbooks don’t offer much guidance to the priesthood leader beyond telling them to use discernment and make sure the questions are understood. In my experience people will occasionally ask for clarification about affiliating with opposing groups, but other than that, the questions are fairly straightforward. It is also a fairly common practice in my understanding to add a sentence to the chastity question…”Do you obey the law of chastity [including ob-staining from pornography and masturbation]?”
Unsure Footing wrote:It is also a fairly common practice in my understanding to add a sentence to the chastity question…”Do you obey the law of chastity [including ob-staining from pornography and masturbation]?”
NO! Really? I guess Doug wins again in the whole
The M worddebate. Damnit. Fwiw, I’ve never had that addition stated in over 20 years of interviews. It might be “common” for some leaders, but I doubt seriously it’s the norm – or even close to it. I don’t know Ray, I think it is or will become much more common. I was never asked that either until our stake was chosen as a pilot stake for the 12 Steps Addiction class a couple of years ago. Does your stake run the 12 step addiction program in your area? Yes, my stake (and my former stake) does – and I wouldn’t doubt that the porn question might become part of the process. Whether it should or not is open to debate on this site ( 😯 ), but I hope m* doesn’t get included.Perhaps someone who’s Stake is participating in the addiction program, who has a good relationship with the SP, who meets with the SP every week, should JUST ASK the SP what the policy is in regards to including porn and M in the interview, and if bishops have been given additional info that we don’t know about. Maybe there is someone who could do that, that participates in this forum?
Canadiangirl, I join with everyone else in applauding your integrity and strength of character in standing up to that…. and groaning at the SP’s overstepping of his bounds. Imposing personal interpretation on someone else? Seems quite antithetical to God’s plan to me… Sorry you had to go through that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.