- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So, I went in to renew my TR a while ago and the Stake President saw it as an opportunity to ask all kinds of peripheral questions. I didn’t feel like I could say that they were none of his business and just kind of made it through the interview, but in hindsight it makes me mad. Our stake has a thing that any viewing of pornography is a violation of temple covenants and right off the bat he grilled me about porn. That seems way beyond the scope of what they should be doing, especially deciding what is and isn’t a violation of temple covenants. He also asked me about taking family names to the temple, how often I went and which temple I went to. The questions were not small talk, they were really probing to see how often I went to the temple. The handbook seems pretty clear they should stick to the script. Any thoughts on this? Any ways to push back? Asking such questions before the actual interview is the way some leaders get around the “ask only the interview questions” rule. It’s a tough spot to be in and I am fortunate neither my bishopric nor stake presidency seem to do this (they haven’t in the three I’ve had since returning to activity at least – I’m due for a renewal soon). I’d probably do what you did and muddle through giving vague answers. I’m not beneath lying if I think the question is out of line. Another possibility is simply scheduling the appointment at a time when you know there are lots of other interviews and there’s not lots of time for “chitchat.” You can keep looking at your watch like you have somewhere else you need to be and answer just like the real questions – just yes or no in a business-like stoic manner. It could go like this: Sp: How’s your family doing?
Me: Great, thanks for asking.
SP: The brethren are concerned about pornography. Do you have a problem with pornography?
Me: No
SP: Have you been to the temple lately?
Me: A few months ago, I’d like to do better.
SP: How’s your family history coming along? Do you take your own names to the temple?
Me: I have lots of family history done. When I go to the temple I take my own names.
SP: Will you commit to go to the temple every week?
Me: As you know, the temple is 2 and half hours away and I have a very busy work schedule. I simply can’t go that often and keep code enforcement away because my grass is too tall, and it’s tough to find a sitter that often and we couldn’t afford that anyway. But we’ll try to go more often. I’m sorry my time is kind of limited, I have a ministering appointment to get to and I’m hoping to be able to spend some time with my kids today….
I have a TR interview with the stake tomorrow. I’ll pay close attention to any deviations from the script. In my experience they usually ask a bunch of chit chat questions before the interview, and then dive into the official questions. I’ve frequently had leaders deviate from the script when they get to the law of chastity. They’ll ask the official question, and then ask some follow ups about porn.
I don’t view porn, but I know a lot of members do (estimates have it at 70% of men, and 30% of women – Yes, even in our church). If everyone that consumes porn stopped attending the temple I presume that many of our temples would shut down.
felixfabulous wrote:
The handbook seems pretty clear they should stick to the script. Any thoughts on this? Any ways to push back?
Just thought I’d comment on this. My father used to be a stake president. For the most part, the line of authority stops pretty sharply with the stake president. Complain to the Area Authority, or General Authorities? It gets redirected to the SP. Disagree with the SP’s judgement? Church leadership will 99% of the time default to the SP’s judgement. Unless you’ve got evidence of sexual assault, adultery, embezzlement, etc, there is really no higher authority in the Church to bring your concerns to. They vet SPs VERY well, and trust them a great deal.
Leadership roulette sucks – and, ironically, the most “by the book” traditionalists are the ones who go least by the book when it comes to temple recommend interviews. The irony is not lost on me – and it might help anyone going through it to laugh at it internally during such an experience.
I don’t think you can push back. I think what you do is prepare thoughts to be honest, but perhaps vague and straight forward responses like DJ said, not in a deceptive way, but in a protective way.
The interview is between you and God. God knows your heart. Practicing how to have good responses with the SP is good for the soul and good for us in checking our own thoughts and intentions and for us to take inventory.
Don’t give them more power than they have authority for. But I don’t think pushing back works, since you don’t have authority over them. You can only control your own responses.
All of that is fine and good to think about, I’m sure, but I know it gets difficult when you’re in the office and you have to respond. Like I said…it is a practice on how we live our religion, the more we practice, the better we get at handling these things with character and integrity.
Let’s say the question is:
SP: Do you live the law of Chastity?
Response: Yes.
SP: Pornography is a violation of temple covenants. Do you ever view pornography?
Ok…that is off script. First question is where it should end. Now they are off script. Maybe there are different options you feel comfortable with:
Response Option1: (Strongest direct response): That isn’t one of the temple recommend questions, is it President? I don’t have a problem with it, but are you supposed to be asking me that question? Response Option2: (Most passive response): No. (even if you do, you dont’ feel the question is valid or applicable, so it doesn’t matter the response, God knows how you feel. This may bother you if you feel it is dishonest. But the question is not valid to the TR interview, as you have been taught). Response Option3: (Maybe a middle of the road response): I don’t have a problem with it, and I strive to keep all my covenants best I can, although I’m not perfect. I guess I would think it all depends on your own personality and what you feel is right, and the personality of the SP and how you feel best to respond to him. My bishop doesn’t ever pry. He asks. He lets me answer. He believes it is between me and God how I answer.
Like Curtis said…roulette is at play. And should be considered in options.
Maybe others have better options for responses, but I think it goes best if you take a deep breathe and let them do their thing how they see fit, and you do your thing as you best can without fear the interview has to go just one way.
As a general rule, I’d say
the less you explain the better.wayfarer had some great thoughts along these lines in this thread (see link below):
TR Question Survey – Question 5: Law of Chastitywayfarer wrote:With due respect, your bishop and stake president are wrong. they are adopting harmful teachings.
I agree with wayfarer, and I believe time will support that this kind of questioning goes away in the future because it is wrong. So it doesn’t matter now how you respond.
I too recommend the TR Questions Survey. It was that series of posts that convinced me that I could go back to the temple again, if I choose to do go. When I go through the questions with a member of the Bishopric or Stake Presidency, all my answers are
yes or no. As a hint: the last time I went through a TR with the SP, he asked what I was doing in the church. Basically what’s my
calling? I went on & on about being a Family History Coordinator & how much I liked the calling. All the time I knew he had a
line of people waiting to talk to. He was eager to see me go.
Be prepared with a benign question & ask it first. Knowing that the answer will take up significant amount of time.
“Oh hi Mark, how’s your sex life?” Sorry film joke.
If they ask you about yours, just answer, “I dunno, and how’s yours?”
And not very benign. Great responses so far. I agree that there is limited opportunity for pushback. Also that any push back may easily be seen as stiffneckedness, obstinance, lack of repentance (as in “the wicked take the truth to be hard”). Push back may become reason for retaliation – though I do not think the leadership would see it as retaliation. I like the tactics presented of saying as little as possible or talking at length about benign subjects.
Full disclosure – I have not had a TR in almost a decade. There are advantages and disadvantages to engaging with the church w/o a TR.
The only idea I have is seeing a different member of the stake presidency. If this is the first temple recommend in several years your SP may insist he do it himself, if so you’re out of luck. However in my experience there’s always one really strict member of the stake presidency and often one who is a little more human. You may be able to find a way to see that one. Perhaps you can’t make the stake recommend night and need to schedule something one-off. Or perhaps you live or work closest to the one you want to see… I know of two people who very successfully pushed back in specific situations, so I’ll share. One is my mother. She was asked if they played with face cards or had them in the home. She said, “We do, but you aren’t allowed to ask that as part of the temple recommend interview.” He said that “technically, I can’t refuse to sign your recommend for that, but I strongly urge you to get rid of them.” She didn’t. My favorite story was my friend’s dad who was being called as a bishop and was being interviewed by the SP. My friend’s dad was a very educated college professor with a beard and colored shirts and strong opinions. The SP asked him if he read his scriptures every day. He said, “You can’t ask me that,” and his SP said he wanted to know. He said, “Fine. I read all 4 standard works on December 31st of every year, all in one day.” I can’t tell you how much I love that story. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
hawkgrrrl, I have to ask the question, did he still become Bishop? Heber13 wrote:As a general rule, I’d say
the less you explain the better.I think this is key. The questions are yes and no questions. I always answer yes or no and nothing else. Back in the day when I was a bishop’s counselor I appreciated when people did that. I never desired a long winded explanation about any question.
Roadrunner wrote:
The only idea I have is seeing a different member of the stake presidency. If this is the first temple recommend in several years your SP may insist he do it himself, if so you’re out of luck. However in my experience there’s always one really strict member of the stake presidency and often one who is a little more human. You may be able to find a way to see that one. Perhaps you can’t make the stake recommend night and need to schedule something one-off. Or perhaps you live or work closest to the one you want to see…
Our stake presidency is this way. There is one strict by the book guy and one kind of laid back grandpa type. Our SP would prefer you see one of the counselors except in the circumstances where he has to see you. The wards/branches are divided between the two counselors but either of them will do anyone in a ward/branch they’re visiting. My ward happens to be in the laid back guy’s part of the split and he also lives in my ward so I have always gotten him. I would actually probably choose the SP over the other counselor but I’m also quite comfortable answering yes and no and/or deflecting questions I think are out of line, so it wouldn’t really matter.
So, if I were with the more strict guy (who I actually like because we play off each other pretty well) and he followed up the question “Do you live the law of chastity?” with “Do you look at pornography?” I’m would be comfortable saying to him “I answered the question about chastity” probably indicating to him that I think the question is included in chastity but I’m really saying I’m not answering the question. FWIW, I do not believe porn is a violation of the LoC but I also don’t do porn and think it is OK if others do under the LoC. I do not publicly share the latter and would not share that in an interview either.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.