TR question

[Anonymous]

So, recently an issue was brought to my attention that I had not thought of before:

Question 7, of the TR interview says:

Quote:

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?

Honestly, I have always simply answered no to this, assuming that what was really being asked was whether or not I was involved in an anti-Mormon group, or was a member or another church (which I learned through another thread, is in fact valid). The answer to this, for me, is of course no. But that’s not really the question. In the spirit of parsing, let us dissect for a moment.

1. 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.

Interpretation: who might be some groups fitting such a description? The KKK, LDS fundamentalist groups perhaps? What about the LGBT? What about a gov’t that legalizes gay marriage? Is a legalization of gay marriage contrary to teachings accepted by the church?

2. Do you support

Interpretation: support might mean financial support, or support with time, or other effort. Could be moral, or psychological support.

3. affiliate with

Interpretation: consort, or keep company with

4. agree with

Interpretation: here’s the real kicker to me. This could mean “to be in accord with,” but could also mean to consent, or assent. Or it could mean to harmonize, match, or be compatible with.

Quite frankly, after parsing this sentence question carefully, I must confess that I likely do agree with groups or individuals whose teachings are contrary to the LDS church. For example, while I am not out parading my rainbow flag in support of LGBT, I am in favor of having homosexuals have equal rights. Frankly, as one who leans libertarian, I would rather do away with gov’t sanctioned marriage altogether and let individuals and religious groups define it. This would, of course, in effect legalize gay marriage (by not making it illegal). This seems to be in opposition to the teachings of the church.

Having said this, I wonder how many of us who have actually thought some about real life, disagree with some aspect of the church’s teachings (and hence agree with some other individual or group).

Discuss!

[Anonymous]

Since my new honesty, I have always answered “yes”. More fully, I answer “Yes, I am a member of the LDS Church, I am a registered Republican, I am a citizen of the United States, I am employed by Hubbard Engineering, I have friends who are sinners, and my family, whom I love, is not always compliant. Further, I participate at the New Order Mormon web forum and the Stay LDS web forum. But I am not a polygamist nor a polygamist sympathizer.”

[Anonymous]

Several years ago, I started answering that question in this way:

Bishop, I don’t think I can give you a definite NO to that question, but I do support the leaders of the church. It usually turned into a discussion about what the question was actually saying, and the two of us would end up mostly agreeing, but I’ve never felt good about it. It never prevented me from getting a TR, but I always thought it might.

[Anonymous]

This is one case where I don’t bother parsing. Call it whatever you will, but if I parse this one too strictly, I would have to live as a hermit – and I’m not willing to do that. Therefore, I answer this in the spirit in which it was written originally – as support for or participation in groups that explicitly are organized and act in a focused manner in opposition to the LDS Church.

I can answer that with an unqualified “No” – so I stick to that. (and, fwiw, I don’t think supporting gay rights organizations is opposed to this interpretation – unless, of course, their sole purpose is to fight the LDS Church. If that’s the case, I don’t want to support them, anyway. There are too many other similar organizations that aren’t constructed for that purpose that I can support if I choose to do so.)

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

the spirit in which it was written originally – as support for or participation in groups that explicitly are organized and act in a focused manner in opposition to the LDS Church.

I like that wording better…if that is what the intent is, clarify it with an easy question.

When I was trained to give interview questions (I read the book) it was clear to specifically use the words in the questions exactly as written. If there is that much emphasis on the exact wording…then why is the wording “affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary”?

I agree with Ray. In this case, parsing is not helpful to the meaning and purpose of the question, IMO.

But an interesting point to bring up, Euhemerus.

[Anonymous]

Maybe it’s a relic of the past, maybe not. I do feel the effects of this question in most members resistance to ANYTHING that may seem contrary to the doctrine, which is too bad, since I doubt that was the intent. Yet another example of unintended consequences. imo

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the thoughts. Here’s some more:

Old-Timer wrote:

This is one case where I don’t bother parsing. Call it whatever you will, but if I parse this one too strictly, I would have to live as a hermit – and I’m not willing to do that. Therefore, I answer this in the spirit in which it was written originally – as support for or participation in groups that explicitly are organized and act in a focused manner in opposition to the LDS Church.

Yes, this would be my interpretation also, but this is definitely reading between the lines. I think your point is important – that if we lived up to that we would basically not associate with anyone. In light of that I am left to wonder why on earth the question still exists in this form?

Sounds to me like this TR question needs an overhaul.

[Anonymous]

I think you could also in good conscience answer “Yes, and so does the church.” The church affiliates with many groups whose ideologies are not lock-step with our own. Some of this is inter-faith councils. Some of this is by working with groups that have common aims (to a point), but whose ideologies and methods eventually diverge from our own (e.g. Evergreen, Focus on Families, etc.). I did a post a while back on MM about this issue within the church: http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/20/strange-bedfellows/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/20/strange-bedfellows/ As Ray says, the only real way to avoid it is to live like a hermit. We’d all have to work for the church and never associate with anyone outside of it if we interpreted that question as broadly as it reads.

OTOH, you could easily justify a “yes” based on your interpretation of the gospel. You could work for a weapons manufacturer and consider their aims as not in conflict, or you could work for greenpeace and consider their aims as not in conflict. It depends on how you view the gospel. You could be involved in advocating for gay rights or opposing gay marriage. The church’s nuanced stances don’t conform exactly to any other groups’ ideals. Cafeteria Mormonism indeed!

[Author]

Posts