- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If you answer “yes” to the question, and it is anybody but the Bishop or SP giving the interview, they will have to stop and send you to the Bishop. I never in 8 years of giving TR interviews had anybody answer Yes to the question. Sheldon wrote:If you answer “yes” to the question, and it is anybody but the Bishop or SP giving the interview, they will have to stop and send you to the Bishop. I never in 8 years of giving TR interviews had anybody answer Yes to the question.
As a bishop’s counselor I never had anyone answer yes to this question, either. I have self reflected on the question and there is a subjective aspect to it – what I believe may be a serious enough sin to fall under this category, others may not. I think masturbation might be a good example here. I don’t believe the occasional (even somewhat often) act of masturbation by a teenager to be a sin. There are those who are part of the guilt culture who may think so, however. I could very well see an individual who lied about masturbating to his bishop, stake president, and mission president believing at some point later in life that he or she may have committed a serious sin that needs resolving. Granted at that point the sin may have been lying (which I also generally don’t see as serious enough). The point here is that what one person considers to be a serious sin may not be universally accepted as serious by others.
Quote::angel: Nope, I’ve had all my sins resolved through the atonement of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!:angel: Roy wrote:Quote::angel: Nope, I’ve had all my sins resolved through the atonement of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!:angel:
:thumbup: What wayfarer said. A temple recommend interview is not the right place for a confession, even if one is necessary. Ok, but what if someone says yes to “Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?” Apparently that doesn’t happen very often but if it did happen isn’t there the expectation that the person would then go on to confess, to elaborate on their answer? That really applies to all the obedience questions. If someone gives anything other than the “good” answer doesn’t the interview typically transition over to confession mode? Wouldn’t answering “no” to do you obey the word of wisdom be the start of a confession? Of course that would only apply to situations where a BP is giving the interview, not one of the counselors.
It wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense for people to sign up for a TR interview knowing full well that they’re going to give an answer that will all but guarantee that they won’t receive a TR. I’d guess that a person would schedule a regular appointment with the bishop for that in most cases.
Edit: Perhaps this discussion could be moved to a thread called “What’s the goal of the TR interview?” From the perspective of the member seeking recommend renewal and the perspective of someone in church leadership.
From my experience, I would rather seek out a Catholic priest or a Jew that is a descent of Levi or better yet a Cohenaim, and confess since either might have the authority by right and give the appropriate answer to the TR interview. Which sins are only thoughts anyway since I’m too old and tired to actually go commit them, rather than face the roulette wheel of local justice nibbler wrote:Ok, but what if someone says yes to “Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?” Apparently that doesn’t happen very often but if it did happen isn’t there the expectation that the person would then go on to confess, to elaborate on their answer? That really applies to all the obedience questions. If someone gives anything other than the “good” answer doesn’t the interview typically transition over to confession mode? Wouldn’t answering “no” to do you obey the word of wisdom be the start of a confession?
.
A friend in our ward answered all of the questions in the interview and then when it came to the stake interview talked about the problem. When asked why they didn’t talk with their bishop, they said that they didn’t feel comfortable sharing the issue with them. I’ve had my personal differences with leadership so I understand the concern. Our bishops are untrained and sometimes not very patient and charitable. Sometimes the best person for the job is picked for his professional position and the fact that they have made it up through the ranks of callings without incident.
Don’t get me wrong, I sustain our bishop with all of his flaws. He’s a mere mortal like me, trying to do his best. I support him and respect his office. I don’t take everything that comes from him as inspired, because he is also a proud man, who doesn’t like to lose.
Between the ‘Committee as Leadership’ and ‘Bishop as Ultimate Authority’ he definitely follows that latter.
There now I’ve rambled again and went off on a tangent.
LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:There now I’ve rambled again and went off on a tangent.
You are fine as long as you confess this transgression to your bishop (not in a TR recommend interview)
Regarding Mike’s mention of the AA steps (and by extension those of the ARP)… a lot of people who are NOT addicts have stated they have found these very helpful to follow.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.