- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
6. Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church? I will not use a poll in this case, because the answer would be truly a private matter.
There is a side of me that wants to answer this question honestly, and I have always had an issue with this question. The teachings of the Church are vast and numerous, so many, that I’m pretty sure that somewhere I’m violating some aspect of church teaching in my home.
– We play face cards. It was a teaching of the church not to play with face cards, does that count?
– I’ve placed wagers with my daughters. We are taught not to gamble. Does that count?
– We’re going to the outer banks in two weeks. We will go swimming on Sunday. Gasp! Does that count?
Ok, so I’ve pointed out ridiculous examples. Someone could ask about intent here, and I think the intent of the question is whether there is abuse going on in the family. As if an abuser, who forces compliance physically by not sparing the rod, and rapes his wife night after night, is going to answer this question “yes”. But I digress.
It’s an open-ended question asking for if there is “anything” amiss in the family.
Unless you are abusive to any member of your family, the answer is “NO”. Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here.
No Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Unless there is something profoundly amiss, this is a gimme. We all have room for improving our relationships but our run of the mill failures are not “amiss” they are part of the human condition. We make mistakes, we repent, we attempt to set things aright with the one we’ve injured, we move on. To me this question is specifically about problems that would impact our membership in the church (abuse, adultery, etc).
I always smile a little and say something like, “Yes, but there’s nothing that is serious enough to keep me from attending the temple.” I think this question is to uncover child abuse or other forms of abuse in the home just as M&G said. I don’t have a problem with this one really. Next. No. Mike from Milton.
I’d like to answer with “they started it!”. Actually, according to the teachings of the gospel (the NT) Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword with generations pitted against each other. So on reality, I’m far too diplomatic. Why can’t they word the questions to be in a direct manner to ask what they mean to ask????? The intent of this question certainly seems to be asking about abuse.
Of course EVERYONE does some things in their family that are against the teachings of the church. It seems like this is worded to purposely give the faithful extra guilt when they are really after abuse.
No. So I’m now 1 for 6.
bc_pg, Why do you want them to be specific? That’s a serious question. I really am interested in knowing why, since the last thing I want is specificity.
I personally love the questions that allow me to try to understand what they mean to me and answer accordingly – especially when I’ve never once been refused a recommend when I answer, “I’m doing the best that I can” on the ones like this.
Maybe the questions for which the “right” answer obviously is false at face value is meant to see if the person actually is paying attention and understands the concept of “trying my best and trusting the Atonement”. When I was asking the questions, that’s exactly what I was wanting to hear.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I’d like to answer with “they started it!”. Actually, according to the teachings of the gospel (the NT) Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword with generations pitted against each other. So on reality, I’m far too diplomatic.
I saw this scripture used over and over again as we discussed the one-year penalty for getting married civilly on a traditional believer’s site I no longer frequent. As you know, my parents were really ticked about the one-year rule and my decision to lock them out of the whole marriage experience by getting married in the temple. My Dad’s voice cracked when he told me how hurt he was by the fact I chose to get married in the temple at the expense of their experience in sharing in the spirituality of the day in a civil wedding.
My sister confided that this caused a huge rift I never saw openly….I could probably answer this question:
“The only thing not really in harmony is the huge divide between my parents and myself over my decision to marry in the temple, excluding them from the joy of the marriage day….I did apologize recently and said if I could do it over again, I would respect them as the people who nurtured me all those years and brought me up well…so I hope eventually these relationships will be mended and in full harmony with the gospel”.
That sucks SD. My own father sat out front when I got married. It didn’t bother me at all at the time. Now it haunts me…and this is the same father that now accuses me if being an apostate satanic worshiper.
-sigh-
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Old-Timer wrote:bc_pg, Why do you want them to be specific?
I’ll take a stab at it too because I have the same assumptions as bc_pg.
To me, they are asking about abuse. If that’s what they want to know, they should ask it. If it isn’t the question then it
shouldbe an explicit question in the TR interview! Mormon sensibilities seem to shy away from talking about tough, real world subjects like that. I think topics like this, and topics about sexuality in general, SHOULD be talked about in appropriate but open ways. They shouldn’t be swept under the rug, or only asked in whispered innuendo and with furtive glances.
Is someone molesting their children, beating their spouse, or emotionally abusing family members? Yeah … if they are, they probably need to work on exorcising those demons from their soul before working on the lofty spiritual ideals in the temple.
Quote:bc_pg, Why do you want them to be specific?
I agree with everything Brian said. I would also like to add one more.
The problem I have with this is that from a practical standpoint one of two things often happen:
1) (Most likely) The member feels confused/uncomfortable about the question and asks whoever is conducting the interview – the bishop, bishopric member, stake president, stake presidency counselor. So now the member gets whatever the opinion of whoever is conducting the interview is. These opinions vary wildly and are all over the place. I’ve even seen the answer be something as crazy as – well if you are concerned about it, then something is clearly amiss in your life and you are unworthy.
2) (Less likely but problematic) The member makes a really bad personal interpretation and feels extreme unnecessary guilt and maybe excludes themselves from the temple when they should not. For example, maybe a Mom got impatient with a child that morning and decides she is unworthy. Instead of going for the temple recommend interview she would just let it expire because she incorrectly didn’t feel good enough.
For someone like you who is capable of interpreting it liberally it’s great – I suspect that you are the exception and for the majority it just creates confusion and guilt.
This question and the “associate with apostates” questions are the only 2 that I see as super problematic. A misinterpretation of the associate apostates question could easily be that the church wants you to shun such people.
I can agree with that, Brian and bc_pg. cwald wrote:That sucks SD.
My own father sat out front when I got married. It didn’t bother me at all at the time. Now it haunts me…and this is the same father that now accuses me if being an apostate satanic worshiper.
-sigh-
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I had the same accusation (minus the satanic worshipper part) although even that part was implied by a TBM friend I have. I haven’t spoken to him much lately as he finds me offensive, he said, and alter his thinking toward apostate thinking, he says. There is a price to be paid for altering one’s world view.
However, back to the question of family conduct.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.