TR Question Survey – Question 7: Affiliating with Apostates

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

In the old days when I first went to the temple (with penalties in the ceremony), I had asked about this question and was told it related to polygamous groups trying to get into the temple for plural marriages, etc. I have always seen it in that light.

That’s how it was presented to me as well. The first time I was interviewed the person conducting the interview offered up a similar explanation without me prompting for one. I take it the interviewer thought the question was a strange one to ask or at a minimum they felt the question wasn’t very clear. Either way their explanation of the question made it clear that they were steering me to answer “no” to the question.

That said, the experience was long ago and as we know the TR interview evolves. Not only do the questions change over time, but the intent of the question may also change. This question probably relates less and less to polygamy as time distances the church from the practice. Given the challenges today’s church faces, I can see how leaders would interpret the question differently.

I don’t have access to the handbook, so if this quote is wrong, let me know. But wayfarer’s recent post in another thread had current instructions on this question:

3.3.4 Members Whose Close Relatives Belong to Apostate Groups wrote:

Bishops and their counselors must take exceptional care when issuing recommends to members whose parents or other close relatives belong to or sympathize with apostate groups. Such members must demonstrate clearly that they repudiate these apostate religious teachings before they may be issued a recommend.

[Anonymous]

I answered NO, but my interpretation of apostate might be different than my current rather conservative bishop might consider.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

nibbler wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

In the old days when I first went to the temple (with penalties in the ceremony), I had asked about this question and was told it related to polygamous groups trying to get into the temple for plural marriages, etc. I have always seen it in that light.

That’s how it was presented to me as well. The first time I was interviewed the person conducting the interview offered up a similar explanation without me prompting for one. I take it the interviewer thought the question was a strange one to ask or at a minimum they felt the question wasn’t very clear. Either way their explanation of the question made it clear that they were steering me to answer “no” to the question.

That said, the experience was long ago and as we know the TR interview evolves. Not only do the questions change over time, but the intent of the question may also change. This question probably relates less and less to polygamy as time distances the church from the practice. Given the challenges today’s church faces, I can see how leaders would interpret the question differently.

I don’t have access to the handbook, so if this quote is wrong, let me know. But wayfarer’s recent post in another thread had current instructions on this question:

3.3.4 Members Whose Close Relatives Belong to Apostate Groups wrote:

Bishops and their counselors must take exceptional care when issuing recommends to members whose parents or other close relatives belong to or sympathize with apostate groups. Such members must demonstrate clearly that they repudiate these apostate religious teachings before they may be issued a recommend.

Since I’m the only member in my family, this is a non-issue for me.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Since I’m the only member in my family, this is a non-issue for me.

I went the other direction. As the only member in my family I could probably say that all my family members sympathize with apostate groups.

And to port over my comment from the other thread… depending on how broadly they want to define “apostate group” the parents or other close relatives clause could eventually apply to every member of the church.

[Anonymous]

My oldest daughter is facing this very thing right now. She just completed temple prep classes, she is very much a syllabus follower, this makes temple recommend questions very black and white. She told her dad and I at Christmas that she feels she has to answer “Yes” because her dad is an apostate. It was rather sobering night here at home.

[Anonymous]

According to what I’ve been reading about John Dehlin I am an apostate. I support same sex marriage.

[Anonymous]

John is NOT facing excommunication for supporting same-sex marriage. That is important to say and understand. There are lots of members who openly support same-sex marriage who aren’t facing excommunication.

John’s situation is MUCH more complicated than that.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

John is NOT facing excommunication for supporting same-sex marriage. That is important to say and understand. There are lots of members who openly support same-sex marriage who aren’t facing excommunication.

John’s situation is MUCH more complicated than that.

I agree with Old-Timer here. The idea that Dehlin is being ex’ed because of his support of LBGT issues and OW is a media invention perhaps fed by Dehlin himself. Who would care if the NYT reported he was being ex’ed because he doesn’t believe core doctrines/teachings of the church anymore? Even then, as Old-Timer says, it is much more complicated than that. Only one very vocal leader of OW has been ex’ed. I am not aware of anyone being ex’ed because of support of SSM – and there are some pretty high profile people, such as Steve Young, who are in that position. The media is supported by advertising – they will report what sells. Some individuals are motivated by their 15 minutes of fame, and if the media can help them get that 15 minutes they’ll go along for the ride (I am not, however, asserting that this is the case with Dehlin). I do not believe for a minute that the church sees support of SSM or other LGBT issues as apostate.

[Anonymous]

But I do know of my previous generally very forward thinking (absolutely thought that gay was in no way a sin) took a leader out of a youth leader position because she went to a gay pride parade. So I agree there are not excommunications, but people are told that they are stepping over the line and could be excommunicated or have their recommend yanked. I assume people have heard of the one sister that had to back down the last week or lose her recomm and not be able to attend her brother’s wedding. I also loved to hear of a very committed but progressive member at http://athoughtfulfaith.org/bob-rees-poetic-life-of-a-devout-mormon-dissident/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://athoughtfulfaith.org/bob-rees-poetic-life-of-a-devout-mormon-dissident/. He tried to quietly not participate in the California prop 8 and DID suffer I think it was disfellowshipment.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

But I do know of my previous generally very forward thinking (absolutely thought that gay was in no way a sin) took a leader out of a youth leader position because she went to a gay pride parade. So I agree there are not excommunications, but people are told that they are stepping over the line and could be excommunicated or have their recommend yanked. I assume people have heard of the one sister that had to back down the last week or lose her recomm and not be able to attend her brother’s wedding. I also loved to hear of a very committed but progressive member at http://athoughtfulfaith.org/bob-rees-poetic-life-of-a-devout-mormon-dissident/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://athoughtfulfaith.org/bob-rees-poetic-life-of-a-devout-mormon-dissident/. He tried to quietly not participate in the California prop 8 and DID suffer I think it was disfellowshipment.

I’m not going to argue with you LH, but there are no witch hunts. It is unfortunate that some local leaders overstep their bounds. I do not believe people are being ex’ed for their own beliefs regarding LGBT issues or even OW (you will note again there has been one excommunication of a very vocal OW leader – and only one). Personally, I think the Q15’s stance on whether OW is an apostate group is pretty clear. For me personally, were I to have an OW profile or otherwise support OW, I would not feel as though I could answer this question “no.” I understand others may see this differently.

[Anonymous]

Sorry if I was coming across as arguing. I would agree there are not real witch hunts going on. I was more trying to point out that there are many places where it isn’t clear what the line is and I fear that many members are feeling like they must hold back on expressing beliefs because they are not sure how THEIR bishop would take it. That type of conflict isn’t good and if it is somewhat common then people will actually be MORE likely to snap one day and say, “I just can’t be this dishonest with how I feel anymore and I have to leave/distance myself from the church.” And they MIGHT have been in a ward with a bishop that was fine with talking about their concerns, but they were unsure and didn’t feel they could safely test the waters.

So my main point is that I would like a bit more clear on some of what is allowed vs. a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

[Anonymous]

I think that just opens up Pandora’s Box. Each case really is individual, and there’s not a way for the top leadership to say “this is apostasy, but this isn’t” or “this guy is an apostate but this other guy who did/said the same thing isn’t” – and neither we nor they really want that.

[Anonymous]

Short answer no, I don’t.

Long answer, I do have friends who are anti-Mormon, and have been to meetings, webpages etc which promote anti-Mormon material. That doesn’t mean I agree with it.

[Anonymous]

In the context of a TR Interview, always go with the short answer.

[Anonymous]

The big word for me is “agree.” I don’t agree with apostate ideas, even if they are taught freely in church. I do however highly value agency and the right for every (wo)man to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience. I won’t preach my perspectives from a soap box, I may share them, maybe while standing on a box, but I won’t say I know what is best for everyone.

[Author]

Posts