What is the goal of the temple recommend interview?

[Anonymous]

Now lessons looking at things like this would really be interesting Sunday School lessons? Right?

[Anonymous]

Here are comments from the Church handbook of instructions around the purpose of temple recommend interviews, how they are to be conducted, and what the Church officers are expected to do if they feel a person may be unworthy.

3.3.3 General Guidelines for Issuing Recommends wrote:

Authorized Church officers conduct worthiness interviews for temple recommends as outlined in the temple recommend book. Church officers make every effort to see that no unworthy person enters the house of the Lord.

Temple recommend interviews must be private. They should not be rushed. Interviewers should not add any requirements to those that are outlined in the temple recommend book.

While the second paragraph indicates that the interviewer should stick to the “requirements”, the first paragraph frames the idea that the interviewer must make a judgment of worthiness. “Outlined requirements” can be interpreted to mean “topics” or “intent” of the questions. The idea that “Church Officers make every effort to see that no unworthy person enters the house of the Lord” means that there is no absolute limit to what the Bishop can do to determine your worthiness.

In my experience, they typically keep to the script, starting with a prayer. To me, it can be a very spiritual experience. On the other hand, some Church officers and participants enter the interview with a feeling of suspicion. This often can be sensed by both parties, and if it is acted upon, doesn’t lead to good results. I truly believe that approaching a temple recommend interview prepared is the best policy, and to take it seriously if you want a recommend.

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.

This should be motivation for us to keep our facebook profiles relatively clean from public denunciations of Church leaders, and absent any overt associations with what are becoming known as “apostate groups”. Ask cwald. Here’s what happens: A bishop (or an overzealous family member or ‘friend’) who is perusing Facebook or these forums might observe, through friends and “likes”, that a ward member has connection to OW, John Dehlin or other people he deems to be “Apostate”. Perhaps the bishop or “friend” has been reading some of “Mormon Interpreter” himself, and noting the articles vehemently denouncing MormonStories leaders and participants like us as being “antichrist”. This clause gives him the right to probe into your family and relatives to determine if ANYONE “sympathizes” with “apostate groups”, and it goes without saying that if we have “likes” to any of the “apostate groups” or their leaders, then the bishop has a basis for asking probing questions and require us to “repudiate these apostate teachings” before you can get a recommend.

The damnable part of this is that zealous family members who know this policy simply don’t want you as a friend or even family member. They don’t want to be called into question. This policy poses a real concern to keep your overly religious family members distant from your facebook profile and your public expressions about the church.

3.3.7 Unworthy Recommend Holders wrote:

If the bishop determines that a member who has a current recommend is unworthy, he immediately requests the recommend from the member. If the member refuses to return it, the bishop notifies the stake president at once. The stake president cancels the recommend …”

Note that there is no criteria for determining whether a member is “unworthy”, it’s just a blanket determination of whether the Bishop “determines” that a member is unworthy. The bishop at any time could “determine” that I am unworthy, perhaps by looking on my facebook page or determining that I’m a member of MoSto or something, and by that determination, unaudited by anyone, could simply demand my Temple Recommend and cancel it.

I hope this helps.

[Anonymous]

Good stuff, wayfarer.

I’ve conducted several interviews in my past. I would agree most go along without much to do. But it is still something instructed in the handbook to take seriously, and leaders take it seriously.

But I return to my original statement on the purpose of the recommend interview:

Heber13 wrote:

It is a checkpoint, and while self-reflection is part of it so we can testify of our commitments, the authority figure has an opportunity to deny the recommend. They have to recommend you to be worthy for going to the temple, and if things are not in order, they control the issuance of the recommend.

That is the purpose.

While it will most likely be anticipated to be a positive and uplifting experience, it is by design a checkpoint by leaders. And if they know something about you, they will not simply pass it based on the respondent’s Yes/No answers alone. They go by the spirit, and have a stewardship.

Anonymity on the websites is a helpful thing for many, not just in the names we use on profiles, but the content we disclose, for those who come looking for it.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Here are comments from the Church handbook of instructions around the purpose of temple recommend interviews, how they are to be conducted, and what the Church officers are expected to do if they feel a person may be unworthy.

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.”

I’m new to being a green-typeface moderator here, but maybe this will be the end of it. I’m really angry.

To the church I want to say: Write the standard questions differently if you want this information. Please don’t pretend that only open advocacy endangers a person’s recommend. If my unspoken thoughts and sympathies are going to keep me out of the temple, I’m afraid they will also keep me out of the chapel. Life’s too short for this particular type of contentiousness.

[Anonymous]

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.”

So, depending on how broadly you define apostate groups, pretty much every. single. member. of the church in the next decade or so. You’re probably on to something, rewrite the question to make it clear, then ask the same question to all people seeking a recommend, not just specific people.

For convenience: Thread to the discussionon TR Question Survey – Question 7: Affiliating with Apostates.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I’m new to being a green-typeface moderator here, but maybe this will be the end of it. I’m really angry.

is this a moderation comment? I love giving moderators a hard time. Ask ray.

Ann wrote:

To the church I want to say: Write the standard questions differently if you want this information. Please don’t pretend that only open advocacy endangers a person’s recommend. If my unspoken thoughts and sympathies are going to keep me out of the temple, I’m afraid they will also keep me out of the chapel. Life’s too short for this particular type of contentiousness.

yeahhh….. FUBAR — “Fouled” up beyond all recognition.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

is this a moderation comment?

No! I just meant that my reaction to this wasn’t very . . . .moderate.

And maybe it doesn’t matter if bishops choose not to ask even when they know that your sibling has an OW profile, for instance. But the church seems to be encouraging it. Sad, and, really, truly, not something I thought I would ever see in print.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Do you oppress the hireling in his wages?

This is an interesting one. Two years ago, I did work for a month, and was not paid for it. Major problem today – people ripping off their employees.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

Quote:

Do you oppress the hireling in his wages?

This is an interesting one. Two years ago, I did work for a month, and was not paid for it. Major problem today – people ripping off their employees.

My first “consulting” job ended up being “pro bono” even though I didn’t intend for it to be such.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

SamBee wrote:

Quote:

Do you oppress the hireling in his wages?

This is an interesting one. Two years ago, I did work for a month, and was not paid for it. Major problem today – people ripping off their employees.

My first “consulting” job ended up being “pro bono” even though I didn’t intend for it to be such.

There’s a lot of that, and many of them, internships etc turn out to be a form of exploitation.

While I’m glad that “are you honest in your business dealings?” is still in there, I wish “Do you oppress the hireling in his wages?”, or something couched in more modern language was still as well.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

While I’m glad that “are you honest in your business dealings?” is still in there, I wish “Do you oppress the hireling in his wages?”, or something couched in more modern language was still as well.

This reminds me of an experience my teen sons had a few years ago. A nearby member had asked them to come help him with some work at his house. Two of them went, they both worked several hours on various projects (mostly yard work). At the end he paid the older son more than the younger one who felt he had worked just as hard as his brother. He used the parable of the vineyard workers to “teach” why. In the years since he has asked several times if the younger one (now the only one home) will come and help him at his house – he always refuses (sometimes with an excuse, sometimes not). The guy wonders why. I told him once, but he never explained himself or apologized or tried to make it right. I fully support my son in this case and don’t ever try to talk him into going. One of them learned from the parable!

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

SamBee wrote:

While I’m glad that “are you honest in your business dealings?” is still in there, I wish “Do you oppress the hireling in his wages?”, or something couched in more modern language was still as well.

This reminds me of an experience my teen sons had a few years ago. A nearby member had asked them to come help him with some work at his house. Two of them went, they both worked several hours on various projects (mostly yard work). At the end he paid the older son more than the younger one who felt he had worked just as hard as his brother. He used the parable of the vineyard workers to “teach” why. In the years since he has asked several times if the younger one (now the only one home) will come and help him at his house – he always refuses (sometimes with an excuse, sometimes not). The guy wonders why. I told him once, but he never explained himself or apologized or tried to make it right. I fully support my son in this case and don’t ever try to talk him into going. One of them learned from the parable!

Playing God generally has a bad outcome. Try it with your spouse and see how good it works!

[Author]

Posts