If you are a member of a stake presidency, stake clerk, stake executive secretary, high councilor, stake Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, Primary or Sunday School presidency, bishopric, ward clerk, ward executive secretary, high priest group leader or assistant, elders quorum presidency, ward Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, Primary, and Sunday School presidency or a ward mission leader, you may have already been invited to attend a broadcast of the Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting on Saturday November 13, 2010. At this meeting the unveiling of the new 2010 Church Handbook of Instructions will take place.
Many Bishops have had the new handbooks since the first of September, at which time a notice was sent instructing that the handbooks should not be distributed in wards and branches until the November 13 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting. Another notice followed on the 30th of September addressed to Area Authorities saying “Please remind your bishops and branch presidents that the handbooks are not to be distributed to anyone prior to November 13, nor should they be used in any leadership training before then.”
Nonetheless, Bishops have been perusing the instructions in the new handbook and preparing to make a few changes in procedure. Further information is expected on the caring of the poor and needy, a mission of the Church which has recently received increased emphasis. Additionally, one of the interesting new policies is the following, affecting those Priesthood holders who do not currently hold a temple recommend:
“Only a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend may act as voice in confirming a person a member of the church, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood, ordaining a person to an office in that priesthood, or setting apart a person to serve in a church calling.
As guided by the Spirit and the instructions of the next paragraph, bishops and stake presidents have the discretion to allow priesthood holders who are not fully temple worthy to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings. However, presiding officers should not allow such participation if a priesthood holder has unresolved serious sins.
A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice.” (pg. 140, 2010 CHI)
This stricter interpretation of who is allowed to perform ordinances seems to contradict instructions given by Boyd K. Packer concerning the administration of ordinances by family members, especially the father. In a recent Conference address, Elder Packer made a distinction between priesthood authority and priesthood power:
“Priesthood is the authority and the power which God has granted to men on earth to act for Him. When priesthood authority is exercised properly, priesthood bearers do what He would do if He were present. We have done very well at distributing the authority of the priesthood. We have priesthood authority planted nearly everywhere. We have quorums of elders and high priests worldwide. But distributing the authority of the priesthood has raced, I think, ahead of distributing the power of the priesthood. The priesthood does not have the strength that it should have and will not have until the power of the priesthood is firmly fixed in the families as it should be.” (Boyd K. Packer, The Power of the Priesthood, CR Apr 2010)
Elder Packer then recounted several stories about men who were less active who were called upon to give priesthood ordinations to their sons. In one case a young man was being ordained an elder in preparation for a mission. Though his father had not ordained his other boys and did not expect to ordain this one, Elder Packer called him forward to perform the ordination. “Thank goodness he was an elder,” said Packer. “Had he not been, he soon could have been! In the military they would call that a battlefield commission. Sometimes such things are done in the Church.” The entire talk seemed aimed at encouraging fathers to step up and perform priesthood ordinances and blessings though they may currently be living slightly below the higher standards necessary for temple worthiness. He continued,
“We need everyone. The tired or worn out or lazy and even those who are bound down with guilt must be restored through repentance and forgiveness. Too many of our priesthood brethren are living below their privileges and the Lord’s expectations.”
Readers, what is your reaction to this guidance on priesthood ordinances, especially barring fathers who do not have current temple recommends from confirming their children following baptism? Do you see a discrepancy between the instructions in the 2010 CHI and Boyd K. Packer’s talk? Do you think that with the new policy, Elder Packer’s intentions are again being edited? What other surprises are in store on November 13th?
Wheat & Tares 
I think it is interesting that Elder Packer is often portrayed as too conservative, while in this example he is reflected on as being the opposite. I’m wondering what the training broadcast will address.
Yes Stephen! I’m glad to be able to provide a little nuance to Elder Packer. I’m also wondering, if not from Elder Packer, where this new and stricter emphasis on temple worthiness is coming from.
I taught an EQ lesson on E. Packer’s talk, but was surprised at the reception in my quorum, which is otherwise quite liberal. I made a similar point to you, BiV, in that there is no mention of interviewing the father before insisting he do the ordinance. But multiple people stepped in and said they felt it wouldn’t have happened if he wasn’t worthy. I disagreed, but felt quite alone in my opinion. I wonder if we’re the odd ones out.
Having said that, I do think in general it is a good thing to emphasize temple worthiness, but, I would always focus on the first questions more than the latter in helping a person turn their life around to be more in line with preparing to go to the temple. Fix up the faith in God and in Christ first, and most other issues will work themselves out.
it seems that the new CHI places even more authority in the hands of leaders to give out favors of worthiness. this will, in turn, place more pressure on LDS members to conform and quiet any doubts, given the heavy consequences and ostracism if they don’t.
Packer’s comments seem to be in opposition (and strangely very compassionate) to the CHI. I’m sure the CHI will have priority.
But ultimately, the decision will rest to the individual LDS leader. I’m sure we’ll see some over-reach and abuse of power, just as we’ll see some other leaders let their less-active members baptize and ordain their family, if they want to.
“Please remind your bishops and branch presidents that the handbooks are not to be distributed to anyone prior to November 13, nor should they be used in any leadership training before then.”
They should have added that the obsolete parts of the old handbooks should not be used in lessons either. For our fifth Sunday lesson last week, our bishop reviewed various procedures, including who may perform ordinances. It was emphasized that any Melchizedek Priesthood holder could perform ordinances like confirmation, but that outside their home ward, they needed either a recommend or a form signed by the bishop. Now the bishop (who either didn’t have a new handbook or didn’t read it) is going to have to walk back his lesson. Bummer.
A few comments:
1) Great post. Thanks.
2) It think it is sad that our only real information about the CHI comes from “leaks”. Otherwise, the manuals are essentially kept under lock-and-key with old copies shredded. It’s not as if some spy’s life is in danger if the contents were to get out, yet it is basically stamped “Top Secret”.
The problem with this is that while “doctrine” is technically found in the standard works, the actual interpretation of the doctrine which has a very real impact on the day-to-day lives of members of the Church is in the CHI, yet the average member isn’t allowed to have a copy of it. It is a state of being judged by something you are not allowed to have – almost like “double secret probation”
3) I understand the purpose for the Church to want people serving in it and ordaining people to callings in the hierarchy to be held to the “temple-worthy” standard. But I think not letting a father confirm his child is absolutely crazy. I think this is another example of the Church’s increasingly hard-line and dogmatic policies that are hurting much more than they are helping.
My theory: the Church realizes all of the changing demographics in its membership. They are entering a “circle the wagons” mentality with more and more intrusions into the lives of their members. Perhaps they think that if they can keep the parents of children “temple worthy” so they can confirm their children, they will get more tithing and the kids will be more likely to go on missions, etc. Perhaps this is in response to the fact that there is a problem with young adult retention. I think policies like this may have a counter-effect, however. I could see that this would be the “final straw” for at least as many people as this “reactivates”.
4) Josh: I also absolutely agree. There will be a hard-liner who will alienate people through this, at the same time claiming that he is only “following the CHI”. There will be other people who would completely ignore this. If I was a bishop, I would let any Melchizedek priesthood holder ordain their child. Perhaps that’s why I’m not a bishop.
I share Mike S sentiments. I can see some strategy in how the Church manages the CHI, but still find myself ultimately wondering what the point is. The information contained in them are not sacred in the same way as the Temple secrets are supposed to be. There really isn’t anything in there that would further embarrass the Church, so why all of the secrecy. With all of the corporate influence on culture within the Church hierarchy, they sure are slow to learn that transparency is becoming the new fashion statement – particularly when unnecessary secrets are found to be more harmful than openness.
The CHI is not intended to become fixed and established. One part of keeping it mutable and not letting it become doctrine is to not make it a public document.
There is a feeling that making the CHI public makes things too rigid and keeps out the ability to be open to being influenced by the Spirit.
As a general authority once told me “if Nephi had had the CHI …”
I think the ability to make exceptions will be widely used by local leaders to allow less active fathers to confirm and perhaps ordain their children. And, one of the interesting things about Elder Packer’s world view has been the primacy he places on the family, even at times, over the Church (that is my interpretation anyway).
I wrote a response to this early this morning and then deleted it, but here I am again (blog junkie that I am…).
First, I suspect the CHI training will be nothing revolutionary. I was around when the last CHI was introduced and there were instructions around it, too. But nothing earth shattering — minor adjustments, not seismic shifts.
The purpose of the CHI is to help lay leaders to conform to church standards in the execution of their duties. That’s why the lay leaders receive it and not all members. I really don’t see it as a conspiracy to keep members in the dark. (That said, I also agree that it is not a weapon to be used on conversation or classes, as in “the Church Handbook of Instructions says….” If the CHI is to be quoted it should be in the context of doctrine, not as a discussion ender.)
As for the specific example you mention, you suggest Elder Packer dictated a more liberal standard than the CHI. I suggest that Elder Packer is an apostle and therefore is likely to preside in nearly any meeting he attends and that may give him latitude that local leaders may not enjoy.
His admonition that fathers perform ordinances does not change in the new CHI (assuming your bootlegged copy is correct, and I have no reason to believe it is not).
Fathers should perform ordinances, but in some cases, those fathers may need to work on temple worthiness issues, just as they always have done.
Last Lemming: I doubt that the requirement to show a current recommend or a bishop’s certification for traveling members will change; a bishop who is not the bishop of the visiting PH holder would have no way of assessing where that brother fits in the guideline (nor should he).
Stephen #8, that is a good point. But in this case, the wording is pretty clear: “…he may not act as voice.” I think that many Bishops will use their discretion in allowing fathers without recommeds to baptize and stand in circles, but the instruction to disallow confirmation and MP ordination will discourage all but the most unorthodox Bishops from permitting it. Additionally I worry that there will be others who use the discretionary clause to forbid men without recommends even to baptize, or to name and bless their children.
So, then does this mean if a father is not temple worthy then he doesn’t “preside” in the home?
How is he worthy in one area and not the other, or does it not make a difference
Diane, an interesting point. I see no reason why Church rhetoric should change on fathers (worthy or unworthy) presiding in the home. But in practice I have already seen many women who marginalize their husbands’ spiritual decisions in the home when they are less active. This can easily be done by invoking the temple covenant to listen to her husband’s counsel only when he is following the counsel of the Lord.
Had a Bishop once who received his calling when he was totally inactive, smoking, drinking and the like. Yet someone still felt inspired to call him. Although I was a deacon when he was called, I still remember his compassion. While there were many who had a problem with his calling, I doubt anybody had ever had a Bishop who was more understanding of human foibles and what it took to overcome them.
With this in mind, I certainly hope that the CHI does not remove all discretion. Even an inactive member can have a great deal to offer. In the case of my Bishop, it totally turned his life around and he is still a devoted and faithful member, almost 40 years later. If a hard-line stance existed at that time, he may not have been called.
If the CHI removes discretion, there are lives which may not be changed. It may not be many, but none of these are unknown to the Savior.
When my father was bishop (and he is definitely on the so-called “liberal” side of things) he had problems with some members trying to “correct” him suggesting he wasn’t following this or that direction the right way. It’s one thing to have a counselor tell the bishop that his interpretation of the CHI is off. Counselors are good for that. It’s another to have an entire ward with the CHI in the back of their scriptures, watching the bishop’s every move. His insight helped me form my opinion that leaking it is the only way to keep the CHI out of the hands of so-called “orthodox” members, who wouldn’t think of touching a leaked document, yet if given out freely, would use it and be ultra-critical.
It’s another to have an entire ward with the CHI in the back of their scriptures, watching the bishop’s every move.
hahaha, what a nightmare! But Adam, do you really think that orthodox members won’t peek at a leaked document?
Cornponebread, glad to hear that callings like that are not just Mormon folklore. I’m still so concerned that this “discretion” that is mentioned is not really discretion at all, since the only option allowed in confirmations or MP ordinations is to let the “unworthy one” participate in the ordinance by standing in the circle. There is no discretion allowed for being voice in these ordinances, and it remains to be seen how difficult it will be for sympathetic Bishops to counter these instructions.
While I like the example of the bishop, I think that the Church is different than it was 40 years ago. I don’t think you’d find an inactive, smoking person called as bishop today.
I think the current hierarchy selects out non-rigid thinkers. If a bishop chose to completely ignore the CHI and allow an “unworthy” father to confirm his daughter or to ordain his son to the priesthood, I think many stake presidents would talk to him about it. If the bishop made it a practice as opposed to an exception, I could see him getting released sooner rather than later. And the bishops that end up getting called as stake presidents are generally the ones that “toe the line” and follow the CHI. The stake presidents that get called higher similarly “toe the line”.
Well, crud.
I have to admit that do not have a current temple recommend — and for various reasons, it is unlikely that I can change that before my next child is to be confirmed in a year and a half.
Elder Bednar tells me I’m not allowed to be offended that I’ll have to explain to my son why I can’t confirm him, as I did my daughter, and so I guess I’ll start working at not-being-offended prospectively.
But right now? Control freaks, the lot of them.
“do you really think that orthodox members won’t peek at a leaked document?”
Lol, well, the members who were bothering my Dad, um, NO WAY would they do such a sinful thing.
Apostolic “inspiration” trumps CHI every day from what I’ve seen.
“A bishop MAY allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy”
MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY. That’s the word that always worries me in the church in general and the CHI in particular. Some people will get a privilege, and some won’t. And that’s what makes it a privilege.
I’ve seen too many sons of leaders getting skipped ahead in the Scouting organization; not having to wait 6 months to get the next rank advancement, doing almost nothing for an Eagle project, etc., just so the SP’s son can get his Eagle before he’s 18. I saw the deacon-age son of a church leader go up 2 ranks at one court-of-honor (and no, he’d had no time to get both).
There are far too many leaders who throw their weight and authority around. The CHI seeks to stop some of that, but opens the doors to more.
And when ordinary members see this kind of thing happening, there’s murmuring and complaints, and the GA’s answer is “shut up and don’t be offended.”
I know a ward nearby where a bishop had 18 priests during his time in the office. 17 of those young men went inactive because of his behavior towards them.
I had a mission president who demonstrated blatant favoritism towards certain missionaries, and then wondered so many of the other missionaries had bad attitudes.
I don’t know what the answer is. I just expect better from a church built on the bedrock of revelation. Perhaps that is my mistake.
Thomas #19, your response makes me wonder. Is there anyone out there who will protest this? Are there any PH holders who will take the BKP talk in to their bishops, appeal it up the ladder, write letters to the Brethren (contra the latest circular-read-over-the-pulpit)??
Or do we just have the two groups: those who will no longer be attending, and those who will work on their not-being-offended?
I think this policy change is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
It is clear that a long-term trend in the Church is to emphasize, much more so than in the past, that “active Mormon” really means “Mormon with temple recommend.” The push to build new temples all over the place is an investment in developing a potentially smaller but more committed body of Church members. The Church needs more public markers of temple worthiness if it is to be successful in channeling more people into its “premium” level of membership.
Economic theory talks about this. It’s the problem of eliminating “free riders” in a social or fraternal organization.
The LDS policy of not allowing civil marriage to precede temple sealing serves a similar purpose.
Great, great point MoHoHawaii!
BiV, regarding your #23, then, it seems like they’re gambling that this strategy will push people on the fringe in more than it will drive them (okay, “us”) out.
Or maybe not. Maybe they don’t care whether it drives everyone on the fringe out. Gotta separate the wheat from the chaff (er, tares) and all that. Maybe having the bright line between true believing members and the great unwashed is more important than necessarily having very many people on the inside of the line.
The odd thing here, is that the Church is becoming like a state run by the Democratic Party: Great for the rich who have money to burn (on tithing); great for the “destitute” who get more financial assistance back from the Church than the symbolic tithing they pay. And absolute hell on the indebted-to-their-eyeballs folks in the middle.
This is going to be a very difficult policy change for me. I try really really really really (did I say that enough yet?) hard to stay active in the Church and positive about it, in spite of everything.
I am not interested in holding an active temple recommend. I am trying hard to give my children reasons to find value in attending church (all are currently inactive).
But now, I guess that Priesthood that I hold doesn’t really mean anything after all. So I have it? Or I don’t? They aren’t going to take away my “authority” … just not let me use it to serve people through ordinances (most importantly my own family).
Just to point out an emphasize something — they were pretty much saying they aren’t comfortable letting a priesthood holder do anything unless they hold a current temple recommend … but some exceptions might be possible in certain circumstances. That is what I read when it says “may allow.” That means normally not, but maybe yes.
#24: MoHo
This is a great point. As you mentioned, I can see this in MANY of their policies. Unfortunately, when you are having “brand erosion” with the decreasing conversion rate, loss of young adults, poor retention rates, fewer missionaries, etc., I don’t know that the best policy is to “raise your prices”. They seem to be doubling down in hopes of hitting the jackpot.
I have my own ideas on what they should do, but my opinion counts for nothing, to be honest. They seem to be going in the opposite direction anyway.
Also, I hate to be cynical, but I wonder how much of this is driven by money. Having a temple recommend means paying a full tithing. With the billions spent recently on malls and land purchases and ad campaigns and everything else, combined with the market depression, I am sure their finances are hurting. In reality, doing something like this is the only way to fix their balance sheets.
Re #23 and #25. Policies like the one being discussed (and the prohibition against civil marriages occuring before temple sealing) do serve their purpose. Clearly, the calculation has been made that risk of pushing people away is more than offset by the number of “membership upgrades” that result from the policies. That’s a tradeoff that the Church’s MBA types can figure out.
My problem with these policies is that they are harsh and cause many, many tears. They divide families and bring shame where no shame need be, especially in connection with family celebrations like a wedding or a child’s baptism or ordination as a deacon. It’s seems to lack a generosity of spirit.
I understand the problem of reducing free riders. I just wonder if there isn’t a less punitive way to achieve the goal.
I’m clear on the part about someone with “unresolved serious sins” not being allowed to administer ordinances, but for faithful church attending members who may not wish to hold a temple recommend for other reasons, this seems like a very hard line. It makes it harder for members who want to be active in the church, and raise children in the church, but who may not wish to go to the temple. I suppose we’ll all see how this plays out in the real life of our wards. I suspect results may vary. I hate to see there be no room in the church for “active mormons” who do not hold temple recommends. As Brian pointed out so eloquently in #27, that’s already a very difficult path.
It makes me a little sad to see that specified that way.
What is the down-side of someone not holding a temple recommend performing a confirmation or ordinance as the voice?
I just see that it will add more division among families, and directly goes against what Pres. Packer was trying to teach.
Re #26,
LOL!
The poor (at least in the U.S.) pay a higher percentage of their income in tithing than do the rich, due to tax effects. If you’re rich, you are reimbursed for a hefty share of tithing based on your top [marginal] tax rate. The poor get no such subsidy. The nominal rate for tithing is fixed for all income levels at 10%. This means, with tax effects included, that tithing rates are actually regressive, with the poor paying a larger proportion of their income as tithes than the rich.
Also, each dollar donated by the poor represents a sacrifice that is much, much more painful than any experienced by the middle or upper income folks. You suggest that any tithes paid by the poor are offset by Church-provided welfare. In my experience, this kind of assistance is meant to get people only through temporary hardships, not provide an ongoing subsidy. Also, many middle-class and formerly middle-class families are undergoing tremendous economic hardship but do not qualify for Church welfare. These are the folks in the middle that you mention, and I agree with you that they are being squeezed like never before.
But, I claim, that it’s because of regressive rates of assessment, which is much more a Republican principle.
[You might want to consider supporting politicians who believe in progressive tax rates and who won’t give away the store to billionaires. :- )]
It’s more of the high-stakes, all-or-nothing paradigm that fails so much. It drove many of the people I love dearly out of the church.
I already have to deal with too many people both in and out of the church telling me I don’t belong there unless I do everything and believe everything a certain way (their way or the highway). So here’s one more voice added to that burden. Thanks for the help (sarcasm).
I bet there were a lot of those same people standing along the road as Jesus went to be crucified — everyone trying to pick a bigger cross for him to bear so they could prove he was worthy of being their savior.
Hmm. Doesn’t say you need a temple recommend, but to be worthy of one. Hasn’t personal worthiness always been a condition of exercising the priesthood?
Mike S
Also, I hate to be cynical, but I wonder how much of this is driven by money. Having a temple recommend means paying a full tithing. With the billions spent recently on malls and land purchases and ad campaigns and everything else, combined with the market depression, I am sure their finances are hurting. In reality, doing something like this is the only way to fix their balance sheets.
Very cynical. The Lord doesn’t need our tithing, we need to pay it. Whether you pay your tithing or not, the church rolls on, with or without you.
“You might want to consider supporting politicians who believe in progressive tax rates and who won’t give away the store to billionaires. :-”
Yeah, well, the result of every round of tax cutting over the past century, wound up making the tax code more progressive. Because the only way you can cut marginal tax rates for “the rich” at all, is to throw even larger rate cuts at the lower tax brackets. It’s happened every time, to the point that half the country pays no income tax at all (and pays negative FICA tax, when benefits are factored in).
The problem with income taxation (as opposed to wealth or consumption taxation) is that it ignores the fact that a person with a high nominal income, may well be nowhere near as “wealthy” as a person with lots of assets but less income. Think of a fat and happy retiree who bought his SoCal home in the seventies for thirty grand. He can feel nice and righteous for paying tithing on his pension payments (which are more than enough for him to live on), and look down on the wicked younger generation who have, to put it mildly, somewhat higher overhead costs sucking up every last dime of the money tithing’s supposed to come out of.
“So move out of California,” they’ll say. Easy for you to say when your only professional license is in this goshforsaken-and-getting-worse place, and you have no time and/or money to get one anywhere else, let alone the resources to relocate a practice. When you’re hanging on by your fingernails, 10% of your fingernails is a killer.
Now, if tithing were understood as 10% of a person’s surplus income, it would be a progressive system after all. But middle-class Saints are evidently in greater need of the spiritual benefits of real sacrifice than rich Mormons, whose blessings of wealth are a good indication that they’re already as righteous as they need to be.
Paul#35
I don’t think personal worthiness was ever defined as worthy to hold a temple recommend, just worthy to exercise the priesthood.
While it doesn’t require showing a recommend, that is what is intended. If you don’t have a recommend, you would have to explain why (it expired but I’m worthy to hold one seems acceptable).
However, it changes what Pres Packer was teaching, in that you can’t hold a “battlefield commission” without first holding a “battlefield temple recommend interview”.
I’m still wondering why it needs to be specified that way. Was there a problem the way the handbook was (in that it didn’t specify temple worthiness)? What is the downside of someone not worthy to go to the temple performing a Melchizedek priesthood ordination?
“The problem with income taxation (as opposed to wealth or consumption taxation) is that it ignores the fact that a person with a high nominal income, may well be nowhere near as “wealthy” as a person with lots of assets but less income.”
Thomas:
Excellent points!
Why can anyone baptize (priest or elder without a temple recommend), but to confirm a member of the church and give the Gift of the Holy Ghost means you have to be worthy to attend the temple?
“I am sure their finances are hurting”
Hogwash, they are the most fiscally sound organization in the world.
You might want to consider supporting politicians who believe in progressive tax rates and who won’t give away the store to billionaires
You mean, go after the people that create jobs making our economic situation worse. Yea, that’s smart.
One change that I noticed is that there is now a manual for SP and bishop, and another one for everyone else. Our bishop goes off manual a lot, and now his counselors won’t be able to appeal to the manual like in the past. Before the manual was for bishoprics and stake presidencies.
#41 – Is this why the church trimmed non-producing holdings such as Beneficial Life and implemented a church-wide hiring freeze? The church may not be in dire straits, but the current economic climate has affected them, just like everyone else.
RE: 29 – I’ve wondered the same thing lately Mike. I certainly hope that is not the case, but I can’t help but wonder. The increasing emphasis from the church on temple worship seems well intended, but the fact that money is tied to attending the temple always leads me to question the motives.
I believe that some SERIOUS sins do impact ones actual priesthood authority, but most of the temple interview questions have nothing to do with serious sins of such significance. The priesthood is a blessing given with the purpose and mandate to bless and serve the lives of others, not as some carrot to be dangled as bait to coerce us into checking all the right boxes.
Very much ado about nothing. Typically, these changes are made long before they show up in print in the CHI. In spite of that talk in GC about the GA who, when he was a Stake President asked the visiting GA a bunch of questions and kept getting referred to the CHI. I specifically heard President Hinckley tell our Regional Priesthood leadership Meeting not to have our heads stuck in the CHI but to use discernment and the Spirit to guide us in decision making. He said very few things in the CHI are absolute and most can be used with a large amount of discretion by the leadership. A lot of men do not want that flexibility and would rather let the book be their guide rather than the Spirit. (I corrected my post to CHI because the last time I had one of those books, it was the General Handbook of Instructions, In fact, I still have the cover.)
Typically, these changes are made long before they show up in print in the GHI.(sic)
Interesting perspective, Jeff– I personally have never heard of anyone who was asked not to perform a confirmation of their own child simply because they didn’t have a temple recommend. Have you? It seems to me that these are changes which are a big departure from current practice.
BIV, if we are to believe that quote, it does not say “holding a Temple Recommend,” it says “Temple Worthy.” So, for example, in Brian’s case, if he were worthy of a Temple recommend, but didn’t have one, he would not be disqualified. And, it is really up to his Bishop anyway. Not some book.
I’ve had several personal experiences lately with being asked to present my temple recommend before participating in baby blessings, and it definitely rubs me the wrong way. (And for disclosure purposes, I have a temple recommend.) But it just kind of seemed wrong-headed to me; doesn’t feel “right”.
And since this recent emphasis (it’s only been in the past few months or so that I’ve noticed) I was also witness to a specific episode of rigid adherence to the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Arriving 5 minutes late one Sunday I overheard a bishop out in the foyer chewing out a young father for not notifying him of the father-in-law’s intention to join in the circle to bless his grand-baby in time to check the temple recommend.
Since the grandfather didn’t have it on him that morning (after traveling a long distance), the bishop had left the meeting to try to call grandfather’s bishop with no success, and when they went back in he chose not to allow the grandfather to stand in the circle.
I had a strong reaction to this. In fact I thought it was despicable. I wished that the bishop had followed the spirit of the law and let the grandfather participate and if there was a problem God would sort it out. (Personally I don’t think the temple recommend should be necessary anyway, and I even question the necessity of having a member of the bishopric present for a father to bless the baby, but that’s another issue. Yet while I’m on that tangent, I will say that I MUCH prefer to do a baby blessing at home with just family (and the member of the bishopric of course) rather than in front of the entire congregation. I’ve done both and it didn’t feel right to me to include all those people on the special family experience; it definitely distracted me from what should be an intimate moment.)
Anyway (and ironically), several weeks after I witnessed that bishop’s decision (and his brusque and uncharitable way of speaking to the young father) a visiting high council speaker shared a quote over the pulpit from an area authority who had counseled this high councilor when he was a young branch president. The money quote was: “Never let protocol or tradition get in the way of the Spirit. It is the Spirit that matters most.”
I love the quote, but I loved it even more that this bishop was in attendance and listening. I couldn’t help but wonder if he took that to heart.
Could someone still be “worthy” and have priesthood to perform saving ordinances if they do not pay a full tithe? At what point does that authority vanish compared to a lack of money paid?
It starts to sound like a pay-as-you-go system for salvation. Will the next update to the CHI include a provision to purchase indulgences?
Tithing is the best example I can think of where the new standard diverges from the old, and it doesn’t come down to an issue of basic morality.
I think that’s a compelling question (and point) Brian.
Temple is linked with tithing, so there is the aspect of money. But temple is also linked with a bar code, which comes with the aspect of tracking.
So, let’s all be grateful that just temple worthiness is the issue. The day may come that temple attendance numbers are looked at as the new CHI standard and the otherwise worthy temple recommend holder may find that he is not meeting the divinely set quota, making him unworthy to perform ordinances.
Which brings up another question. Are the women of this church denied anything by not being temple recommend worthy, like the men?
Thanks for your comments, Jeff. I think you’re spot on.
BiV, when I was bishop, I was required to oversee ordinances performed in my ward, to be certain they were performed correctly and by those authorized to perform them. For members of my own ward, I could judge worthiness based on my interaction with that person (and an interview if necessary). For visitors, I was in no position to judge worthiness or to verify priesthood status. The temple recommend is a convenient way to do that. Otherwise, the recommend to perform an ordinance provided by the visitor’s bishop will accomplish the same thing. This system has been in place since before the present CHI.
As for worthiness to use the priesthood — when we are ordained that happens after a worthiness interview in which the questions are virtually the same as the temple recommend questions. Why would we assume worthiness to exercise the priesthood is any different from worthiness to receive it?
Finally, Jeff’s point about the changes already having been made — most of the changes in the last CHI (published in the early 90’s if memory serve) were to include items that had already been directed in separate circulars from the First Presidency or Quorum of the 12. There were some more dramatic changes, including guidelines on church discipline, but most had already been made prior to publication of the books.
As for the tithing issue… What’s up with that? Tithing has long been a standard in the restored church, and long been a part of worthiness to receive gospel blessings. In the baptismal interview we commit to pay it. In priesthood interviews we indicate that we do pay it. And in temple recommend interviews we do the same.
#51: “Are the women of this church denied anything by not being temple recommend worthy, like the men?”
Sure. The opportunity to attend the temple.
Re: all the comments suggesting money is a motivating factor… Don’t lose sight of the fact that the law of tithing is well-entrenched in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Mention of it goes back to the old testament, as far back as Genesis. It is nothing new, and almost all churches practice it in some form or another, even Islam and Sikhism. And while not all churches tie it to worthiness or standing within the congregation, many still do.
Frankly, as far as this discussion goes I think it is a bit of a red herring. After all, it is not the only deal-breaker when it comes to a temple recommend.
What I find interesting is that somehow the Church is to blame for preventing some Brethren from exercising their Priesthood due to worthiness issues or the fact that they don’t want a TR. When in reality, the only thing holding them back is themselves. Most of these folks are not novices to the Church procedure and worthiness guidelines. they only refuse to follow them therefore, disqualifying themselves. So they are the ones depriving heir loved ones. Not the Church.
Another thing, the Blessing and Naming of a child is not held at the same level of Priesthood ordinances as Confirmation or healing of the sick. It is optional as converts usually have not had that ordinance and they do fine without it. But everyone must have a confirmation and gift of the Holy Ghost ordinance.
51 LDS Anarchist: “Which brings up another question. Are the women of this church denied anything by not being temple recommend worthy, like the men?” Well, yes. We also can’t perform PH ordinances without one. Or with one, except in the temple itself.
Clearly this is designed as a litmus test for the fathers as they are the ones whose authority is marginalized if their lack of TR is made public in one more way (not just weddings now). Because it’s unfathomable that an unworthy PH holder’s ordinances are of no effect. There have been enough PH holders who have committed grievous sins like adultery and still performed ordinances during that time. Priests & teachers have sinned on Saturday and blessed & passed on Sunday, and nobody dropped dead on the spot from taking the sacrament; covenants were still renewed based on the faithfulness of the participants. The person receiving the confirmation still receives the Holy Ghost – God doesn’t withhold it based on the unworthiness of the PH holder. So the power is still there.
If that’s not what we believe, then every PH holder who has ever confessed would also have to list out the names of all people who received an ordinance at his unworthy hands (like a list of sexual partners when you contract HIV) so that those people could be notified they needed the ordinance again.
One more thought. I predict that there will come a day, not too far hence (does that sound prophetic enough) when TR recommend worthiness will require regular temple attendance of some sort for renewal to be allowed. Simply holding it won’t cut muster. And lo, in that day, there will be many, even the very elect, who will waver and fall away.
By definition, this dilemma would be faced by a brother only…
Suppose you’d been involved romantically with a lady friend under questionable circumstances? Then, sometime later (she being a “dry” Mormon and her children already being members), she wants to FINALLY get baptised…and asks you to perform. For clarity, assume the “deed” has been already dealt with insofar as the repentance process is concerned.
Would YOU perform the ordinance?
The Doctrine and Covenants talks about a similar mechanic, anyway ….
Another tangent: What’s the difference between being worthy to take the sacrament and being temple worthy? Honestly, it depends on you ask. I don’t think God sees a difference. But the Church puts up requirements on those who go to the temple that I doubt have much to do with real worthiness. For example, you have to be a full tithe payer in order to get the bishop to sign the recommend to go to the temple. But does Christ’s atonement only take effect for those who pay their tithing? Of course not! So a lot of those things that are viewed as making one “temple worthy” don’t, in my opinion, necessarily truly reflect the heart and the personal relationship one has with the Savior.
#55 Jeff Spector: “When in reality, the only thing holding them back is themselves. Most of these folks are not novices to the Church procedure and worthiness guidelines. they only refuse to follow them therefore, disqualifying themselves. So they are the ones depriving heir loved ones. Not the Church.”
I openly and freely confess to being a slacker in the church. I try to be very positive and respectful of the temple. I see it as the pinnacle experience within the Mormon religious experience (not the minimum). So yes, I make a conscious decision to not have a temple recommend out of respect for that. Like you said, I know the deal inside and out, better than most members that hold a TR, and better than all the people who lie to keep one.
I have never complained about not being able to attend the temple, or that the standards should be changed to accommodate me.
Is there a form letter for a battlefield demotion? I guess I should request a reduction in rank back to enlisted status and blessing pay grade to a Priest, since being a gimped Elder with the Melchizedek Priesthood is kind of retarded.
I’ll go be creepy and attend class with the 16 year olds I guess, since the Aaronic Priesthood stopped being a priesthood back when they turned it into a youth program.
I like Clean Cut’s idea — let the Deacons see the temple recommend before serving someone the sacrament. That would be the best way to include the sisters in the drag net.
56: hawkgrrrl: “Clearly this is designed as a litmus test for the fathers as they are the ones whose authority is marginalized if their lack of TR is made public in one more way (not just weddings now).”
Marginalized only insofar as the church is concerned. They can still use their priesthood tribally.
Clean Cut #48: What a horrific story! I assume the grandfather actually had a TR, too.. That’s just awful. Since you’ve only been seeing these things for the past couple of months I’m thinking it’s a result of the Bishop having read the new handbook and beginning to apply it already. (Bishops have had these since Sept 1) This is exactly what I am afraid will happen with the new directives. In the above comments many have expressed the opinion that the Handbook is not always strictly adhered to, but in my experience it is exactly the opposite. Bishops and SPs I have had have adhered strictly to the letter of the law and used the Handbook as their battering ram.
LDS Anarchist, I want to meet you.
It looks like they are trying to extend the brand, if you will. At the end of the day, why do we have a temple recommend? To go to the temple. And doctrinally, how many times in a lifetime (mortality or post-mortality) do we need to go to the temple? Once. Other than that, our purpose in life is to love God and love our fellowman.
Our Church has four missions, which is nice in a way because we are all different. Some people find a profound connection with genealogy, temple work, redeeming the dead, etc. For others, they like the meetings and roles in the hierarchy so for them perfecting the saints might be their best fit. For still others, helping other people might be their best fit, aiding the poor and needy, etc.
I think there should be room in the church for all people of all stripes and levels. Someone may not “qualify” for a temple recommend, or may not care to have one. They may not have had the profound experience they had hoped for in the temple that others have. It may have been a jarring experience for them and they just don’t care to go back.
But they can still help their fellow man. They can still be good fathers and mothers. They can still be wonderful sons and daughters of God. But to cut someone off and say they can’t confirm their child, or serve in many other non-temple ways is disturbing to me. And I also agree that despite all of the comments about “compassion”, local leaders generally tend to err on the side of over-adherence to the CHI as opposed to the converse. I worry that this is going to backfire on the members, like raising the bar did for missionary work.
“One more thought. I predict that there will come a day, not too far hence (does that sound prophetic enough) when TR recommend worthiness will require regular temple attendance of some sort for renewal to be allowed. Simply holding it won’t cut muster. And lo, in that day, there will be many, even the very elect, who will waver and fall away.”
When the new Temple Recommends started including bar codes that would be scanned, I didn’t think anything of it. A few weeks after I recieved mine I was at the grocery store using one of the self check-out machines, and I accidentally placed my wallet on the scanner and it ran a price of $6.66. I thought, what the heck! I opened my wallet, and pulled out the new recommend and again placed it on the scanner it again ran a price for $6.66. This time however the price was itemized as “MotB”. I thought, what heck is that…and then it hit me…MotB…MARK Of The Beast!! Just as I realized this the power went through the whole store, and yet Satans face appeared on the display. True Story!
In seriousness, when the bar codes became a feature of the new TR, I had the same thought as Hawkgrrrl. Now we can track temple attendance. This won’t be good for me, I haven’t attended in over three years.
When I baptized and confirmed my daughter a couple of years ago, I didn’t hold a current temple recommend, so I had to have a bishop’s interview to determine my worthiness. In that interview I told my bishop that I wasn’t a full tithe payer and wasn’t worthy to hold a recommend for that reason. There was never a hint that I wouldn’t be able to baptize or confirm my daughter because of that. The policy seemed to be that a current TR was per se evidence of worthiness, but not having one was not necessarily considered evidence that I was NOT worthy, only that I had to have an interview to determine my worthiness. And the standards for worthiness in that instance were absolutely not temple worthiness. I’m not saying the new policy is right or wrong, but it definitely seems to be a departure from the old policy.
#67 – By the way, Cowboy, I had this same experience, only it was Glenn Beck’s face that appeared on the display.
The temple recommend bar codes are not new. Rather, they are a return to a previous era. One reason I was given for their removal was the ability to track and report attendance, and local leaders were using those reports as clubs to encourage more frequent attendance.
Be that as it may, I, too, question the wisdom of “amen to the priesthood of that man” when he doesn’t have a recommend.
When I read this, tithing didn’t even enter my mind. I don’t see that as a motivation here.
I was thinking more of the people who try so hard to come to church, even if they may have an unconventional kind of faith. I was thinking of the people who quietly sit on the pews each week and bring their children with them but who see their faith as a more private matter, one they may not wish to discuss, or cannot articulate. Perhaps the question “Do you consider yourself worthy to administer this ordinance?” will suffice. Some adults would prefer not to go through a temple recommend interview, and it has nothing to do with sins of any kind.
We saw a raising of the bar with regards to who serves missions a few years ago. Perhaps this is another attempt to raise the bar. As Paul mentioned, there has always been a standard of “worthiness” to use the priesthood. Being a woman, I’m not familiar with the differences in priesthood versus temple interviews. I do think that we need to respect privacy, and not assume things about people who choose to not hold a current recommend.
I like Hawkgrrrl’s description of this as a “litmus test”, and in fact I’ve used the same description recently. Most of what really matters for someone spiritually is internal and not easily seen or evaluated. That may lead us to rely on the external easy-to-judge things about someone to determine their level of ‘goodness’.
Perhaps this is just the cynical part of me speaking, but I’ve noticed that sometimes LDS members like to subtly slip the fact that they attend the Temple into conversations, even when it’s not really relevant. (this is certainly the case with my family) I often hear phrases like “We were headed to the Temple last week and…” or “Yesterday while leaving the Temple…. ” or “We went to check out the new Temple in ____, we did a session and it’s just so beautiful on the inside!”. It starts to feel like a convenient way of letting others know just how good of a Mormon we are. That we are the best kind of Mormon, the TR holding and using kind.
I actually don’t have a problem with this. It will divide families more, and it will make certain invidividuals stand out a little more when they are standing in a circle but not administering ordinations to their Children. Still, this is how the Church has always operated. It makes sense that they maintain the integrity of the Priesthood system by demanding conformity. In response, I don’t have to let my kids advance if I don’t want to. Jeff is right, people who don’t have current recommends generally are responsible for their current standing. I would just add, who care. If you believe the Church is true, and for some reason aren’t worthy of a TR – then getting “worthy” probably makes the most sense. If you don’t care, but need to keep up appearances, either do or don’t. I also haven’t paid tithing in a few years now, nor will I – and I fully expect the consequences, though for some reason no one has come asking. I won’t be able to baptize my children, but I won’t be standing there to be shamed while Brother (neighbor) get’s the honor to act as my righteous surrogate. Neither will my kids. That’s easy. I think the Church can be over the top, but all of us, believers/sinners/unbelievers, etc, have to take some responsibility for our membership.
“Don’t lose sight of the fact that the law of tithing is well-entrenched in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Mention of it goes back to the old testament, as far back as Genesis.”
Interesting, but not surprising, that one of the few Old Testament practices that carried over into the New Covenant is the one that finances the institution that sets the rules.
“When in reality, the only thing holding them back is themselves. Most of these folks are not novices to the Church procedure and worthiness guidelines. they only refuse to follow them therefore, disqualifying themselves. So they are the ones depriving their loved ones. Not the Church.”
Not true. At best, the deprivation is a joint effort between the Church (which just changed the rules to disqualify some people who formerly would have qualified to perform ordinances) and the person who finds himself on the wrong side of the newly-drawn line.
If the Church decided to raise the bar a little bit further, and ruled ordinance-performing off-limits to permabloggers on websites that don’t always exactly provide a full-throated defense of 100% of the Church’s official line, then would it be fair to say that you, alone, had deprived yourself of participation, if for some reason you didn’t fall into line?
“It starts to feel like a convenient way of letting others know just how good of a Mormon we are. That we are the best kind of Mormon, the TR holding and using kind.”
Or it’s just casual conversation. There may be instances of grand-standing here, but by and large I doubt it. It’s easy to sometimes derive subtle meanings that are not truly implied in what is said. Active members generally attend the temple as a normal part of their lives, particularly in a place like Utah. My family members often make statements like this, but I never sense that they are trying to make some type of norming assertion there. No more than I would if they changed the location from work – as though they are trying to prove that they are hard workers.
“There may be instances of grand-standing here, but by and large I doubt it.”
Very true, and I’ll admit it’s probably my misconception for the most part. But I am saddened by the idea of adding more public instances to exclude members due to their lack of a TR.
“But I am saddened by the idea of adding more public instances to exclude members due to their lack of a TR.”
That will no doubt be the consequence. On the one hand I share your sentiment that it is regrettable, on the other hand though, one can only be shamed if they allow it. In any case, we are still miles ahead of the day’s when excommunications were publicly announced.
One reason I was given for their removal was the ability to track and report attendance, and local leaders were using those reports as clubs to encourage more frequent attendance.
I’ve heard that too, but another reason I have heard (from a temple worker) is that the technology was not ready for prime time and kept breaking down and screwing up the record-keeping. (Not of who was attending, but of which dead people’s work had been completed.) The current technology is less ambitious and serves mostly to block entry to wielders of forged, stolen or revoked recommends.
Back to the topic at hand, does anyone remember 18 month missions for men? I wouldn’t be surprised if at least the confirmation part of this goes the same route.
Goldarn: “I’ve seen too many sons of leaders getting skipped ahead in the Scouting organization; not having to wait 6 months to get the next rank advancement, doing almost nothing for an Eagle project, etc., just so the SP’s son can get his Eagle before he’s 18. I saw the deacon-age son of a church leader go up 2 ranks at one court-of-honor (and no, he’d had no time to get both).”
The 6-month requirement is enforced by the BSA district or council; even if the troop, team, or crew tried to violate it, they couldn’t. Eagle projects are approved by the BSA district our council, not by the troop, team or crew. If what you preceived really happened, it required the complicity of persons outside the ward (and in most places, outside the Church). I don’t see how that could happen where I am.
On the other hand, it is certainly possible to get 2 rank advancements in a single court of honor. All requirements are dated from the boards of review; the date of the court of honor is entirely irrelevant.
I read a lot of “Chicken Little” type comments here about this so-called “latest development.” In fact, Priesthood leaders can allow or disallow anyone they want from performing a Priesthood ordinance within the confines of the Church building for any reason they want. They usually don’t even when they might not think the person is totally “worthy” whatever that means. bishops and leaders who are heavy-handed about this are usually heavy-handed about everything and follow what they perceive is the “letter of the law.” Which is a big mistake, generally.
Jeff,
@80 Great comment and I would totally agree.
I find this truly vile and completely contradictory to the church’s claims of being family oriented.
Incidentally, temple recommends only work as intended for people who have a very high level integrity and most people don’t. People who have no integrity at all, can easily get one. I’ve worked with several people who openly bragged about “obtaining” movies and music online.
The questions asked in a Temple Recommend interview are the same questions asked in an interview to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. The only difference is in a Temple Recommend interview there are additional questions related to the covenants made in the Temple. The requirement for Priesthood holders to maintain a standard of worthiness in order to exercise the authority of the Priesthood is not new.
The Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are clarifying an existing rule; worthiness comes before the rights of patriarchy in preforming priesthood ordinances. Particularly ordinances necessary for exaltation. Patriarchy is preferred but not at the cost of worthiness.
How is one to speak as the Spirit directs if he does not believe or is unrepentant?
As a sociological/economics matter, I think MoHoHawaii is right–this is an important but subtle move to increase the differential benefit of a TR versus an active but non-TR member.
I don’t see this as intended to drive out free riders–with good reason. Most active but non-TR members are contributing members of the community (i.e., not free riders). Most whom I know are home teachers, help in service projects, hold callings and perform them, drive their children to Church and to released time seminary early in the mornings. Many pay some, but not a full, tithing.
I do think there was some care in devising the new policy and it strikes me as a compromise. Those who do not meet the TR standard are not forbidden from exercising all priesthood–they are only forbidden from taking one role (voice) in some, but not all priesthood ceremonies. They may still stand in the circle–which is a form of exercising priesthood. They may bless babies, bless the sick, baptize. Thus, I think the BKP faction battled to continue the old policy; my guess is another faction desired that nonTR fathers not be permitted to perform or even stand in the circle for any ordinances. And the new policy strives to strike a new balance, again to increase benefits of TR without even more strongly penalizing nonTR members.
Bro Lee,
I think that this is much more than a clarification of an existing rule. Rather, it is a further erosion of charisma from the “lay” priesthood and a further consolidation of power in the Q15. It is also a further step in eliminating the patriarchal priesthood. It assumes that only keys matter, and that permission must be sought and granted in order to use priesthood power that is otherwise dormant. Thus, no real power or authority is granted at the time of conferring the priesthood or ordination to an office.
So, if I bless my child at home – without a “by your leave sir” to the bishop – (and maybe while his mother is holding him) will the membership clerk add him as a Child of Record, or not?
“The questions asked in a Temple Recommend interview are the same questions asked in an interview to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.”
Is this completely accurate? I don’t recall being asked if I was a full tithe payer in order to be ordained an Elder, although I could be mistaken. I also don’t remember being asked if I sympathized with any groups that are hostile to the church or whether I had any family relationships that were out of harmony with gospel principles. Are you certain RT standards aren’t more rigorous?
“I find this truly vile and completely contradictory to the church’s claims of being family oriented.”
The Church has never been truly “family” oriented. The historical basis of the family is Polygamy. It is not the two-parent home, living in a middle income house with five kids and a dog. The Church adopted itself into that institution, and respun their “Eternal Marriage” doctrine to leverage societies already accepted family values for recruitment. Everytime I watch those commercials, particularly the ones from the 1980’s, I just try and imagine the father running a circuit where five day’s out of the week each wife functionally presides over a single parent household. In other words, the notion of “families” as we teach today is all bunk so far as Mormonism is concerned. Our current sensibilities at best represent an evolution on family values which bare little resemblance to its “divine” ancestor, and presumable destiny.
Lastly, the family has only been upheld in the Church so long as the family has upheld the Church. I have no sympathy for group advocating change in the sealing policy, but the fact is Church membership is always given primacy over the family when it really counts. Being sealed in an exclusionary marriage ceremony which may exclude parents, is considered more faithful than marrying in a civil ceremony that properly honors parents. The Church decides what makes a father “worthy” to preside in “lineal” Church affairs such as Priesthood ordination. So to sum up, the Church is only pro-family towards pro-Church families.
“So to sum up, the Church is only pro-family towards pro-Church families.”
I would tweak this a bit, Cowboy. I would say the church’s position on families are always ordinal and qualified, although they’re presented as universal. For example, the church will view a pro-Church family relationship as absolutely of more worth than a non-Church family relationship, and make no apology about it. However, the Church will not hesitate to value a non-pro-Church family if it’s competing against, say, a gay couple’s right to marry or adopt children and call it a family. In other words, there are families and then there are FAMILIES. Some families are pure and right and chosen and blessed, and those are church families, particularly temple families. Some families are good, although inherently deficient and destined to fail. And some families aren’t really families at all, and although they’re masquerading as families and calling themselves families, really they’re an abomination and an affront to REAL families, and should therefore be wiped out and eviscerated and not even be allowed to exist or call themselves families, even amongst themselves.
#88 – I realize that “wiped out” and “eviscerated” mean exactly the same thing. I got a little carried away.
“However, the Church will not hesitate to value a non-pro-Church family if it’s competing against, say, a gay couple’s right to marry or adopt children and call it a family. In other words, there are families and then there are FAMILIES.”
But this is strictly for marketing purposes. After all, those families are of none-effect when they die because they were not sealed by God’s power. Joseph Smith was of course refusing to recognize the “mortal” marriages of the saints when he was marrying women who were already married. So historically, these marriages were inferior – and doctrinally won’t be relevant if there is no prospect of the family becoming Mormon.
Families can be together forever forever is a two-sided coin. If they aren’t sealed then they can’t be together, but must remain seperate and single in their saved condition. Placing emphasis again on the Church, not the family. The family is only useful so long as it serves the Church’s purposes, it is a tool not an ends.
I would also point out, that as per Dallin H. Oaks, the issue of Gay’s in the family go well beyond Same Sex Marriage.
Re: a homosexual family members request to participate in extended family functions with their partner:
“I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.””
Don’t expect to be lengthy houseguest or anything more than a social embarrasment. That is the appropriate way to treat a family member with whom you disagree. That is how to treat family. Yeah, sounds family oriented to me.
“How is one to speak as the Spirit directs if he does not believe….?”
Explain how you get from “no temple recommend” to “doesn’t believe in inspiration by the Holy Spirit.”
#92 – And to piggyback on Thomas’s point, is the message of this directive that only those worthy to hold a TR are able to receive inspiration from the HG? If not then the policy must be punitive in nature, or driven by some other motivation.
Cowboy 87:
If by, “The historical basis of the family is Polygamy. It is not the two-parent home…,” you might be referring to tribal plural marriages then I totally agree with you and find your point that, The Church adopted itself into that institution [of state sanctioned monogamy], and respun their “Eternal Marriage” doctrine to leverage societies already accepted family values for recruitment.
Your point that, “Church membership is always given primacy over the family, being sealed in an exclusionary marriage ceremony that may exclude parents is considered more faithful, the Church decides what makes a father “worthy” to preside, and the Church is only pro-family towards pro-Church families, makes me grateful that the Lord has allowed for His priesthood to be exercised tribally — for such times as these.
Senile Old Fart,
Yes, authority is granted with priesthood ordination but you’re right, no power is granted through ordination. Power comes from the Holy Ghost through righteous living. The power does not belong to a priesthood holder.
“So, if I bless my child at home – without a “by your leave sir” to the bishop – (and maybe while his mother is holding him) will the membership clerk add him as a Child of Record, or not?”
That would be a question for your Bishop. 🙂
BrJones,
A verbal commitment to pay tithing is a requirement for baptism. The question is asked again prior to ordination to the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood.
I will check and repost on your question about supporting, affiliate with, or agreeing with those whose teaching/practices are “contrary to or oppose those accepted” by the Church.
Thomas,
Yes, this needs clarification. Thanks for pointing it out.
There are four basic reasons for being denied a Temple Recommend: 1) not living within the required temporal standards (the dos and don’ts), 2) not believing, 3) not sustaining Church leaders, and 4) not having a testimony of two central tenets; the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the restoration of the gospel.
When I wrote, “doesn’t believe in inspiration by the Holy Spirit” I was not considering those who believe but don’t sustain, or those who believe but do not have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel. Certainly, there are those ordained to the priesthood who exist in these two categories.
The section titled “Priesthood Ordinances and Blessings” in the Church published Family Guidebook the instructions on naming and blessing children, confirming and bestowing the Holy Ghost, administering to the sick, dedicating graves, giving father’s blessings and other blessings of comfort and counsel, conferring the priesthood, and ordaining to an office all state that “the priesthood bearer who acts as voice:
“Adds words of blessing as the Spirit directs”
“Pronounces a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs”
“Expresses thoughts as the Spirit directs” or
“Gives thanks, counsel, exhortation, and promises as the Spirit directs.”
This is the counsel I had in mind when thinking of priesthood holders who no longer believe in the requirements they agreed to or the faith they professed when ordained.
BrJones,
See my reply to Thomas and no, being worthy of a Temple Recommend is not a prerequisite for receiving inspiration from the Holy Ghost. Nor is membership in the Church, being Christian, or believing in deity. The Holy Ghost can, and I believe does, inspire countless people who profess no religious belief including those who profess atheism. We don’t always have to understand the source of inspiration to be inspired.
The world would be a complete mess if the opposite were true.
1) I agree with #98. There are far more people in this world upon whom the Holy Ghost does and can work than the estimated 1 million who are active, TR-holding LDS members.
2) When a TR is “denied” for “not believing” or “not having a testimony”, what does this mean? What about the person who follows the basic LDS “rules”, who has read the BofM, who has been faithful, etc., but who has never had a confirmation that this is the One True Church.
Does this person “believe”? Does this person “have a testimony”? Or should they be denied a TR and therefore denied the chance to confirm their child?
LDS Anarchist,
“Are the women of this church denied anything by not being temple recommend worthy, like the men?”
Yes, access to the Temple. 🙂
I’m betting the CHI ends up on http://wikileaks.org/
Mike S,
“When a TR is “denied” for “not believing” or “not having a testimony”, what does this mean?”
It means that an individual answering “no” to the belief and testimony related questions, the first three questions, will not be given a Temple Recommend.
The first question is “do you faith in and a testimony of” God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The second question, “do you have a testimony of” the atonement of Jesus Christ. The third question, “do you have a testimony of” the restoration of the gospel.
If someone doesn’t believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost then he or she cannot have a temple recommend. If they do not have spiritual witnesses of the atonement of Jesus Christ, of His role as their redeemer, then they are not prepared to participate in temple ordinances.
The same is true with the restoration of the gospel. If there is not some level of spiritual confirmation within the individual that the restoration happened then once again, they are not prepared to participate in temple ordinances.
There is no written requirement asking for a definition of what constitutes the restoration of the gospel. The question isn’t broken down revelation by revelation. A candidate for baptism is asked more probing questions on the restoration of the gospel that a candidate for a Temple Recommend.
The interviewer is not asking for a perfect unquestionable knowledge of every aspect of the atonement and the restoration. There is no question asking, “Do you have any doubts?” or “Have you ever disagreed with a Gospel Doctrine instructor’s perspective or not seen the wisdom in the decision to eliminate the stake mission program?”
I don’t mean to sound sarcastic in my examples. Questions of testimony and belief and deeply personal and to the thoughtful observer they are not static. Everything is in motion according to our experiences.
In a recent interview, after answering yes to the question “Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?” I was asked if I would share that testimony with the member of the Stake Presidency who was interviewing me. We had known each other for over 15 years, yet this was the first time I recall sharing my testimony of the Savior with him in a one on one setting. It was a moving experience and one I need to repeat more often.
Matthew #100:
Yes, access to the Temple.
Thought that I should bring you up to speed.
a. Your point was already made at #53
b. Then #56 brought up the hypocrisy LDSA was pointing out, i.e., that women likewise can’t perform priesthood ordinances without a TR — nor can they with one.
c. Then #61 answered that the CHI will succeed in marginalized the “unworthy” only insofar as the Church is concerned because men/women can still use their priesthood tribally.
Senile Old Fart @ #85:
The link provided above, I think, answers the question that you asked. I suggest you read it.
Thanks for the link, Justin. I believe that zo-ma-rah nailed it when he equated your tribal priesthood as the Patriarchal Priesthood.
Correlation, of course, as done away with the Patriarchal Priesthood within the Church. The Patriarch to the Church (who was routinely sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator in annual and semi-annual conferences – and who was seated between the First Presidency and the Twelve at such conferences) exists now only in emeritus Patriarch Smith. Nor is a quorum of patriarchs still recognized. Rather, the office of Patriarch is now limited to those in stakes, under the control and supervision of stake presidents and, ultimately, the 12/15.
If the office of Patriarch can be done away with via correlation, so, too, can the authority of patriarch withing the tribe/family. And all priestly functions performed only with the say-so of the Church. Which avoids the anarchy attendant in “would God that all men were prophets,” reported to have been Moses’ response to such activity.
Thanks, Justin. I missed #53. There are some good questions asked in #56.
RE: #102
“It means that an individual answering “no” to the belief and testimony related questions, the first three questions, will not be given a Temple Recommend.
The first question is “do you faith in and a testimony of” God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The second question, “do you have a testimony of” the atonement of Jesus Christ. The third question, “do you have a testimony of” the restoration of the gospel.
If someone doesn’t believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost then he or she cannot have a temple recommend. If they do not have spiritual witnesses of the atonement of Jesus Christ, of His role as their redeemer, then they are not prepared to participate in temple ordinances.
The same is true with the restoration of the gospel. If there is not some level of spiritual confirmation within the individual that the restoration happened then once again, they are not prepared to participate in temple ordinances.”
All these years I’ve been running on hope. I guess if you were my bishop I’d be out of luck.
“Only a Melchizedek Priesthood holder WHO IS WORTHY TO HOLD a temple recommend may act as voice…”
There does not seem to be a requirement that one actually hold a recommend, only that he be worthy to do so. So, if you don’t want to hold a current recommend, you will probably need to have a recommend interview prior to performing the ordinance. I see wiggle room here. So, you don’t have to hold a recommend, but you have to be able to pass the new worthiness test!
The only thing that confuses me, as per the worthiness issue, is why they may stand in the circle – but not act as voice. It would be a more consistent, I think, if worthiness applied to all levels of participation in the ordinance. In other words, if your worthy enough to stand in the circle, you ought to be worthy enough to act as voice, and vice versa. What about less institutional blessings, like a Fathers Blessing, or blessings of healing and/or comfort? In these cases it would seem more logical that a nice clean reception to the Holy Ghost channel is key, whereas with Ordinations and Confirmations, improvised words of comfort and encouragement are really only peripheral to largely scripted intent of the blessing. Given this, I have a hard time seeing this move as anything more than a move to coerce conformity.
It appears from people who went to the meeting today, that you are incorrect BIV. Did anyone else go to corroborate with this?
BIV
From what I have seen it is the exact opposite to what was said in the OP,
Today in priesthood a Father who holds the Aaronic priesthood participated as voice in bestowing upon his son the Aaronic priesthood.
This father has visited church rarely in the 6 years I have attended the ward he does not hold a temple recommend and has demonstrated little desire to become more active in the ward.
BIV I’m sorry
I have posters remorse, I realise that my example fits with the quote in the OP.
112 and 113:
I am glad that in yesterday’s meeting leaders were encouraged to allow fathers to “participate meaningfully” in ordinances for their children. Unfortunately, as I said in the OP and my comments, I have a feeling that this may take the form of such things as allowing baptisms, AP ordinations, and standing in the circle, but not acting as voice in confirmations or MP ordinations. These latter two ordinances are specifically forbidden to those without temple recommends in the new CHI, and I sincerely doubt we will be seeing many more of them. I will be thrilled to be proved wrong on this prediction, so let me know…
I think that for MP duties preparation and organisation are key.
It is possibly a matter for ward council to identify 6month to a year prior which primary child is due for baptism and if there is anything they can do to help the father prepare to participate meaningfully in the confirmation.
This policy has directly affected me and my feelings toward the Church. I am a faithful member of the Church, a father who found that, whereas one day he was worthy to confirm his child, the next day he was no longer “worthy enough.” I have written on my blog about my feelings concerning this policy. Here is the link for anyone who is interested: http://invictuspilgrim.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-longer-worthy-enough-one-fathers.html.
Invictus, lovelovelove your blog. I commented over there.
Thanks for your feedback, Bored in Vernal. It helps validate what I’m going through.
Invictus–I feel for you. That’s a tough one. Indeed, the financial element of worthiness is concerning.
Invictus – that’s hard. When I was a missionary, we would talk about “other churches” and their focus on money – fine buildings, paid ministry, indulgences, donations for this or that, etc. It’s sad to see that creeping into our Church. When the main thing keeping a parent from confirming their child is money, it makes me wonder if “we” haven’t become “them”.
In reality, the confirmation should be between you, your child, and God. The church is merely an institution. Unfortunately, the church has placed themselves smack in the middle of that. As an earthly organization, they can make their membership requirements for confirmation as a member of the organization whatever they want. But in your heart, you know your relationship with God. Your relationship with God and your family is what is most important.
I don’t know how you’ll end up resolving this, but good luck and God bless you.
Clean Cut and Mike S – Thank you for your comments.
Mike, I particularly appreciated your observations regarding $ in other churches. I also found your other comments comforting as well as insightful. Our bishop is being as supportive as he possibly can. But you have reminded me what is truly important, and though I will not be able to confirm our child and pronounce a(n “official”) blessing, I can still give a father’s blessing. That is comforting.
I attended a Pentecostal service several years ago where tithes were collected in purple bags attached to hyssop sticks. After they had made their rounds through the entire congregation the Pastor sent them through again because they hadn’t collected enough. I remember thinking of the scriptures which condemned filthy lucre, etc. While I still am a bit turned off from that particular display, I am more and more appreciative of religious systems that subsist on the generous offering’s of their congregants, as opposed to the 10% bill paid by Mormons to the multi-billion dollar conglomerate in Salt Lake City. Living pay check to pay check makes a mandatory 10% donation pretty steep, particularly when the Church’s cup seems to run over.
It seems to mean that tithing has become a bill more than an offering because it is becoming based on a cash flow and not increase (surplus?). In other words, if a person doesn’t earn enough income to pay bills, subsist, save/invest, and pay 10% of their gross or net take home, then they aren’t “worthy”. The only real squeeze room in that scenario that scenario is from personal savings + investments, provided of course there is enough in there to make of the difference needed for tithing. But where is the wisdom in that? Don’t save, don’t be self-sufficient (to the best of your abilities), just pay tithing.
The tithing system utilized by the Church is a form of the Christian “first fruits” doctrine — which they preach because they do not have D&C 119 in their canon.
However, saints should allow pay according to the revelations God has given the Gentile Mormon church — which is not a burdensome law at all.
Linked here is part 1 of a 3 part post that has been written on the subject. I think that it would be beneficial to anyone like Cowboy who feels, “Living pay check to pay check makes a mandatory 10% donation pretty steep, particularly when the Church’s cup seems to run over.“
Re #118 (Invictus Pilgrim)
Thanks for sharing your experience. It’s easy to talk about this stuff in the abstract, but reading a story like yours really makes clear the anguish that policy changes like this can produce. I hope you can work something out with your bishop.
Your post makes me wonder if the policy change isn’t in fact primarily directed toward increasing tithing compliance in fully active members. It’s not a policy that affects semi-active members because their investment in participating in ordinances would be also be less. You are kind of the poster child– fully active but constrained by circumstances.
LDS anthropologist Daymon Smith recounts how in the late 1980s the Church developed a program where members of the Church bought copies of the The Book of Mormon to distribute to nonmembers. In fact, it turned out that the program was the brainchild of the bean counters in one of the Church divisions that had a huge excess inventory of printed BOMs that they needed to get rid of showing a loss on their books. It was a solution to a departmental accounting problem that ended up involving the pulpit.
This policy might be similar. It’s more than likely that the Church has seen its tithing revenues fall in the face of the recent economic downturn. Like any organization, its budgets are multi-year, and the prospect of layoffs or delays in building projects is not something the Church would want. Someone gets an idea to implement policies that would help restore a bit of the lost revenue. Etc. There’s no way to find out if this is what happened, but the circumstances and timing of this announcement beg the question.
Income is a bit of an elusive topic. For a business, it is defined as:
(Revenue – Expenses = Income)
For households we use the term synonymously with paycheck, which fails to grant the average American with the ability to deduct the revenue generating expenses. A more reasonable definition of household income, as per Me and little bit of economic theory, would be:
(Paycheck – Subsistence = Income)
While “Subsistence” is a bit elusive, the old “is cable tv necessary” argument, principly this is a better cultural debate than the current question on whether we should pay tithes based on the “net or gross” of our taxable paychecks.
The old “net or gross” debate may actually not refer to pre- or post-tax income, but rather (originating in the Church’s Utah agricultural environment) the distinction between “gross” agricultural production (the absolute number of eggs laid, calves produced, wheat harvested, and so forth), versus net production (the former, minus the costs of running the farm — mortgage and bank loan payments, irrigation fees, cost of fodder, cost of seed, and so forth).
If the latter is what’s meant by “net,” then there may be a stronger case for characterizing “net” income as something like your income minus the basic cost of maintaining your household “plant” — mortgage or rent payments, student loans, expenses necessitated by your work (such as transportation expenses, Internet and phone service, etc.)
Once my (absolutely insane Southern California) overhead costs are accounted for, I probably have less than $2,000 per month for food and other expenses. Paying 10% of even that would be hard; paying 10% of my entire pre-tax income would take close to half — and that simply isn’t enough to survive.
Paying tithing on all pre-tax income (regardless of one’s assets or expenses), would only be a just principle, imposing equal sacrifices on the rich and the poor, if those inspiring Ensign articles about tithing being rewarded by tangible economic blessings were true. But they’re not, so it isn’t.
“Paying tithing on all pre-tax income (regardless of one’s assets or expenses), would only be a just principle, imposing equal sacrifices on the rich and the poor, if those inspiring Ensign articles about tithing being rewarded by tangible economic blessings were true. But they’re not, so it isn’t.”
Excellent comment and insights all around Thomas, but the quoted comment stands out particularly strong for me. At the end of the day this is simple math, and the 10% coefficient can indiscriminantly take an individuals personal financial formula into the negative or keep it positive. Frankly there is no way to tell where the blessing variable is going to fall, but I can point to evidence where it has financially appeared to yield a zero.
As Paul alludes to back in comment #52, the “worthy of a temple recommend” requirement seems to be merely clarification of the existing policy. If you read Elder Cook’s remarks in the WW Leadership Training broadcast (available on lds.org), it is pretty clear that the “new changes” he speaks of are not the temple worthy requirement, but the newly relaxed requirements for worthiness required for certain ordinances.
If you look carefully, all those ordinances that require temple worthiness are major, or “saving,” MP ordinances (whose holders enter a higher standard of service with the oath and covenant of the priesthood) or involve implied church leadership (setting apart). Ordinances of the preparatory priesthood, such as baptism and AP conferral, and more personal MP ordinances, such as father’s blessings (including naming a blessing a child), do not fall under this category.
Yes, the ordinances in question are “saving” ordinances. And yet they are also “patriarchal” ordinances — defining moments in family life, which have the effect of knitting families together on earth, in addition to their ecclesiastical effect.
We are not Donatists here. The efficacy of an ordinance is not lessened because of the worthiness of the person who performed it; if it were otherwise, everybody who received an ordinance from someone who was secretly unworthy (which has got to be a fairly large number) would be up for a nasty surprise at the Last Judgment.
I believe that the loss by this new policy to what could be a powerful moment in strengthening a family (by denying the opportunity to confirm a child, to a man who, though not “guilty of any great or malignant sins” (JSH 1:28), may not be able to obtain a temple recommend), outweighs any marginal benefit it might generate (by, for instance, increasing reverence for the saving ordinances).
Well said, Thomas. Agreed.
Thomas (132) – “I believe that the loss by this new policy . . . .”
Keep in mind that the new policy is intended to be _less_ restrictive, not more restrictive. I don’t know how the idea got started in the bloggernacle that this is somehow a major shift in placing _more_ restrictions on priesthood holders. If you read Elder Cook’s remarks, or have been a church leader at any time in the past, it is pretty clear that the new policy was intended to relax the worthiness requirements for certain ordinances so that fathers can be more – not less – involved.
I also disagree that the authority and keys of the priesthood are completely separate from the church – especially with regard to an ordinance where one confirms another “a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” I also don’t think that we can take the principle that God will cover our mistakes in certain things as free license to willfully make those mistakes.
On a more conciliatory note, I completely agree with you about the importance of involving fathers in this process, and the great effect this can have on a family. Elder Cook said as much in his remarks during the WW leadership training when he mentioned that the importance of paternal involvement in an ordinance was a key principle behind the new change (an odd thing to say, btw, if this was intended to be a more restrictive shift). I just don’t think it trumps all, such as scriptural and prophetic admonitions.
“I also disagree that the authority and keys of the priesthood are completely separate from the church”
I don’t think I said they were.
“Keep in mind that the new policy is intended to be _less_ restrictive, not more restrictive.”
That’s the story and they’re sticking with it. But I can’t help seeing this as giving with one hand while taking with another. There may be more flexibility being formally offered to allow cardless priesthood holders to “stand in the circle,” but has there ever been a formal Church policy, anywhere, that says a person “not worthy” of a temple recommend, can’t act as voice in a major ordinance?
We’ve always been at war with EastAsia.
#136 – True, but what really matters is how you feel about it. If you can feel your heart swell at the notice of a meaningless victory that probably never actually happened, then loving Big Brother is all that counts.
#134 – I strongly disagree with your statement that this policy is meant to be “less restrictive.” Prior to the implementation of this policy, a man who did not hold a temple recommend, but who was nonetheless “worthy” could confirm his child by virtue of his Melchizedek Priesthood. This new policy has changed that. My bishop is of the same view: to him, this represents a significant change.
I said in my blog post that I was going to stick only to my personal views of this new policy and how it has affected me and leave broader discussions to others. I am going to stick to that. However, I feel I must rebut what I believe to be an incorrect statement regarding the effect of this policy. It is clearly and plainly MORE restrictive.
Invictus – Just to clarify, the new policy does not require you to actually hold a temple recommend, only to be worthy of one. I know this doesn’t help your specific situation, but it does affect many other situations.
I am very sorry to hear about your situation, and it is a very difficult spot to be in. You are right that the old handbook simply used the word “worthy.” It also simply used the word “worthy” when referring to candidates to be baptized, to receive the AP, or to receive the MP. However, as has been mentioned here, there are also questions (found outside the handbook) to be asked to these candidates in interviews, and they correspond almost exactly to the temple recommend questions (with the exception of those dealing specifically with keeping covenants made in the temple).
To me, this points out two things. First, it shows that the word “worthy” does have some definition to it in the previous handbook. Second, it makes little sense to require a higher standard to receive the priesthood than it does to practice it. That is why all of the bishops, stake presidents, and AA70s I talked to gleamed when they heard about the new relaxed standard. Some even wished they had learned about it just a few months earlier, as there were a few names of individuals who did not perform ordinances for their children, but could have under the current policy.
I just recently spoke with an AA70 about the matter, and he said that although some bishops may have applied a less restrictive standard in the past, the “more restrictive” (not his words) standard was the status quo, and should have been what they were applying.
To me, I see the new policy as a wonderful change that will allow fathers who have not been completely active and perhaps like their cup of joe to participate in very meaningful ordinances in the lives of their children, something they would not have been able to do previously. I don’t doubt, however, that in your case, one day you could have possibly confirmed your child (due to how your bishop viewed the standard), and the next day not.
Please accept my best wishes to you in this difficult time. You can only do the best you can. Remember that your priesthood leaders (including the writers of the handbook) are trying to be as merciful and flexible as possible as they seek to comply with the direction and the revelations of God. Much respect. Cheers.
Can someone explain to me the difference between the welfare topic in the new handbook as compared to the same topic in the old handbook. For example, the ward welfare committee has already been dissolved. What is its implication to us? I have also noticed the topic was elevated in the table of contents. Any other observation?
I only think it means two things. It will be handled in the other meetings and it becomes more the responsibility of the Priesthood and Relief Society like many other the other things that have been pushed down in the organization. The Bishop remains responsible for the actual dispensing of welfare to members. In summary, they just eliminated a meeting, that is about it.
You can download the CHI for yourself at: http://www.mediafire.com/?nyjq7ykg9l6fe8y