Today’s post is a guest post by Hawkgrrrl’s friend, Katpur, a woman living in Salt Lake City. A friend shared this recalled transcript of her recent temple recommend interview with her bishop.
Bishop: Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Me: I’d have to say that I’m quite a bit more liberal than most members of the Church, bishop.
Bishop (looking slightly surprised to hear this response): “Okay? Uh…?”
Me: Well, for starters, I have no objections to same-sex marriage.
Bishop: Uh huh.
Me: Would you like me to elaborate?
Bishop: Would you like to?
Me: Well, having said what I did, I guess I probably ought to. Um… (pausing to collect my thoughts and decide how I was going to word this). Well, I believe that in God’s eyes, marriage to is be between a man and a woman. I don’t believe the Church should ever have to start performing same-sex marriages or issue temple recommends to same-sex couples. On the other hand, I am absolutely in favor of the separation of church and state. I believe all individuals are entitled to their civil rights — including the rights that heterosexual married couples have, simply because they are married. Rights like insurance benefits, end-of-life decisions, etc.
Bishop: I agree!
Me: (wondering if I heard him correctly). What I’m trying to say is that I see marriage from two different perspectives, and I would use the words “holy matrimony” and “civil unions” to describe it, depending upon who enters into the marriage.
Bishop: Uh huh. I agree. I definitely believe we are all entitled to the same civil rights. The problem — when you use the word “marriage” — seems to be one of semantics. People can’t seem to agree what terminology is acceptable. I do know how you feel about this, Susan (not my real name, as most of you know). I know you and Cheryl marched in last year’s Pride Parade with Mormons Building Bridges.
Me: Uh, yes. How did you know that?
Bishop: It was on your Facebook page.
Me: Oh yeah, that’s right.
Bishop: It’s okay, really. Just make sure people know what it is you’re standing for.
Me: Well, I try not to get into it with people. I don’t want people judging me.
Bishop: You need to get into it with people. Not everybody thinks as deeply as you do. So many members of the Church don’t even know what they believe or why.
Me: Well, when the subject comes up, I’ll talk about it. You do understand why I marched, don’t you?
Bishop: In support of their civil rights, I assume.
Me: Well, not really. I believe they are entitled to these rights, but if that’s why I’d been marching, I’d have marched with Mormons for Equality (which has been actively pushing for same-sex marriage for years). I basically agree with what they’re doing, but I didn’t march with them. I marched with Mormons Building Bridges to make a different kind of statement. In this group of over 400 LDS marchers, one person was holding up a sign containing the words to a Primary song: “Jesus turned away from none. He showed His love to everyone.” I’m sick and tired of how members of the Church look down on gays and how they treat them. Lots of people were marching because they have a son who is gay or a sister who is lesbian. I was marching for the gay Mormon who has nobody.
Bishop: You’re great. I love you, Susan.
Me: I really appreciate your saying that, bishop. It means a lot to me. I just have a really hard time believing that it’s our place to be imposing punishments on people whose moral choices are different from ours. And I can’t help feeling the way I do.
Bishop: I know what you’re saying. No, we shouldn’t be punishing them. We shouldn’t even be judging them.
Me: You know, I’ve marched twice. The first year, on the way down to the parade, I kept thinking, “What would my bishop think?” By the time the parade was half over, I was thinking, “Who cares what my bishop thinks. I know what my Heavenly Father thinks, and he’s fine with this.”
Bishop: So’s your bishop.
Me: I’m really glad to hear it. I was afraid you might tell me to go home and repent.
Bishop: You have nothing to repent of.
**Note: This interview lasted about 45 minutes. I haven’t loved a bishop as much as I love this bishop in a very, very long time. I feel happier and more comfortable with my place in the Church today than I have for a long time, too.
As I thought about my friend’s interview, I have to say I fully believe that my own bishop’s response would be very similar. When I have talked with him about various concerns, he takes the attitude of having a diverse set of ward members, everyone with their own unique circumstances, and he respects people where they are coming from and loves them as they are. To me, that’s been the norm among my bishops.
- What’s your experience? What would your bishop’s reaction be?
- Is this “temple recommend leader roulette” the sort of thing the church should be tackling more directly to demonstrate how serious we are about supporting gay rights?
- What would be the most effective way for church leaders to address this?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I can’t tell that the supplicant ever answered the question…
I suppose the bishop clarified that for himself. It wasn’t her intention to share the entire end-to-end interview, just this part that had her nervous, but that ended well.
I find it bizarre that she would feel the need or the desire to insert this into her temple recommend interview.
Gee, why didn’t she just say “No” since every one knows the affiliation question is ONLY about polygamous groups. I’m so glad we have so many constitutional scholars among the Saints who know what is a right and what is not. We could have saved a whole lot of judicial wrangling if the world had just deferred the question to the Saints on the bloggernacle.
Idiat: Do you think new converts know this? that people around the world without Fundamentalist context know this? EVERY ONE? Every single member in the world? I can guarantee you that not even all bishops have the same interpretation of that question. And if they ONLY mean polygamous groups, change the flippin question. Seriously I’m so sick of euphemisms. Change/clarify/update the question.
“Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”
I live in Salt Lake City in a very Mormon area. Our ward is probably 3 blocks by 6 blocks. We have had a fair number of prominent church leaders in our ward. Not that any of that matters particularly, but just to say we are well entrenched in the Wasatch Front.
Last summer, at least 5-6 families from our ward skipped church and were in the parade as well. I’ve talked with friends in our bishopric about it, and our bishop honestly (and fortunately) doesn’t care at all. These are active members, in presidencies, etc. It is refreshing that many church leaders “get it”, and are willing to let members follow what they feel is correct.
I wish this would be used in a bishopric training video from the church. It is a wonderful story, but I think there are still a lot of bishops that wouldn’t have handled this the same way. And let’s say I am wrong and almost all bishops would have. The issue still remains that many (most) members feel that most bishops would handle this differently. So some of them feel like they are being somewhat untrue when they answer, “no”. That isn’t good for the individual nor for the church. I can’t see this making someone more committed to the church and in fact can start driving them away.
I sincerely wonder, every time I read or hear about a conversation like this, why on earth are people bringing this (or any issue) to the Bishop? Why is any of this the Bishop’s business? We seem to forget that the Bishop’s role is that of an administrator. If you have a concern about how the business of the ward is being conducted, that seems like an issue to bring to the Bishop. But matters of personal beliefs? Why? I am truly and sincerely baffled. What are we hoping to accomplish when we have these sorts of deeply personal conversations with our church leadership? Especially given the unfortunate fact that our leadership is woefully unqualified and unprepared to effectively address concerns of either a personal or doctrinal nature. I cannot imagine any scenario involving my personal faith/beliefs are in any way the business of the Bishop. Even the temple recommend interview (which, admittedly, I refuse to participate in precisely because I find it unnecessarily invasive) can be managed, assuming one wants a temple recommend, without an lengthy discourse. Just answer the questions and be done with it. Why elaborate, ever? I would love to hear from anyone who has participated in conversations of this type. Why? What were you hoping to accomplish? What were the outcomes?
*Note: I just reread this and realized it could be read as somewhat combative. That is 100% not my intent. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand.
I’m glad it turned out OK. It says a lot about that particular Bishop and where his priorities are.
But, it’s yes or no question, not an essay. I wonder what the person had in mind. if she had a genuine question about it, she would have stated it that way.
It sounded like she was looking for a confrontation and her Bishop wouldn’t give it to her.
The answer is simple Eliza, one that I think your own response recognizes. Its all politics. A way to see how far the person in the interview can get away with preaching their own gospel vs. the Lord’s true words of God. Its boundary check rather than spiritual discussion.
I think it’s a valid question why people word vomit in their interviews. I suspect it’s because they are seeking approval, to know that their choices are acceptable, that they aren’t just getting away with appearing to conform when they don’t. Who knows? It could have been related to previous conversations with this bishop. It could be that she felt compelled by the spirit. Any number of possibilities. Personally, I don’t feel compelled to elaborate in these interviews, but people are not all the same. Knowing this person, she definitely wasn’t seeking a confrontation. I think she was tired of feeling disingenuous and afraid of disapproval.
And yet, I know a recently-released bishop, who after serving five years faithfully was denied renewal of his temple recommend by the next bishop, because he dared congratulate Utah’s first married same sex couple on Facebook.
And yet, a young couple who are close to me have been denied a temple recommend to be sealed (he wasn’t LDS for a year yet when they married), because the bishop learned that (a) they support marriage equality, and (b) they volunteered at their local community’s LGBT center.
“I sincerely wonder, every time I read or hear about a conversation like this, why on earth are people bringing this (or any issue) to the Bishop? Why is any of this the Bishop’s business?”
I completely understand where you’re coming from Eliza. But there are some conservatives on the bloggernacle that think certain groups (OW, SSM support to name a few) are apostate. They sincerely believe supports of these groups should answer “Yes, I affiliate with apostates.” It’s nice that this bishop doesn’t feel this way. It’s a way of clearing the air. We can also see that leadership roulette plays a large role in how things are handled. One need only contrast this bishop with Kate Kelly’s bishop to see that it’s leadership roulette. Some people think inconsistent policies of bishops are a feature of “listening to the spirit”, but it sure looks like a flaw to me.
People, especially women and non-leader men, open up in the recommend interview because they are trying to be obedient. They’re unsure of whether something they’re engaged in somehow falls within the very poorly worded Kristine A quoted above. Because even if you think something is fine, it’s your ecclesiastical leader who decides if it’s conduct unbecoming… And since women and non-leader men do not have access to Handbook 1 and they don’t serve on disciplinary councils/courts of love, they have very little guidance about the meaning of the affiliation question. It’s perfectly reasonable, though fraught, for them to seek clarification in the recommend interview. Those who ridicule members seeking greater understanding from their ecclesiastical leaders in this very appropriate setting are just being jerks.
While I do agree with what Pine has said, the Temple Recommend interview is not a confessional nor a doctrinal clarification discussion. If it were then only Bishops and Stake Presidents would be doing the interview for fear that a member might confess after being asked one of the questions.
It is more of a self-check in my mind.
Having conducted dozens of these interviews, I had many members extrapolate on their yes or no answer. The majority of time they were simply reenforcing their positive response. So we just moved on without comment most of the time.
I never had to stop an interview and tell the member to speak to the Bishop.
Glad most of you missed my sarcasm. The point is that the affiliation question does apply to things other than polygamous groups. I’m actually OK with the way the interview proceeded. My position is that if you agree with a group whose teachings are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the church, then you answer “yes” and let the conversation proceed. It might proceed like this one did. It might not, depending how the member “supports, agrees with or affiliates with” the particular group or individual. It’s one thing to sympathize with an issue or cause. It’s quite another to actively advocate for it. As for the issue of knowing what might constitutes conduct unbecoming and access to Handbook 1: The policies of the church are clearly laid out in Handbook 2, and the teachings of the church are found everywhere. This isn’t a case of hiding the ball. I find it hard to believe that any member can claim ignorance of whether a group or individual’s teachings or practices are contrary to or opposed those accepted by the church. For those who keep tossing the word “right” around: Can you point me to a place in the Constitution where it says there is a constitutional right to marry? Of course you can’t. It doesn’t exist. Many of the things we consider to be “rights” are matters that have been given the status of legal recognition through interpretations of various clauses of the Constitution and the associated amendments. If SSM was a “right” there wouldn’t have been all of this legal posturing that’s been going on. What if your state legislature, tomorrow, repealed all laws related to marriage. Could you argue your “rights” had somehow been violated? I don’t think so. Is there anything in the Constitution that says a state MUST have laws that address marriage? No.
I never had a clue that this was about polygamy…as a convert there are all kinds of things that “everyone knows” and you don’t, some good and bad.
I thought the bishop was merely a witness to our own determination of worthiness?
The snarky captions about LDS bishops kinda belied the overall tone of the OP.
Self-judgment is a part of the TR interview. It disturbed me a bit that the bishop ‘knows’ about the members views via her FB page. If they’re so well acquainted that she’d friended him, fine, but (and many will jump on me for saying this), as a bishop, you can’t have ‘friends’. That is, you have to maintain a certain ‘distance’ in order to be objective and portray fairness) the relationship is now where he’s not just a friend, he’s a representative of the Lord’s Church and authorized to deal with spiritual and temporal matters concerning her (as all the people residing in his ward, not JUST those on the rolls).
I hope that bishops and other leaders aren’t browsing through members FB and other blogs w/o their prior knowledge. In fact, unless there is a valid complaint of (1) blatant activity against the Church or (2) that a serious crime (ex: a member with a pederasty problem is trolling for boys) is or recently was committed, then I fail to see what business anyone from the Church, local leader or in Salt Lake, has investigating what the several members do online.
The questions about ‘sympathy’ for ‘apostate groups’ were originally intended to see if gullible members were being led away by polygamous offshoot groups. I fail to see how they apply to most bloggers or even members that deal with ‘gay-friendly’ support groups. In fact, I’d say that a member who has a gay relative that marches in a public support of their rights (including, foremost, to not be assaulted or harassed on basis of their orientation) to show their love has their priorities in order.
Doug – I am not sure if you are reading something into this. I took it that this sister was “friends” via facebook and he saw her post. She seems to say, “yeah” – as in “yep, I guess I did put that there were all my friends would see.” I may be wrong, but it almost sounds like you were jumping to conclusions as if it were a local “strengthening the membership” committee (which I DO have big issues with church HQ doing this).
Thank you, everyone. I really appreciate the discussion and responses to my earlier questions.
Pine wrote that an interview is an appropriate venue for raising doctrinal questions. I guess I don’t disagree in theory, but my question goes beyond whether the temple recommend interview is the right time to raise issues to really question whether the Bishop is the appropriate person to address deeply personal questions of faith and doctrine. Those who protest that Bishops are ecclesiastical leaders and are, therefore, the “expert” seem to forget that our Bishops are untrained. They are not scriptorians, theologians or counselors. They have no particular expertise or knowledge that qualifies them to weigh in on matters of faith, doctrine or behaviors. Add the uneven power dynamic between Bishops and members, especially women, and it makes even less sense to invite discourse on personal faith. As Douglas aptly noted, our Bishops are not and cannot really be a “friend”. We should think long and hard before speaking to them as if they were.
The OP definitely presents a best case scenario. But it just as easily could have been a catastrophe. And, if it had been a catastrophe, would that have been the fault of the Bishop for expressing an opinion when asked (even if that opinion is narrow minded, or flat out wrong) or the fault of the member for raising the issue in the first place? If I am going to proceed as I see fit, regardless of the Bishop’s feelings on the matter, why ask for his “blessing” on my actions at all? I can get validation and support from trusted friends and loved ones. And, most importantly, I can have confirmation through the Spirit that the Lord approves. If I have that conviction, why would I ask for a second opinion?
Just had my interviews. FYI, I don’t live in Utah, but I do live in a western state.
My bishop, fairly new, good guy, very anti-conflict by nature; asked #6 and I said, “Yes, but for your purposes, no.” He smiled, uncomfortably, and then asked me to explain. I said, you can’t mean that I can’t affiliate with anyone who’s practices aren’t accepted by The Church. How could we do missionary work (or even attend this ward) if that’s the standard? He looked at the wording of the question, and then said something to the effect of, you know, you’re right. I think I’ll ask the Stake President about that when we talk next.
When I saw the 2nd counselor to the Stake President the following Tuesday evening and he got to #6 I answered “of course I do.” He smiled, started to go on, and then it hit him. He stopped mid-word and gave me a strange look. I then repeated the “surely you can’t mean that I can’t affiliate with anyone who’s practices aren’t accepted by The Church. How could we do missionary work?” He looked at the wording and began to try to argue that is not what is meant, but I think it dawned on him that he’d just asked me about my law practice, and as a doctor I think he thought better of it and said something like I don’t think this describes you and moved on.
I wanted to tell him that if we are free to interpret #6 by other than it’s plain meaning, then why not the rest of the questions too? But since he moved on, I let him off the hook too.
When I told my wife she was horrified.
If I’d told him what I finally told my wife (in front of our 3 teenage kids) after the 9th Circuit ruling on “gay marriage” (That “Marriage” is both a religious sacrament, and a civil law institution, and that I not only have no problem with the state recognizing the legal institution, but I think they are constitutionally and morally obliged to do so) I don’t know what he’d have done/said. I felt no prompting to share that as part of my response, so I’ll not get a chance to find out for another 2 years.
That question is very poorly worded if we are trying to avoid leadership roulette. It really does need to be addressed. You couldn’t even say “Do you associate with groups that are actively seeking to destroy the church?” because the church does this all the time. We work with evangelicals to oppose gay marriage and sustain religious freedom and other culture war nonsense. Bear in mind, they consider us a cult and show the movie the Godmakers to their flock to make it clear what they think of us.
#22 – Our Evangelical Christian “friends” (NOT to be confused with the ‘Society of Friends’, aka Quakers) consider we LDS as “cultists” until either our votes are needed for their pet candidates/causes or an LDS candidate is the best they can align with. Politics doth strange bedfellows make…
An anecdote attributed to Abe Lincoln was in the course of the impending Confederate defeat/surrender at Appomattox Court House, VA, in April 1865, what do with the Confederates. Many favored trials for treason and insurrection. Gen. Meade wanted to court-martial his fellow West Point alum and one-time military engineer, Robert E Lee, and have him shot. Lincoln would have none of that and indicated that he would pardon the Confederate generals posthaste. When later asked why he sought to make friends with his sworn enemies instead of destroying them, Lincoln’s response was (supposedly) “Am I not ‘destroying’ my enemies by making them my friends?”