I have always heard rumors of Stake Presidents or Bishops asking questions during a temple recommend interview that were not on the approved list of questions. When I was bishop, the paragraph at the bottom of the questions specifically said not to change or add to the questions. While I do not have access to the current official paper with the questions on them, I’ve been told that the same admonishments are there today.
Last week I heard from an acquaintance that lives in another stake that he was asked by a member of the stake presidency during his TR interview when was the last time he viewed pornography. This is problematic on several fronts. It is kind of like asking a guy if he has stopped beating his wife!
During my youth, our bishop used to ask if we drank “coke” in the TR interview. I remember my parents talking about it and overhearing them say that brother so and so had called SLC about it, and that the SP had gotten a call to tell the bishop to stop asking it. But this same bishop also asked the boys (not the girls, go figure) if we “had a problem with masturbation”. At least how he phrased it, it gave the impetus on deciding what was problematic to the person being interviewed (e.g. three times a day = Problem, twice a week = not a Problem!)
But asking when the “last time you looked at pornography” is assuming that you have looked at least once in your life, and that the time from that look until the present interview is something that needs to be taken into account in determining your temple worthiness. And there is no way to bring up to the person interviewing that they are not to ask that question, because it makes you look guilty! The only right answer is “Never”, or “20 years ago when I found a Playboy in the field”. I have heard the argument that this is not adding to the questions, but just explaining what it means. Much like when I was bishop and would explain that keeping the Word of Wisdom was defined as alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee, so too one might argue that this is just explaining that it means to “keep the law of chastity”. But the handbook specifically says that the WofW is defined as not partaking alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee. Nowhere does it say that pornography is grounds for withholding a TR.
So one way to answer this question is to go all Nazi TBM on him and say that you saw porn the day before at the checkout line at the grocery store. Cosmopolitan magazine had a scantily clad woman on the front that was definitely pornographic. He will say that is not what he meant, so then make him explain in detail what porn is!
This question is also a slippery slope. What is next, asking you when the last time you had an “impure thought”? “Well President, it was actually 10 minutes ago when Sister Jones left this very office after her interview. I was ready to go all ‘Brigham Young’ on her, since I out rank her husband by virtue of my priesthood. I was thinking what it would be like to put her high on my nightly wife rotation”
By not having the question in the handbook, but letting leaders ask it, could this be plausible denial for the church? They want this question asked, but don’t want it in the CHI for fear it would leak to the press and create more bad PR. So they tacitly approve it, or look the other way when somebody complains to their Area Authority, but then will throw the SP under the bus if bad publicity comes from it?
So, what questions have you been asked during a TR interview that were not on the list of approved questions? Did you tell the Bishop/SP that they couldn’t ask that? Or did you just answer it to not make trouble?
Wheat & Tares 
When I was first married my Stake President asked me what sexual positions I was having with my wife ..stating that the only one acceptable was the ‘missionary position ‘….yep a Temple Recommend interview…well I was stunned …I was in my early twenties.
That leader might not think of it this way, but he is asking people not to allow women to find pleasure in sex. Basic sexual anatomy research finds that some positions increase orgasms for women. Positions have been ranked by frequency of success to orgasm. Missionary position is not high on that list.
We went through a period with our last SP where during the recommend interview they would say “viewing porn is against the law of chastity” “do you view porn?” I was surprised as the last time i went to the temple the law of chastity was clearly defined as no sexual relations with anyone except your own husband or wife. Now with a new stake presidency that question has gone away.
My Mother-in-Law was once asked if she loved her husband.
She told him, “that’s not a recommend question” and didn’t answer.
I would love to have this confidence and self-awareness. Not sure I do yet.
This happened just a few months ago to my husband. He happened to get the SP for his interview because only he and one of his counselors were available and I refuse to interview with our SP. My husband is a high school teacher so very little ruffles his feathers. He said he’d take the SP. My interview was shameful in it’s own right with what the counselor had to say about those that appose Church policies, but I won’t go into that. I was downright angry when my husband told me that the SP asked my him if he had a problem with masterbation and if he went to websites that were pornographic. It didn’t bother my husband at all! I asked him why didn’t you say something?? If we keep allowing this line of questioning and never call them on it they are going to continue to do it! But then my husband reminded me of one of the reasons why we get a TR. We have to keep it because we have 2 children of marriage age that may choose to marry in the temple. If they do, we do not want to be excluded. He was not willing to take a chance that he’d get denied a recommend if he said anything. The SP might accuse him of hiding something. Isn’t it sad the game we have to play in this Church just so we don’t get denied seeing our children get married!!
After hearing many stories of what this SP has done to people I have come to think that he is not a pervert or anything like that at all. I think he is so invasive, strict and will not bend because he is living in fear. He is so afraid that one of the members of his stake might do something wrong and it will be his fault for not keeping them in line. The problem is it causes him to overstep his bounds and lay down and iron fist on things that are not even in the Handbook. He thinks he is helping, but really he is just driving people away by either them leaving the Church or moving to a different stake. When my daughter went on a mission I refused to have her interview with him. I told her to do all the mission stuff while she was away at school. Again, the games we play…
There need to be more people reporting improper questions.
The only correct answer to “When was the last time you viewed pornography?” is to stare deeply into your interviewer’s eyes and say “Right now” whilst waggling your eyebrows.
Stephen,
“There need to be more people reporting improper questions.”
Where do we report it? I worry that if we contact our area authority it will just get bounced back to the stake president. And, especially in our stake, you don’t want to be singled out. You have to be so careful what you say and do. Will Church headquarters even listen? Or, again, will it get bounced back to the stake president?
When I was a youth my bishop asked very open ended questions like “how do you think Satan is trying most to tempt you?” His councilors stuck strictly to the script. One time he asked “what about masturbation” and my response was “I have no problem with that.”
In the MTC, I think before even the district leader was chosen, the branch presidency got everyone in a room and read a letter that I think was from the first presidency. The gist of the letter was that some missionaries think they can get away without confessing, but that is not the case, and they won’t have the spirit of they don’t confess. I don’t remember if it specifically referred to masturbation, but that’s what I always thought it was about. After reading the letter all the missionaries had an interview. I’ve often wondered if this is still read to missionaries.
After that, almost all of my interviews have stuck to the script. There was one interview with a stake presidency councilor where he asked me if I could see or sense the glow around other people. I said no, and he seemed kind of surprised. I feel like I should have said that I used to think I could do that, but I have realized it was unreliable.
“By not having the question in the handbook, but letting leaders ask it, could this be plausible denial for the church?“
No. What good would that do? This kind of negative mind-reading that goes on in the bloggernacle is why I’m always just a couple of ridiculous posts away from foreswearing this corner of the Internet, but genuinely insightful thoughts here and there keep pulling me back.
I would have to answer the question as in the last hour. Found some good stuff!
I’ve only had two members be rude during tr interviews. If they would withhold TR I wod g0ne to SP since he is chill. I told someone about in passing and they said they tell them off. Not sure if they did.
Q: Do you “have a problem with masturbation” ?
A: No bishop, it works every time,. Do you, at your age ?
There is a directive at the bottom of the questions page telling inverviewers to not add extra questions. But local leaders are also clearly authorized to ask additional questions when they feel so moved by the Spirit (i.e., whenever they feel like it) so the whole idea of “reporting” a bishop is misguided. The senior leadership is just fine with them delving into sexual matters. If they are “reported,” nothing happens. They see no problems. Given how 19th century LDS leaders acted — leaders emulated by current GAs — that’s not a surprise. In their eyes, there is nothing wrong and anyone who thinks so is just a whiner (at best) or a tool of The Enemy. The best you can do (if you’re not willing to find a church whose leaders behave better) is just to protect yourself and your family from the wolves in sheep’s clothing that somehow find their way into local leadership so regularly.
Q: When was the last time you viewed pornography
A: Well, since we have moved off of the approved TR questions and you want to talk about that, you start and tell me how long since you viewed porn then I will tell.
A few years ago, a counselor to the stake president repeatedly asked me how often I go to the temple during my recommend interview for a renewal. I felt like this was none of his business. I simply repeatedly told him “As often as I can.” But I felt very uncomfortable and judged by the question. I made sure I was never interviewed by him again after that.
It’s been a long time since I’ve been asked an unauthorized temple recommend question. Years ago in a stake on the east coast two different SP counselors asked me relatively benign but still somewhat obnoxious questions. One was “when was the last time you attended the temple?” And the other was along the lines of “is your family the highest priority in your life?”
The answers they got were “I should attend more often” and “absolutely my family is highest priority but sometimes church gets in the way.” He actually liked that answer.
Toad reminds me that I did have a stake presidency that asked about temple attendance many years ago… However they did it a after the recommended had been signed and handed over and the book closed. Perhaps it wasn’t considered part of the recommend interview? It felt conversational at first, but they used it to try to have a spiritual/emotional conversation about the temple. It didn’t bother me at the time, but I’m not sure how I would feel about it today.
A common theme in my comments is that things said before and after the recommend interview do not necessarily violate the guidance about asking additional questions, but they do affect the interviewee.
About 35 years ago in an interview for a limited use recommend (I was 15), my bishop asked me if I drank Coke or Pepsi. When I said yes, I was treated to a diatribe about the evils of caffeine, and he said he would have to think about whether to grant me a recommend. He ultimately did the next week just before he interviewed my mother for her recommend. He asked her if she watched R-rated movies; she said that she did on occasion. He refused to give her a recommend. We had only recently joined the church, so my mother had little history of submitting meekly to such misapplication of authority (and she still does not–the stories I could tell about her standing up to various leaders who were in the wrong)….so she got in her car and drove to Salt Lake City in order to talk to someone about what she considered to be a travesty. Did I mention that we were living in Indiana at the time? After she spoke to a general authority and made it clear that she believed the bishop had acted completely inappropriately–something that was still a possibility in the early 1980s–she drove home. We had a new bishop six weeks later.
About 8 years ago, after I’d answered all the questions the bishop asked me to agree that “obedience is the first law of heaven”, I said no the first is to love the lord, and the second is to love your fellow man and women. He refused me a recommend, after speaking with the SP a number of times over a couple of months, he told me he had spoken to the bishop and to see him again. The bishop said he had prayed about me and would give me a recommend. Since then the only callings I have had involve cleaning, and no talks.
A couple of years ago a new bishop was called, who is the son in law of the first one, and they live in the same house, he is in his 30s, and I late 60s.I went for what was to be TR interview, he asked me all sorts of questions for an hour, and then told me he would talk to me again in a week. I went home and looked up the rules. 1 is that the bishop must not consult. I had never had an interview with this man. When I went back in a week, I pointed out he was to have no preconcieved ideas just ask me the questions, and judge from there. He again fished to find something for an hour. I went to the SP (different one) who said there shouldn’t be a problem, he would talk to the bishop. Nice as pie, got the recommend. But my wife is now in fear of the bishop. He phoned me last Sunday, and my wife wouldn’t talk to me for half the day.
Geoff -Aus
It sounds to me that you may live in Queensland … or often referred in our family as the ‘ other Church’ ? Or the Salt Lake Annex ?
If not there are an abundance of fundamental pockets of this kind of unhealthy exported self righteous nonsense everywhere in our land….the bad side of western cultural Mormonism.
I recently served in the bishopric of a YSA ward at BYU. During temple recommend interviews, after going through the list of “authorized” questions, I usually asked one additional question of the young man or young woman at the end of the interview. The question was: “How is your relationship with your Savior?” Before asking that question, I would preface it by telling them I wanted to ask one more question but it wasn’t one that they needed to answer to me but rather was just something for them to take away and ponder on. This question often led to a discussion of how we can sometimes be keeping the external requirements yet still be missing it. The heart of the gospel is coming unto Christ and having our hearts changed by Him.
These are a supposed sampling of old temple recommend questions from the late 1800s or early 1900s. (A friend gave this list to me. I’m not vouching for its historical accuracy, but some of these questions made me smile and reflect on how much our world has changed in the last hundred years.)
1 – Have you committed murder, by shedding innocent blood, or consenting thereto?
2 – Have you committed adultery, by having any connection with a woman that was not your wife, or a man that was not your husband?
3 – Have you cut hay where you had no right to, or turned your animals into another person’s grain or field, without his knowledge and consent?
4 – Have you coveted anything not your own?
5 – Have you been intoxicated with strong drink?
6 – Have you branded an animal that you did not know to be your own?
7 – Have you taken another’s horse or mule from the range and rode it without the owner’s consent?
8 – Have you taken water to irrigate with, when it belonged to another person at the time you used it?
9 – Do you pay your tithing promptly?
10 – Do you teach your family the gospel of salvation?
11 – Do you wash your body and have your family do so, as often as health and cleanliness require and circumstances will permit?
12 – Do you labor six days and rest, or go to the house of worship, on the seventh?
13 – Have you labored diligently and earned faithfully the wages paid you by your employer?
14 – Do you oppress the hireling in his wages?
15 – Have you taken up and converted any stray animal to your own use, or in any manner appropriated one to your benefit, without accounting therefor to the proper authorities?
Back in my singles ward years I had a stake presidency counselor who always asked me how often I was dating and what I was actively doing to attract the young men to want to marry me. My final TR renewal with him was conducted while standing in the kitchen at the church. I’m a tall woman and I wear heels to church, and he was a rather short man, which put him at about eye level with my chest. While I had been annoyed by him adding dating questions to the TR interview in the past, I was positively creeped out when he did it while openly staring at my boobs instead of looking up at my face. I thought about mentioning the extra questions to my bishopric, but they generally asked about dating in all conversations, not just TR interviews, so I had little faith they would see anything amiss.
On a more humorous note, I had a friend growing up who was notorious for always answering “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?” by quipping “Either way, the answer’s yes.”
Kangaroo, exactly
One of my former bishops informed me that oral sex, even in marriage, is against the law of chastity because it “creates lust.” Haha! What a bunch of hogwash! Since when is it wrong to have lust (have strong sexual desire) for the person you’re “legally and lawfully wedded” to? Bishops and SP’s need to mind their own business and stay out of our bedrooms!