I was recently reading a fascinating article by Edward Kimball that covers the history of various questions in the Temple Recommend interview. One of the sources is a book I’ve read before, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship by David Buerger.
Kimball’s article “Temple Admission Standards” groups the changes into broader thematic categories to see how the questions regarding a particular issue have evolved over time. His article is well worth a read for that alone. I took that information and re-ordered it to put all the changes into their time frame to see what types of things were being changed at once and how often the question are getting a major shake-up.
The “changes” typically arrive through one of the following means:
- Modifications to the instructions in the Handbook. This is a very passive way to clarify an area of focus as it is not made public through the questions themselves, and only bishops have access to see the revised instructions. Bishops who aren’t looking for changes may not even notice them.
- First Presidency letter to bishops. This is similar to a handbook change, but is drawing the bishop’s attention to a point of clarification.
- First Presidency letter to the church membership at large. This gets even more attention and is done when members appear to have a wide-spread misunderstanding, not just bishops.
- Direct changes to questions themselves (or to the interview). This alters how both members and bishops perceive temple worthiness.
19th Century
The earliest “worthiness” assessments were based on a personal relationship with Joseph Smith (and later, a personal endorsement based on a relationship with one’s local leaders). Due to mission assignments and other church business, not even all the apostles were endowed (Sidney Ridgon was out of state, drumming up support for a presidential run when the Nauvoo temple was completed). Initially, no single people were endowed. It was only done for those who were married (whether in a polygamous or monogamous marriage).
In 1844, it was clarified that those who had contributed tithing money to the temple fund would have first claim to their endowment.
Notably, gambling was discouraged among church members, but it was never formally added to the list of questions.
In 1856, a letter from the First Presidency clarified that any candidates for temple worthiness must believe in plural marriage (even though most did not practice it–of note, ALL leaders did, so this requirement really implied support of the leaders’ practice of it). Worthiness questions prohibited speaking against or “speaking evil of” Church leaders as well as “paying due respect” to leaders.
There was a specific prohibition on profanity, a requirement that members pray regularly, and an agricultural-sounding prohibition of those who “steal, lie, or interfere with their neighbor’s things.” The prohibition on profanity was further clarified by Wilford Woodruff in 1886 who said that a man who “curses and swears” should not be recommended for the temple. [1]
The instruction about prayer was expanded in 1886 via a general epistle to church membership about family life that those worthy of a recommend should “live in harmony and peace at home” and “should pray with their families morning and evening, and not neglect secret prayer.”
Early to Mid-20th Century Major Shifts
In 1921, a big shift occurred when the Word of Wisdom made its first appearance in the temple recommend questions, specifically calling out abstinence from coffee and tea. In 1928, there was a note that observing the principle of tithing should be “encouraged.” It was not spelled out as an absolute requirement at this time, although even from the beginning, tithe contributors were given preferment.
During the 1930s, the rise in popularity of groups like trade unions and men’s lodges created a stir due to the time and money commitments of these groups that the church saw as in conflict and competition with church membership. There was some leeriness as well about lodges whose rites appeared religiously binding in any way. In 1934, bishops were instructed in the handbook that applicants for recommends “should not join nor be a member of any secret-oath-bound organization.”
That same year, the language around leaders was modified to state that candidates should “sustain without reservation the general and local authorities of the church.” This language was kept until 1976. The standard around tithing was upgraded to state that recommend holders should “observe” the law of tithing. The question about profanity was dropped, although it was still mentioned as something bishops should consider.
1940 brought massive changes to the worthiness interview with a new focus on key issues that had become a concern to the church:
- Bishops were instructed that those “adopting or advocating” plural marriage were barred and that this was considered apostasy.
- Tithing language was solidified to being “an honest tithepayer” or to “undertake to become one.”
- Chastity was introduced under the oblique injunction against “interfering” with one’s neighbor’s wives or husbands.
- Word of Wisdom language was left vague with a “willingness to undertake” it without calling out specifics.
- For the first time, the handbook expressed concern that previously endowed members should wear the temple garment.
- Church meeting attendance was introduced to the interview, specifying sacrament meeting, priesthood (for men) and “other meetings.”
- The handbook clarified that lodge affiliation that was functionally equivalent to church membership was incompatible with Church activity, but it was not unilaterally prohibited or in the questions. It was just discouraged in the bishop’s instructions.
- While prayer was dropped from the questions, an instruction to bishops that members with a recommend should be generally “believing in and living the gospel” was added to the handbook.
- The profanity injunction remained in the bishop’s instructions, but was not in the interview questions. This was the last time profanity was mentioned at all.
- A statement was added that honesty was expected of those who enter the temple. No question was asked.
Mid 20th Century Changes
In the 1950s, candidates were asked if they had ever previously been denied a recommend, presumably to raise a discussion if there were unresolved issues in the past requiring confession. In 1957, candidates were asked if they were divorced, although no consequences were delineated based on the answer. Garment guidelines were updated to state that the garments worn should be “regulation.” (This verbiage later became “approved” or “authorized” design.)
In 1960, the chastity statement was increased to include “all kinds of immoral practices,” without naming what those were. A candidate who was previously divorced (as discovered in the newly added 1957 question list) now required First Presidency clearance to receive a recommend. The questions around Word of Wisdom were clarified to refer to no “tea, coffee, tobacco, and liquor.”
The higher level clearance for divorced persons only lasted three years. In 1963, it was only required if the divorced person had been divorced more than once or if the marriage that was dissolved had been a temple sealing. The handbook added that bishops should inquire about “all kinds of immoral or unchristianlike practices.” [2] A question was added to ensure that those seeking renewal were abiding by their temple obligations. In 1964, the tithing language settled on “full tithepayers” with no elaboration given or sought.
The divorce question was proving to be difficult to administer. In 1968, only a sealing cancellation required First Presidency approval, provided there was no infidelity on the part of the candidate. That same year, the Word of Wisdom question underwent a change from “liquor” to “alcoholic beverages,” presumably to include wine and beer (and not just hard liquor). The recently added question about living up to temple obligations was omitted.
In 1969, concern about one’s profession conflicting with church teachings came to the fore. A First Presidency letter announced that it was inappropriate for those involved firsthand with liquor to receive temple recommends (e.g. bartenders or cocktail waitresses). The same warned that those involved firsthand in gambling as dealers should also not normally receive a recommend.
Late 20th Century Changes
Each of the last 3 decades of the 20th century saw massive changes to the temple recommend interview. In 1976, the following changes occurred:
- Children of “apostates” (meaning polygamous families) were barred due to parental influence, even if they were not involved in practices.
- For the first time, candidates were required to affirm that they believe that the Church president is “a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” and the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys (this was to weed out fundamentalists who might agree he was a prophet, but not that he had sole access to all priesthood keys).
- Switched from asking about being previously denied a recommend to asking the broader question about unresolved major sins. Chastity question was revised to ask if the candidate is “morally clean.”
- If a sealing cancellation was due to a spouse’s infidelity, First Presidency approval was no longer required. Questions were asked to get to “the real reason for the divorce.”
- A statement was added that the garment must be worn both night and day.
- The vague question about “all kinds of immoral and unchristlike practices” was dropped after 13 years of fishing expeditions that I can only imagine were often ill-conceived.
- The question “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?” was added. [3]
Despite the overhaul in 1976, one additional change was introduced two years later, the year the priesthood ban was lifted, to add a warning to the chastity section: “But if there shall come into it any unclean thing, my glory shall not be there; and my presence shall not come into it.” The section further clarified that a person who had not repented from “impure, unholy, or unnatural sex acts” could not receive a recommend (without specifying what those practices were). A subsequent First President letter to bishops instructed that they “should never inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between a man and his wife.” [4]
1979 saw another change to the hard-to-pin-down chastity section, reducing it to the question about unresolved sin which was modified to state “anything amiss.” Additionally, the temple obligations question was re-added, along with a general question about whether applicants considered themselves “worthy in every way” to enter the temple.
In the 80s, additional significant changes occurred. There was a prohibition on post-operative transsexual people from receiving a recommend added in 1983. This was omitted in the 1989 questions. In 1983, the First Presidency clearance for divorce was finally discontinued. Those who refused to pay income tax could be ineligible for a recommend.
In 1985, there was a push to ensure that our reputation as “Christians” which was threatened in the media would be upheld. Questions to affirm Christian belief were added, including belief in God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost as well as a “firm testimony” of the restored gospel. Chastity questions were modified to a simple question: “Do you live the Law of Chastity?” and at the same time, a letter from the First Presidency to bishops instructed that rape victims and victims of childhood incest were blameless. The question on “anything amiss” was clarified to any “sin or misdeed.” The honesty question disappeared (briefly, coming back 4 years later), but a question was added about fulfilling obligations for support and maintenance of your family to divorced persons. The question about apostates (that referred to polygamists) changed from “affiliation with or sympathy for” apostates to “affiliation with them or sympathy with their precepts.”
1989 saw more clarifications to the apostasy question, including a prohibition on those who “continue to follow the teaching of apostate cults (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority.” The section on sexuality underwent several additions (despite dropping the post-operative transsexual ban), including a section that read: “to be morally clean, a person must refrain from adultery and fornication, from homosexual or lesbian relations, and from every other unholy, unnatural or impure practice.” Bishops were instructed that if an applicant has enough anxiety about a practice to ask about it, the best course is to discontinue that sexual practice. From Kimball’s article, the reasonable inference is that mutual consent, free from force, demand, or psychological pressure into unwelcome sexual activity is required for sex acts in marriage. Additionally, abuse of family members was introduced as grounds for denying a temple recommend. A General Conference address in 1990 clarified that abuse included temper, impatience, demeaning others, and demands for offensive intimate relations.
The 49 year discouragement from lodge affiliation was dropped (probably due to steep decline in popularity of these groups). The antagonism between the church and the Utah Freemasons had been so marked that the Utah chapter barred Mormons from joining until 1984. From this point forward, local leaders were left to determine whether a person’s occupation was “in harmony with gospel teachings.” The handbook further instructed that applicants should “have a substantial degree of maturity” to be able to understand and meaningfully make solemn commitments.
In 1990, there was an added statement that endowed persons were under an “absolute obligation to not discuss outside the temple that which occurs within,” possibly as a response to the Godmakers film. In 1991, a question was added for those who were divorced about unresolved transgressions that were a result of the divorce or separation.
1996 also saw significant changes, including fleshing out the section on belief from “having faith in” the godhead to “Do you have faith in and a testimony of” the godhead. The word “firm” was dropped as a qualifier of what type of testimony was required. The section on apostate groups was revised to those who “support, affiliate with or agree with” apostate teachings or practices. An express acknowledgement that all members of the quorum of the twelve are “prophets, seers, and revelators” was added, to match the language used in General Conference sustaining. Legal language qualifying the type of family financial support required for divorced persons was dropped in favor of more general language. “Other meetings” were omitted from those required for church attendance. The phrase “in every way” was dropped from the question about one’s personal worthiness. Regarding the wearing of the temple garment night and day, the phrase “in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple” was added. [5]
Summary
In general, these changes reflect either a tightening or a loosening of specific types of restrictions.
Things that became more stringent over time:
- Word of Wisdom. It went from being absent (but encouraged) to being required, first just as a willingness to follow it, then later as a commitment and a statement that one was already following it. It was clarified to include a wider range of alcoholic beverages, not just hard liquor, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of the term “liquor” or perhaps because the new requirement became more stringent. Eventually, even professions that involving the sale or serving of alcohol (but not coffee, tea, or tobacco) were considered incompatible with a temple recommend. This was later dropped.
- Tithing. It was initially a way to get to the front of the line, then became encouraged to observe or willing to commit to begin paying, to being an absolute prerequisite to get a recommend. However, it is still up to the individual to affirm status.
- Wearing garments. This wasn’t even included for the first hundred years, and was then only clarified to be wearing the approved design. After that, the additions were about how often they were worn and then to add weight to that instruction, the claim that it was a covenant. Subsequently, a statement was added that is read during the interview explaining that the reasons to remove it are very limited.
- Support of top church leaders. This has always been a focus, but it has shifted in tone from one of treating with respect to affirming the religious significance of the role, and therefore bolstering the authority of those in these positions.
Things that were dropped or became less stringent over time:
- Divorce. This particular requirement seemed to be a struggle related to sheer volume of cases to consider. Routinizing the more common situations was desirable after handling them all as exceptions initially.
- Affiliation with lodges or trade unions. This disdain for such affiliations had a long run considering how insignificant it is to us today.
- Prayer. This was very short-lived as a requirement, not because it’s not important, but probably because asking about it was redundant for those seeking a recommend.
- “Other meetings.” This seemed added only as an equivalent to “priesthood” for men, but was probably too vague given how many meetings we seem to have in this church.
The area with the most changes, seemingly because it’s so difficult to get it right:
- Law of chastity. There have been many changes over time in this area, including many that were phrased in such oblique ways as to be easily misunderstood or likely to lead to an unwanted fishing expedition.
And although apostasy has been an area that has gone from an absolute requirement that one believes in plural marriage to a requirement that one does not believe in or agree with the precepts of polygamists, it’s hard to say whether it is now still intended to bar non-Brighamites from temple attendance or to provide bishops cover for anything that might currently be deemed “apostate” which is casting a wide net indeed. When I got my first recommend in 1988, I was confused by the apostasy question because it referred to groups of people. Since I was from the east, I was unaware that there were still modern day polygamists. I thought it was a backwards relic of another era. The bishop who interviewed me explained what the groups were that it referred to. At least at that time, the apostasy question was still considered to refer to polygamist off-shoots.
Perhaps the biggest change of all is the most significant. From the way questions have been phrased over time and from the handbook instructions, it is clear that we’ve gone from a time in which the questions were designed to open discussion to a time in which yes or no answers are desired with no elaboration. That’s a great change toward self-assessing worthiness and away from the risks associated with bishop roulette in an increasingly large membership.
A few interesting notes from the Kimball article that deserve special mention. Although many of these items (e.g. tithing, chastity, word of wisdom) were included in some embryonic fashion in early iterations, some of the questions we take for granted had a fairly late “solid” inclusion date (meaning a fairly late date at which they were required rather than encouraged or implicitly understood). Specifically:
- Questions were only formalized (rather than local relationship-based) during the 1920-40 period.
- Rejecting ongoing plural marriage was only an official impediment 50 years after OD2, in 1940.
- Divorce was only introduced as a potential barrier in 1960.
- Word of Wisdom compliance was only required starting in 1960.
- Tithing came even later as a requirement (rather than encouragement to commit to it), in 1968.
- Accepting the Church president as the only one with all Priesthood keys began in 1976.
- Faith in God and the restoration only needed to be affirmed starting in 1985. Faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ wasn’t until 1996.
- Barring self-reported abusers of family members was only introduced in 1989.
- Acknowledging the quorum of the twelve as prophets was added in 1996.
Let’s see what you think of these ongoing changes.
- Were any of these dates or items surprising to you? Which ones?
- What changes have you noticed in your adult life (if you have noticed changes)?
- What further changes do you expect to see in coming decades?
- What further changes would you like to see?
Discuss.
[1] Phew! It only applies to men. I’m good.
[2] Holy train wreck! I can’t look away!
[3] Apparently not required to be honest with women, though.
[4] “a man” vs. “his wife.” Let that wording sink in.
[5] Although there is no such covenant that takes place.
Wheat & Tares 
Great summary Angela. I’ve looked for a summary like this before and have not been able to find one. Thanks. I once said something to the effect of “I’m trying” as an answer to one of the questions and the SP sternly told me a yes or no was all he wanted to hear.
I wonder if tithing would fall if that question went away.
As another side note, I was skipping the part of asking women if they attend their priesthood meetings and SP told me those questions were dictated from God to his prophets and we were to read them word for word. I don’t think that bishoprics should modify the questions, it just seems that is a stupid question to ask a woman. (Oh well, I got back at them. When I ask couples to speak, I sometimes ask the wife to be the concluding speaker. I got called out on that one too.)
When did the expectation for members to always keep a current temple recommend come out? When I was a child in the 1980s, my parents went years without current recommends. They were active, believing, tithe-paying members, but the nearest temple was hours away and they had no need to go to the temple, and were generally too busy with kids at that stage. Then at some point in the 90s when I was a teen, I remember a renewed push for temple attendance and family history, possibly during the GBH presidency in connection with the accelerated construction of temples. Now it seems like having a current recommend is a minimum expectation, and it is a metric being tracked by bishops and stake presidents.
I just had a temple recommend interview. I don’t pay tithing because my husband is a non-member and he objects to tithing. I was told that, from the first presidency, the policy is that since I have a job with my own income, I cannot qualify for a temple recommend because I don’t pay tithing. If I were a stay at home mother without my own income and my husband didn’t allow me to pay tithing, I would qualify for a temple recommend though. I am upset by the burden placed on working women by this policy. It is discriminatory on its face (and yes I know the church is not the state). My income is combined with my husband’s income to provide for our family. We don’t have separate money or accounts. I don’t like the distinction here, and the burden put on working women, not to mention the amount of contention that would arise from having to revisit this issue with a spouse who objects to tithing. I don’t have anything of value to add to the OP, I am just frustrated by this situation and venting about it. Thanks for listening.
Fascinating summary. I was surprised that the use of birth control was not on this list. My parents and in-laws both told my wife and I that the use of birth control would prevent you from getting a temple recommend. My dad told me that his bishop asked him specifically about the use of birth control in temple recommend interviews. Perhaps this was part of a bishop’s instruction that never made it into the official list. Does anyone have any insights on the history of the “birth control” issue in the temple recommend questions?
Laurie, I have learned by experience on a different matter that bishops, stake presidency members, and general authorities are not necessarily to be believed when they make pronouncements about official church policy. If it is a matter of concern, I have taken to asking to see it in writing — in Handbook 1 or 2 or in a letter signed by the first presidency. That doesn’t seem likely to help in this case, but I was surprised the first time I encountered authorities at various levels stuck on an outdated policy that I knew had been changed decades earlier. Did they show it to you in a handbook or a first presidency letter?
My wife and I were invited to spend the weekend at a beach house by some friends from the Presbyterian boy scout troop where we had a number of fascinating religious discussions. Ted was raised very strict Baptist with tons of rules. He now attends a nondenominational community church focused only on Faith in Christ. He became convinced that about the only rules at church that really matter are covered in the Apostles creed:
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic (universal) Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
This dates to the late 4th century. Preachers and priests read the trinity into it. But I don’t think the original authors of it believed in or even knew about the complex concept of the trinity. Other creeds declare, certainly far more clearly, the concept of the trinity. Also there is no mention of scriptures, infallible or not. Therefore, I can recite the Apostles creed publicly in church with all sincerity and good faith. Probably many of you on this blog could also; although the concept of Mormon exclusivity runs counter to the idea of the universal body of Christian believers (the holy catholic church).
The LDS temple experience is the pinnacle spiritual ceremony in the Mormon faith. It is central to our life’s journey and the gateway into heaven. But it sure has a ton of rules guarding it. I knew they had changed the requirements for a temple recommend over time. But the degree of these changes described above boggles my mind. How can this be anything but a bunch of grumpy old men trying to control and maybe even exploit those under their pastoral care? Step back and look at it from the broad perspective.
Like Laurie might, I had trouble explaining to my friends why I am not allowed into the temple because my wife doesn’t want to pay tithing. Even the existence of the other questions needed to be answered properly to become a card-carrying Mormon seem absurd to an evangelical Christian. BTW, Ted is no Mormon hater, he found the musical called The Book of Mormon extremely offensive and slanderous. And our official response to it brilliant.
To answer Jack Hughes question, it was during Howard W. Hunter’s brief 9-month tenure as president of the Church that having a current temple recommend was first emphasized. As part of his only general conference talk in that position:
“It would be the deepest desire of my heart that every… adult member would be worthy of—and carry—a current temple recommend, even if proximity to a temple does not allow immediate or frequent use of it.”
Interestingly, Pres. Hunter was the same one who discontinued tracking temple attendance figures (they were previously reported back to the stake.) although with the current bar code system I’m skeptical that Church HQ really doesn’t track such things.
When you’re asked “Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?” , you don’t think about meat consumption. The question should address potential substance abuse and its consequences. That would include the more modern drug usage, illegal or otherwise. Far more deadly than a cup of coffee or tea when considering family suffering. This, along with alcohol, should have a zero tolerance.
MJMirth: From the linked article: “During the nineteenth century and perhaps half of the twentieth, the official attitude was that sexual intercourse, even within marriage, was justified only when conception was desired or at least not interfered with. Since about the 1970s, the position has gradually developed that, while “selfishness” is discouraged and having families is encouraged, couples who prayerfully and thoughtfully decide they should limit their families may engage in intercourse for pleasure and the means of contraception is inconsequential. Using contraceptives has never been an explicit bar to receiving a recommend, although a First Presidency statement of 14 August 1969 decried birth control for healthy couples and counseled them to seek inspiration and wisdom from the Lord. The 1983, 1985, and 1989 handbooks similarly encourage having families but admonish couples to seek inspiration in making choices.” Sources are cited in the linked article.
I agree with Markagblog about the word of wisdom question. They have been so concerned about alcohol and tobacco, the basic health of the person has been overlooked. Back in the 90’s I had a SP say, “it isn’t part of the recommend but I like to tell people not to drink caffeine drinks. ” I told him, keep me out of the temple for drinking diet Coke, when you keep out the people who eat 2 loafs of bread a day and are over weight. (And yes, he was over weight)
When did they broaden the language about supporting apostate groups to potentially include organizations that have little to do with religion? I have answered that yes, my employer does business in the Middle East and China, so I do support organizations that teach many things contrary to gospel principles.
Kellie & Markagblog: the article pointed out that by far the biggest emphasis in official channels has been avoidance of alcohol (not caffeine), presumably because of the potential for intoxicants to impact people other than the one imbibing. Likewise, I would assume it’s why the church (mostly) stays out of the obesity game. But I have to agree that between Diet Coke and too many carbs, the carbs are the bigger danger.
eloso: You don’t have to go that far even. I have often said that the church itself affiliates with and sympathizes with groups whose precepts oppose our understanding of the gospel. All political and interfaith work is done in conjunction with these groups, and let’s be honest–their ideas have definitely influenced the church’s thinking, often to our detriment.
Laurie-
As the spouse who won’t allow my wife to pay tithing (former TBM, now still active in church but I don’t want to support the church financially anymore), let me suggest the following compromise that I think could meet your desires to pay tithing and your husband’s desires to not financially support the church.
First, note that in the temple, the wording for the consecration covenant is to the Church, the Kingdom of God, the establishment of Zion. While I think the usual interpretation is to see these as interchangeable names, you could see them as separable. Thus, in good faith you could (in my view) contribute money to causes that you feel align with your Mormon/Christian values (whether it’s helping the homeless or contributing to climate change advocacy) and call that tithing, since it’s promoting the Kingdom of God. Perhaps you could negotiate a deal with your husband where you donate 10% of your income to these kinds of causes.
Is 10% too much for your husband to stomach, even if the money is not going to the church? Here are ways to lower it even further: 1) Apply the 10% to your personal income (not household income). 2) Apply the 10% to your net income, not gross (which I understand is what most people do anyway). 3) Apply the 10% to your the remainder of your net personal income AFTER all household essentials are taken care of (basically, paying tithing on your surplus, in the original sense of the word). I would think that using one or any of these three approaches will get you to a fairly small amount of tithing owed–say a few thousand dollars–and then just give that money to your favorite charity that does something awesome that you feel is God’s work in this world.
And there you have it, marital harmony and a full-tithe payer. Of course, if your husband still won’t go along with it, you can always say yes based on your willingness to comply (basically arguing that you’re complying in spirit, if not the letter because your situation does not allow it).
I have been tempted to answer the affiliation question with, “Not since I left the Republican party. “
I still remember my first recommend interview; questioning “association with groups opposed to the Church. Was it a problem that my extended family were all RLDS? (chuckle)
I once told an interviewer that my use of “hot drinks” were the herbal teas, very helpful in warming my voice up for singing as well as appetite suppression.
In my opinion, the very idea of a temple “recommend” is somewhat wrongheaded from the start. The command was not to suffer any unclean (unwashed) thing to enter the Lord’s house (D&C 94:8). This is the intent behind the recommend. However, in Kirtland, where the command was received, they complied—not by showing a recommend—but rather by partaking of the sacrament and in washing ordinances before entering the temple. They recognized that ‘worthiness’ was wholly derived from the Lord. We are guests in His house. Not one of us ‘worthy’ to be there on our own merits.
To the extent our ‘worthiness’ comes into play, it seems to be much more related to the condition of our hearts than on whether one drank a cup of coffee that morning or not. Christ made that quite clear in his parable on the Publican and the Pharisee who both went to the temple (see Luke 18:9-14). I fear the attitudes of many members more closely align with the Pharisee than with the publican (including my own at times). Being ‘worthy’ of a temple recommend can reinforce this false notion.
My only point is that we are all like the prodigal son returning home to the temple (see Luke 15). We should recognize we are invited and able to be there only by the grace of God.
The linked article was published in 1998. I would be interested in an update–changes since 1998. I am not aware of significant changes in that period, but (not coincidentally) my first-hand knowledge ends at about the same time.
I am curious what people think about change itself, about the temple recommend questions even having a history? At one level it’s an “of course!” but I think we sometimes act and talk like the questions appeared on stone tablets in the 19th century. Personally, I found the fact of a history somewhat disturbing. Especially when faced with a less-than-easy question or answer and knowing the question wasn’t even on the menu 15 year previously and we got along just fine back then.
Elision, when the Bishop last asked me that question, I replied that I was a registered leader in the Boy Scouts. 🙂. That question is so vague and convoluted that it only makes sense if you already know what it’s alluding to. It seriously needs either a rewrite or elimination
I had to laugh at, “should not join nor be a member of any secret-oath-bound organization.” Couldn’t one say that about the church and the temple ceremony?
I hope one day that the Word of Wisdom is removed from the recommend questions, as was rumored before last conference. So many want to blunt the coffee and tea side of the ax, only to sharpen the too much bread/meat or too fat side. I wish we could stop bludgeoning each other over this thing that wasn’t given as a commandment in the first place.
“When you’re asked “Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?” , you don’t think about meat consumption.”
I confessed to this in my recommend interview Sunday.
I have been tempted to answer the affiliation question with, “Not since I left the Republican party. “
I responded that I was a registered Republican to that question as well.
“keep out the people who eat 2 loafs of bread a day ”
Technically they’re in compliance with D&C 89:17.
Thank you CoryBJensen for sharing what I’ve been thinking all along about “worthiness.” The plain fact of the matter is that nobody is temple-worthy: the world is divided between sinners who fear God and want to improve, and those who are uninterested in doing so, but none of them are actually worthy to enter God’s presence.
I believe that Mormonism started out as a Protestant religion, but that since that time, the leadership has been bringing Catholicky doctrines in through the back door in order to increase their power over the members. This whole temple recommend business is very similar to the concept of a mortal sin vs. a venial sin, in the sense that the leaders have to decide which sins are serious enough to keep you out of God’s presence and which won’t.
But the truth is that “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And no man-made set of rules can possibly constrain human wickedness: whatever pharisaical restrictions you set up, people will find ways to severely harm one another that do not run afoul of it.
Later in that chapter, Paul says that “the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Out of the things Paul listed, it seems that only adultery, fornication, idolatry, murders, and drunkenness will get you denied a temple recommend. But all of them will keep you out of the Kingdom of God. Since it is impossible for a bishop to judge whether someone is, for instance, envious or wrathful, the only solution seems to be to just give up on trying to figure out who is worthy, and stop allowing sinners to feel like their sins aren’t serious through the conceit of a temple recommend.
Markablog,
I agree with you that the Church should do more to address modern drugs in addition to alcohol, but I don’t think the Word of Wisdom is the way to go – that passage of scripture has already had way too much read into it that wasn’t there to begin with.
If you want to go after psychotropic drugs (legal or otherwise) I think the best way to do it is to combine the unique Mormon perspective on the Sin of Lucifer (he “sought to destroy the agency of man”) with the New Testament condemnations of “pharmakeia.” This Greek word occurs five times in the New Testament (including in the “works of the flesh” passage I quoted above), where it is translated as “sorcery” or “witchcraft.” (In 1611, the common Englishman had never heard of a pharmacy, but he was vaguely aware that making and using mind-altering drugs was something that witches did.) To the medieval mind, binding someone’s will with a potion went part and parcel with binding someone’s will with a spell. But nowadays, spells remain a superstition, while potions are a multi-billion dollar industry.
Laurie—if a married woman tithes on her own income and makes a separate donation from her husband, the two are combined in the end of year report, therefore not acknowledging the wife’s personal contribution. How can they then separate the wife’s tithing if she’s the only one who would be paying it? Way to come between husband and wife, diving the family.
I was interested that believing in polygamy was at one time a problem. I have had my EQP tell me he expects to practice polygamy in the next life, and I suppose Oaks and Nelson do too.
Believing Joseph believes “nobody is temple-worthy”
That simplifies things!
“the world is divided between sinners who fear God and want to improve, and those who are uninterested in doing so, but none of them are actually worthy to enter God’s presence.”
I’m not sure how a discussion of temple recommends suddenly became about entering God’s presence. You, me and everyone else is in God’s presence right now or do you think you can hide from Him?
Happy Hubby writes “Couldn’t one say that about the church and the temple ceremony?”
A slightly more accurate question would be whether you have joined, or wish to join, any other secret oath-bound organization as it is likely you can belong to only one such thing at a time.
“I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.”
Presumably so do the devils, and tremble.
Belief is easy. Work is hard.
There is no First Presidency letter stating that a spouse with a job whose husband objects to her/him paying tithing must pay anyway. Ask to see the letter. As the Stake President who the Area Authority is and then ask to talk to him. If you don’t get resolution there, ask to speak to the Area President, and then take it up the chain to the First Presidency. I don’t think you are in any different position from a person with no income who would say, “I would pay if I could.” Your other alternative is to simply declare, “Yes.” By the way, Handbook 1 states that everyone with an income needs to pay tithing with two exceptions: 1. members who are entirely dependent on Church welfare assistance; and full time missionaries (unless they have income beyond the amount they receive for their support, but it is silent about what to do if the spouse forbids it. You have a higher obligation to your marriage than you do to the church.
Happy Hubby…
https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/mormon-temple-long-shrouded-in-secrecy-briefly-opens-doors-to-the-public
“We wanted to share it, and have the public understand that this is just a place to come and worship,” said Elder Jay Pimentel, a church leader in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area. “We don’t baptize dead bodies inside, we don’t have secret rites. We want to demystify some of the fanciful rumors that get circulated.”
I had to laugh at this too…”we don’t have secret rites.” How many temple recommend holding members know about the second anointing? If that’s not the epitome of a secret rite, I don’t know what is.
Michael 2 said: “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.” Presumably so do the devils, and tremble. Belief is easy. Work is hard.
The statement of the creed is not referring to the belief of the devils. It is referring to saving belief. Very different. That kind of belief is the straight way and narrow gate. It is unbelievably hard, not because it requires so much effort, but precisely because it doesn’t. It requires us to “give up the fight.” Human beings tend to avoid that at all costs.
Work, by comparison, is quite easy. Many engage in good works without any saving belief in Christ. I would say that the majority of the world’s Christian leaders, including the leaders of the LDS church fall into that camp. Servants of Satan come disguised as ministers of righteousness. Or so we’ve been warned.
Saving belief is a gift from God. You can’t make yourself do it by flexing the right muscle. Who will inherit the Kingdom? Not the “righteous.”
“Who will inherit the Kingdom? Not the righteous.”
Naturally not. It would be the wicked. l I’m starting to “get it”!
Wow…sorry for sounding like a naysayer (which I am) but this all doesn’t sound like inspiration being received by “the one and only true church on the face of the earth.” It sounds like practical organizational management by folks whose skills are only so-so on the dock. A-day-late-and-a-dollar-short kind of stuff. To have been charged with this kind of performance relative to the pinnacle religious experience a person can enjoy and one that qualifies a person for a “personal” salvation vs. a “family” exaltation is out of balance and sounds half-baked. I have been critical of many of the Mormon Church’s non sequiturs in the past, but I had no idea the organization had wandered so widely with its temple qualifiers. Maybe the Divine Householder who inhabits these “holy” houses has been on holiday for the last dozen, and more, decades and needs to readdress his instructions to his staff workers, yet again.
I answered the « affiliation » question over the last several years « Yes. I associate with the BSA. ». Every leader laughed it off and said the question did’t Apply to that situation.
Any time they can do away with the garment letter I have to pretend to read after each TR interview would be great. Teach people correct principals and let them govern themselves……except when repeatedly lecturing them about how to wear their underwear properly.
“As the spouse who won’t allow my wife to……..” anything that follows this statement needs to be re-examined.
John & Michael 2: Michael said “Belief is easy. Work is hard.” You can just as easily say “Belief is hard. Work is easy.” Just like with the parables, these seemingly contradictory statements are actually both true, depending on the person. For some, it’s harder to let go of the sense of control they get from their works (checklists of what “good people” have to do to get an eternal reward). For some, works are a result of belief. For others, works are a substitute for belief in the atonement, a way one can “deserve” salvation.
Thanks for all the research, Hawk.
“In every epoch, the attempt must be made to deliver tradition anew from the conformism which is on the point of overwhelming it.” — Walter Benjamin
Thanks for this summary. Makes me feel less bad for stopping wearing my garments all the time. I thought I had just forgotten the covenant about that, but I never made one? Good.
Angela C writes “For others, works are a substitute for belief in the atonement, a way one can “deserve” salvation.”
Circular; not exactly a substitute. Belief might lead to work, and work might lead to belief. That is to say, a young person believes in temple work because she has been told about it; she’s also been told about Johannesburg. She attends the temple and while being baptized for the dead suddenly feels a strong sensation of presence and joy, but only for one name, similar or identical to many others not accompanied by that same spirit of joy. Work therefore leads to belief just as belief led to work.
The way I see it is that certain works or demonstrations are required; for instance, faith, hope and charity. Or put another way, a broken heart and a contrite spirit. These are things I have to work at and it is not easy. Belief is not really subject to whim; either you do or you don’t, but considerable variation exists in what exactly is believed.
Some people seem to think that goal-seeking contaminates the charity. But the epistle of James, if I remember right, teaches that what counts is what is done; feeding the hungry. Does it really matter that you did so because you hope for salvation (left brain dominant), or because you are filled with charity (right brain dominant)? Never mind; you are not the judge anyway. Find whatever reason suits your personality type then *do something*.
I know for sure there’s a God, and not just God but angels and messengers; ancestors and those waiting to come. I know for sure that temple work is meaningful for some recipients (but not as many as I imagined would be the case). Temple work becomes worth doing; it is all three of faith (that temple work it is meaningful), hope (for the salvation of souls), and charity (working on behalf of someone else).
Suppose I am wrong on some parts or maybe every last scrap of it. In what way am I worse off? I can think of no way.