There are different types of “worthiness interviews” in the Church:
- Baptismal (and other live ordinance) interviews
- Youth temple recommend
- Adult temple recommend
- Ecclesiastical Endorsement
These have changed a lot over time. The temple recommend, for example, originally wasn’t even an interview. It has been done with various frequencies over time. Currently it is done every two years for endowed members. For the purposes of this week’s survey, I’m going to exclude these other types of interviews from what is meant by “worthiness interview”:
- Callings
- Tithing Settlement
- Ministering Interviews
- Personal Priesthood Interviews
First, some personal stories.
A few years ago, a friend of mine and I had a difference of opinion. He was a former bishop. For obvious reasons, I am not. I affirmed that the purpose of the temple recommend interview was for people to self-determine their own worthiness and readiness. Evidence I cited included that the interviewer is prohibited from asking questions other than the yes/no questions on the approved list. It’s not supposed to be a fishing expedition. Plus, it ends with a self-affirmation of worthiness: “Do you consider yourself worthy…?” which sums up the interview as a personal declaration of worthiness.
He disagreed, stating that as a “judge in Israel,” he was responsible to ensure that no unclean thing entered the House of the Lord. I asked how he did that exactly, and he said through spiritual promptings during the interview. I clarified that he still only had the person’s answers to go on, and even if they were not being truthful, he would have no defensible basis to deny the recommend (other than his crime-busting stare and gut feeling suppositions). He said he would deny it anyway, even if he didn’t have a reason from their answers if he just didn’t feel right about it. I said that was kind of terrifying.
Here’s why. Every time I’ve ever been pulled over by a cop, regardless of whether I was consciously doing something wrong or not (expired plates are the quintessence of being unaware), I’ve had an immediate sense of panic, like a perp thrown into an interrogation room. Do I look guilty when I get pulled over? I talk too much, my armpits get prickly, and I nervously start rummaging around in my car looking for any paper that will make me look legitimate. I’m far too friendly, and I have a nervous laugh. It’s a normal human reaction to being put under a microscope by an authority figure. If you are looking for people that feel guilty, the act of looking for guilt is prone to creating the appearance of guilt.
Every time I have ever been pulled over, I literally start thinking up every possible reason I’m being pulled over. One time I mentally came up with six possible reasons–none of which were the actual reason! That makes it sound like I was driving like a crazy person, but my list was all the little ticky-tack things that can be a moving violation but usually don’t result in getting pulled over: not signalling far enough in advance of a lane change, changing lanes too quickly, being too close to the car in front of you, going a couple miles over the speed limit, etc.
When I was a teen, my best friend’s dad was the branch president. He was also a professor of education at the local college, but he fancied himself a bit of a psychologist. He would act like Sigmund Freud in his interviews with us, writing random things on a notepad and raising his eyebrows as if I’d just inadvertently revealed some hidden psychological tic that he could easily decipher. “Interesting. Go on.”
I learned early on not to play this game. He was more often than not fishing to find out what his daughter and I got up to on our weekends in the city, which was generally harmless stuff: trying on clothes at the mall, eating Chinese food, going to dance clubs, meeting cute boys, hatching schemes to play tricks on our friends, wearing parachute pants and far too much hair product. She told me he didn’t approve of us going to the dance club, imagining all sorts of crazy shenanigans, illicit and illegal activity (it was an under-21 only club, so totally tame). Sometimes I would deliberately make up things that I thought would get a rise out of him, but he was pretty unflappable. It was amusing. I didn’t personally find him intimidating despite his best efforts.
But the idea of a bishop I don’t know well thinking he can second guess my answers and bar me from getting a recommend (when I believe I’m worthy) is pretty outlandish. That only happened to me once, and he did sign it, but he was angry about it. It was a BYU bishop whose ward I hadn’t been attending because I attended with my fiance. The bishop didn’t want to sign my living endowment recommend because of my non-attendance in my student ward. He yelled and pounded his desk and ran his hands through his hair. He was frightening! I did my best to calmly answer the questions, but his accusatory tone and his anger at my not having attended my student ward was very disconcerting. I didn’t realize that was an issue. I was a returned missionary, and I had only lived in that student ward for just over a month. He kept saying he had no way of knowing anything about me, and I kept pointing out that I was answering the questions.
Other churches don’t do a routine check of member and youth worthiness in this same way, so something unique is going on within Mormonism. Catholics have “confession” which can take place as often as people want to do it. Catholics have been encouraged to go to confession as early as age 7 in the past; however, it’s waned in popularity, and now many Churches don’t offer it or have very limited hours.
- Foster confession. As teens, this was what we believed was the main reason for the youth interviews. Everyone was called in regularly, and this gave them a chance to tell the bishop what dirty little secrets they had been harboring, particularly sexual sins. The Church identifies specific sins that need to confessed to a bishop, and others that do not. As teens, we were constantly seeking to understand these legal lines to ensure that we didn’t cross them because telling your friend’s dad something so personal would be . . . awkward.
- Ensure communal purity. This is similar to what my friend said about being a Judge in Israel so that no unclean thing could enter the temple: the idea that we need to keep out the sinners, to bar the wolves from among the sheep. Early Church members took this idea very seriously that one unclean or unworthy individual would prevent the group (or the Church as a whole) from achieving whatever spiritual experience they were striving to have. This is why Martin Harris recused himself saying “Lord, is it I?”
- Self-assess worthiness. This is the argument that I made to my friend, that worthiness interviews are designed to give us a chance to reflect on our own worthiness across a range of questions. It’s not for someone else to determine our worthiness, despite their confidence in their ability to sniff out crime. It’s a structural touch stone, a routine reminder of our religious commitment and convictions.
- Bolster the Church’s authority. In this view, the bishop or stake president is a stand in for the Church, and the Church is the only gateway to salvation. If we want access, we have to go through them. You can’t really “self-assess” worthiness (if it were really self-assessment, they could move it on-line). You can only be “recommended” through the approval of a man in a position of Church authority. Requiring you to go through the interview process prevents you from imagining you can do this on your own.
- Enforce orthodoxy & orthopraxy. Rather than focusing on the role of the Church or one’s impact on the community, this view holds that the questions are designed to control the behavior and beliefs of individuals in the Church. By requiring you to affirm your belief in pre-written statements and to attest that your actions don’t contradict things specified in the interview questions, the Church can define what it means to be a member. There is less acceptable variation. Rather than having the latitude to say for yourself what you believe and don’t believe, you have to agree to meet a minimum standard or be barred from temple (or BYU) attendance (and most callings in the Church), which often carries a social stigma.
Time for you to weigh in.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Great post. The three that stand out to me are ensuring communal purity, bolstering the church’s authority and enforcing orthodoxy. I’m sympathetic to your view of self-assessing worthiness, but the church has made it very clear that unless your subjective, internal view of things (re worthiness or the First Vision or whatever) matches the church’s narrative and teachings, then you’re doing it wrong and you are wrong and you are therefore unworthy. Most interviews in the church aren’t really about concern for the individual; they’re about reinforcing the church’s authority over our lives and about reminding the interviewee that they need to stay in line. In other words, they’re about administering, not ministering.
To quote comedian Jim Gaffigan speaking of his lack of affection for confession (he’s a practicing Catholic), “It’s not that I don’t enjoy lying to a holy man…” As Angela intimated, I really, truly believe a majority of stake presidents and bishops would be dumbfounded by the number of people who are less than truthful in those interviews (or at least answer based on a nuanced or unorthodox understanding of the questions) and their accompanying inability to detect deception. Of course, any support I have had for worthiness interviews has waned considerably in the last 20 years. And when I was the one asking the questions, I would flat out tell people that I wasn’t a human lie detector and it was up to them to answer the questions (I usually didn’t even make eye contact with the interviewee – which at least one person later thanked me for doing). I never received a single complaint on my method and, if interviews are going to remain, I recommend that that’s the only way to do them. Of course, I’m firmly in the “Let’em in and let God sort it out” camp.
I answered “other” in the poll since I don’t think there really has to be a single purpose for worthiness interviews – the leadership of the Church probably has as much variation of emphasis, from man to man, as the membership does.
I’ve never felt at all opressed by the worthiness interviews. I knew what the questions are, so I always knew what I was getting into, and I never had trouble amswering any of them in the right way until I stopposed sustaining the Authorities a few years ago, and by that time I had nothing against accepting the consequences.
For me, at least, the troublesome aspect of worthiness interviews is that theu make the people who pass them feel worthier than they actually are. We are all sinners, it just so happens that some of us don’t commit the sorts of sins that the bishop wants to hear about, and I’ve spent a lot of time repenting of various failures to “love my neighbor as myself” which would never have factored into an interview.
Ideally, the process would be for self-reflection and self-determination, but I think, (in too many cases) unfortunately, it’s the option you described as “To remind us that we can only attain salvation through the endorsement of the Church and its leaders.”
I answered “other” because there is no “all of the above,” so I suppose I’m obligated to explain. First bishops. Some bishops see themselves as pastors or helpful counselors, doing sympathetic and supportive listening to members who share concerns, issues, and sins. (That’s not on your list.) Other bishops see themselves as Judges In Israel, using the interrogation model you sketched above. Like cops, they think they can tell when you’re lying and are largely unaware of their own fallibility in this regard. It would be an overstatement to say every bishop has a different view or approach, but there is at least wide diversity. It’s like with patriarchs, as documented by Armand Mauss. They are all confident in what they are doing, but if you actually talk to them in detail there is a lot of variation in what exactly they think they are doing.
[The cynic in me thinks the Mormon interview system just trains members to be good liars. The ones who are poor liars are punished with a lifetime of guilt and shame, so there is a lot of selection pressure to be a good liar. This lying thing is deeply ingrained in Mormon culture from fifty years of lying to federal officials (marshals, prosecutors, and judges) and anyone else who asked questions about polygamy in 19th-century Utah, when a good Mormon was almost by definition a good liar.]
Likewise for the members. Lots of variation. Some people just need to confess and have a fairly reasonable sense of what needs to be confessed and what doesn’t. Other people need to confess, and confess, and confess. Others are either uncomfortable or completely repelled by the whole practice, finding nothing edifying in admitting guilt to a human agent who is trained to assess guilt using institutionally provided criteria rather than moral criteria. I mean, what can you say about a system where 99% of bishops conduct regular sexual discussion interviews with youth but find nothing wrong with that? From the sociological and organizational perspective, it’s all about social control, not worthiness or edification or repentance. Again, bishops are entirely unaware this is what they are doing.
I honestly don’t get the “keep the temple pure, clean, and holy” argument. The Bible teaches that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We regularly teach that Jesus was the only sinless man. So Mormon temples are full of sinners, that’s what we are. So the only way to really keep a temple clean, pure, and undefiled by sin is to put a big lock on the front door and let no one in. Keep the humans out. Like the holy of holies in Jewish temples, where no one at all went in except the high priest, once a year, after stringent purification procedures. If the whole purpose of a temple is to be clean and holy, without sin, just build one of them and let no one inside it. We could all take nice pictures of it to hang on our walls at home, somehow strengthened by the knowledge that the clean and holy House of God is there waiting for God to come visit. No need for anymore TR interviews. Problem solved.
Great post.
I realized how my views have evolved over the years. All the survey questions have probably applied to me through the years at different points of time. But it has come to this, I realized , when I can only currently answer that these interviews have left me feeling that *we can only attain salvation through its church and its leaders*
Gone are the days when I would go to a Bishop for counsel. I curl my toes when I recollect the scenarios of my young adult sexuality, divorce, post-divorce sexuality, remarriage, an errant daughter…I truly believed I would be lead to light and salvation. More often than not it was just conversations with awkward men giving awkward personal opinions within their church cultural perspective. Sigh…but I truly believed at the time. The span of years have given me great perspective on the whole process to the point that I counseled my son home from a mission and off to BYUI to keep his sexuality off the Bishops desk. Unless you are committing serious sexual sins (and we have been taught what those are) …keep your sacred Spirituality along with your sacred sexuality from prying eyes that induce unnecessary shame.
“keep the temple pure, clean, and holy” links back to old testament purity. One of the major purposes of Yom Kippur was to essentially make pure the holy place.
If we’re concerned about that, then we also should have regular rededications to purge the holy places. God expected us to defile the temple, that’s why he had a special day built in to the law to clean it out.
My mom once told me (when I was an adult) that she gets nervous about temple recommend interviews. That’s when I knew that this was a problem and not a good practice (at least the way it’s currently being done).
I know the anxiety is because, like the article said, when faced one on one with authority questioning you, you freak out. They need a better way of doing this.
When I was first married, they’d bring us both in to do the recommend. That was so much easier having a friend in there with you.
What’s the point of a lot of what the LDS church does? Traditions of men.
It’s all about power and control. Another sign of how far the Church has strayed down the path of unrighteous dominion. I refuse to play their game when I run into those who think they are better than me.
For example the last time my wife and I renewed our recommends we both went in together instead of one at a time. We did this in support of Sam Young and the cause of protecting children. I can tell you that the member of the Bishopric conducting the interview was uncomfortable with having both of us there at the same time. He was so put off that he made a mistake filling out my form. On the other hand the member of the Stake President was okay doing our interview together but the Stake Clerk wasn’t that happy. Now these two men are the Stake President and second councillor respectively and I’m waiting to see what happens next time.
The one time I was denied a recommend was when a Bishop disagreed with my definition of tithing and I had to get the Stake President involved to get the Bishop to sign my recommend.
Someone needs to stand up to priesthood leaders like the Bishop Angela mentioned or they will ruin the Church.
All the best,
Bob
I should add that while I used to think that it was a self-affirmation of worthiness, and there was even a General Conference talk that it was for this purpose (can’t find it now, sorry), my view has changed as I see that the Church isn’t using these the way they were when I was growing up. There’s an increasing reliance on them as a favorite tool in the Mormon leader toolbox. It used to be common, for example, that many adults in the ward who held calling (even Gospel Doctrine teacher) didn’t hold a current recommend. That’s currently unheard of, but was common even when I was an adult, and usually because of tithing non-payment due to financial hardship (or whatever reasons).
The proactive push to have every adult carrying a current Temple Recommend tells me that the purpose has shifted toward either 1) reinforcing the Church’s authority as the gateway to Salvation or 2) a behavior and belief control system. If it’s the former, it’s pretty effective within the Church. If it’s the latter, it’s effective at driving out some behaviors and at burying others underground because people will lie when there are social incentives to do so. Maybe the Church doesn’t care if people feel forced to lie. Wait, no I’m sure they don’t care, based on how the BYU annual endorsement works.
“…they’re about reinforcing the church’s authority over our lives and about reminding the interviewee that they need to stay in line. In other words, they’re about administering, not ministering.”
While I’m not nearly as cynical (I think the idea that the church is just trying to control people is ridiculous), I think there’s some truth to this statement. I do think that an element of the temple recommend interview is to remind people that certain blessings (temple blessings) are contingent upon our choices, and that the authority to bestow those blessings has been granted to the church in the form of priesthood keys. In other words, you’re not going to get these blessings unless you’re willing to submit your will to God’s, and that’s true even if God has chosen to use a flawed intermediary (church leadership) as part of the process. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are plenty of people who’ve gotten crossways with self-righteous bishops exercising unrighteous dominion, and I’m sure God will help sort those things out eventually, but the principle that you enter God’s presence in His way, not yours, is fundamental. Obviously, if you don’t believe that the church has any special dispensation from God, don’t believe the temple ceremonies have any eternal significance, yet still want to feel part of your family or community, I can see how the process is very irritating.
I’m also sympathetic to the idea that a bishop is a “judge in Israel”. I agree with Angela C that the primary purpose of a worthiness interview is self-determination of one’s personal worthiness, and not so much an opportunity for the bishop to pass judgment (f it were a latter, it would be more of a test for the bishop than the person being interviewed, and he’d undoubtedly fail most of the time). But I believe the keys the bishop holds are real, and if he’s doing it right, there may be times when he’ll be inspired to disagree with the interviewee’s personal assessment. If that were to happen, though, the reason would be to the interviewee’s benefit, not the aggrandizement of the bishop or his office. I don’t think bishops can usually tell if a person is lying, but I’ve heard a few stories that convince me that it can happen (of course, these are from former bishops and SP members, but the stories were pretty significant, some ending up in court, for example).
I also don’t know where people have gotten the idea that if they pass a temple recommend interview, they’re righteous. All a temple recommend interview does is establish a baseline and teach self-discipline. It doesn’t even touch the higher law stuff, like loving one’s neighbor as oneself, forgiving those who’ve wronged us, etc.. But I also don’t understand how people can think they’re so righteous and not be able to meet the baseline standard, either.
By the way, I think a temple recommend interview and an ecclesiastical endorsement interview are very different animals. One’s to prepare somebody to take out temple covenants with God, and one’s to try to guarantee behavior of a person upon whom the church is spending tithing funds. I don’t think they’re really the same discussion.
Interesting view, Martin. I have never experienced a temple recommend interview (either asking or answering the questions) as part of preparation to make temple covenants. Some say the Church’s temple preparation class materials are woefully inadequate. As a temple preparation, the recommend interview is even more inadequate in my experience on both sides of the desk. But, yes, the BYU ecclesiastical endorsement interview has a purpose in addition to the purposes it shares with other “worthiness” interviews.
It’s a terrible practice that mocks the Atonement of Christ and is born out of polygamy, and secret oaths. These interviews are designed to assess “worthiness” but a better question for anyone who actually believes in Christ, who is “worthy” of anything? Just the notion that a man can deem you worthy of any blessing from God, is a theological trainwreck that is more abominable than Catholic confession. This is a corrupt, evil, and unnecessary performance that turns good men into devils, destroys the concept of Grace, mocks the Atonement and inextricably connects your perceived salvation with your adherence to laws established by man.
“The Church identifies specific sins that need to confessed to a bishop,” Really? Where can I find this list?
Great post. This really puts members who are unorthodox but wanting to participate in a bind (especially men who are expected to have a TR to bless children, baptize children, ordain, etc.). These interviews are designed to determine whether the individual holds the correct doctrinal beliefs and is orthodox in practice (even telling people how they should dress when they mow the lawn, talk about being commanded in all things). If you don’t feel like you can answer truthfully, do you fudge and get the recommend anyway and people leave you alone and you can go to the occasional wedding? Or if you feel inauthentic answering the questions and don’t have a recommend, will you be sidelined and become a ward project? In a previous calling I was in a ward council meeting where they talked about calling a newly returned missionary to be given a list of all the people in the ward whose recommend had been expired for more than six months and visit them, encourage them to get it renewed or otherwise see what was up. That seems really creepy. I would guess if we went back to the way things were where the TR was not a prerequisite for so many things, we would have a lot fewer recommend holders.
@ The other Clark
There is no list for a reason. That is the point, you never really know if you are guilty or innocent at any given time. When in doubt, it is always better to confess.
For years I thought it was a pretty clever way at ensuring the general membership donated enough money to keep the church running. Want to see your daughter get married? Pay 10% of your earnings. Want to bless your child? Pay 10% of your earnings. Most of the items on the recommend are pretty personal in nature – tough for anyone to check on. But not tithing…. if you claim to be a full-tithe payer the Bishop has a record of your donations. He can usually put the pieces together. But that was me simply being cynical. I am alot better than that now.
Martin: After the live endowment, the purpose of the TR interview is NOT to prepare one for the temple, but rather to enforce obedience and belief ongoing. In this regard, it is very much like the EE at BYU, more than any of the living endowment recommends (which actually use the same questions, so are they really preparatory? And how many people feel unprepared after them anyway because the temple rites are unfamiliar?
The Other Clark: Maybe this isn’t as “explicitly” stated as it was when I was growing up, but we were told very clearly that petting was the line you couldn’t cross without confessing to a bishop. French kissing? OK. “Grinding”? Close to the line, but kind of OK on a technicality (no hands). Believe it or not, we hadn’t really heard of “Levi loving,” but I would assume that it would be in the OK camp because no hands. What can I say? The Church creates legalistic kids. Because petting is an antiquated term nobody in my generation ever used (and I’m in my 50s now, BTW), my teen cohorts and I took great delight in flustering our Sunday School teacher one day by asking her what petting meant. She finally went and got my dad who was the 1C in bishopric, and we pretended we didn’t know what she was even talking about. As to where the list is published, I have no idea (maybe FTSOY, although that wasn’t a thing in the mid-80s). But we all knew The Line.
FelixFabulous: I can’t quite bring myself to believe that a *lot* fewer recommend holders is a bad thing. I haven’t done a post on this yet, but one is clearly coming “What is the Point of Temples (aside from live endowments)? ” There is no salvific reason we are encouraged to attend the temple once we’ve done our own ordinances. Yes, there’s work for the dead, but given the sloppiness of that work (honestly, I think Starbucks employees are coming up with some of these names!), that feels like busy work more than anything else. We could be helping real living people with that time.
Cam: Actually, if you pay directly to the COB, your bishop doesn’t know how much you paid. Our ex-pat bishop in Singapore noted that everyone in that ward who was being paid in their country of origin for their work (the majority) were showing as “zero” but were just paying directly to COB, therefore full tithe-payers. Likewise, if you pay via stock transfer, that goes directly to COB and your bishop only sees a zero.
But you are likely on to something. Wards used to have a ward budget based on annual member donations. That ended in the late 70s I believe, maybe early 80s. By the 90s, we were pushing everyone to have a current TR (which not-so-coincidentally requires being a full tithe payer). It’s not an outlandish theory at all.
Angela C: I agree 100%. We used to have fewer temples and people didn’t go back as much. We seemed to get along OK as a church with fewer people attending the temple.
“In a previous calling I was in a ward council meeting where they talked about calling a newly returned missionary to be given a list of all the people in the ward whose recommend had been expired for more than six months and visit them, encourage them to get it renewed or otherwise see what was up. That seems really creepy. I would guess if we went back to the way things were where the TR was not a prerequisite for so many things, we would have a lot fewer recommend holders.” -felixfabulous
I also believe a motivator for that sort of behavior is the fact that MLS includes a report of endowed adults with an expired TR. The percentage of endowed adults with a current TR metric can serve as an indicator of the health of a ward at a quick glance. Bishops may choose to focus on that metric and other metrics called key indicators because checking those boxes calms the “am I doing the right thing as a bishop” anxieties and gives the bishop something good to report to the stake president during the next checkup meeting. Plus no one wants to go into that meeting with lots of people on their expired TR list.
It’s not entirely self preservation and looking good on paper though. The key indicators can point leaders with limited time and limited resources to the people that may need ministering the most. It is kind of invasive though. I don’t think the fact that some people don’t want a TR crosses most leader’s minds.
I have an advantage I didn’t have a few years ago. Not an advantage over anyone else, but a personal advantage that has enabled me to learn something of value to me. As of a few years ago, I now have experience in two different Christian denominations. Born and raised Mormon. Now, I am a baptized Christian and confirmed Episcopalian. I was a Mormon until age 37. Plenty of experience with the worthiness interview process. I even confessed a few minor sins a few times. I dreaded worthiness interviews even if I had nothing to confess. I dreaded them because I was afraid maybe I should have something to confess. And the thought of telling my bishop the bad stuff I had been up to was an experience full of shame. I hated it. The shame was unbearable.
Well….I became an Episcopalian. Anglican liturgy includes a communal confession every Sunday. It is generic in its wording. No one will ever find out any dirt through this process, as everyone is reading the same confessional prayer (on their knees) at the same time. But if necessary, there is also a Rite of Reconciliation that an Episcopalian can take advantage of if he/she feels so inclined. It is similar to the Catholic Rite, often called “confession.”
All my life as a Mormon, and I was a relatively good boy, by Mormon standards anyway, but I finally really messed up in life after converting to a different form of Christianity, and if I had been a Mormon, I would have definitely needed to go see my Bishop. I wouldn’t have lost my recommend. (It wasn’t THAT bad…), but it was bad enough, and what I did caused a lot of hurt to people I loved.
I decided I wanted the Rite of Reconciliation. I longed for it. There was no shame leading up to going to meet my priest. No embarrassment. It was a beautiful experience. It was cleansing. And as is customary in the Episcopal Church (and Catholic Church, too, for that matter), the priest absolved me of my sin, and I went on my way determined not to screw up again. The Priest never mentioned it again. No further meetings and “check-ups.” Nothing was held against me. Confidentiality was preserved.
There is a difference. The worthiness interview does not need to be what it is in the LDS church. The Bible (John specifically) says Jesus is quick to forgive us our sins. But in the Mormon Church, the Son of Elohim might take up to a year to get around to it.
“interviewer is prohibited from asking questions other than the yes/no questions on the approved list.”
And this:
“we were told very clearly that petting was the line you couldn’t cross without confessing to a bishop.”
I’m reminded once again how different Angela’s easy coast (?) experience was from my Mormon corridor youth.
First, although bishopric counselors pretty much stuck to the script for temple recommend questions, my bishops definitely did not. They delved into various extra questions on prayer habits, media use, dating information, and some personal details that I don’t think any untrained person should ask youth. That has diminished, but not completely stopped, in my adulthood. I was shocked when I read on a blog that leaders are supposed to stick to the script of questions, because in my experience many do not do that.
On the issue about where the line is for confession, I NEVER felt like that was clear. It was blurred by the odd questions asked to me by multiple bishops. I apparently was surrounded by nutcases. When I was engaged my student stake president asked all the bishops to read a letter discouraging back rubs and French kissing. So does French kissing need to be confessed? Obviously not, I thought, but I no one would say so.
In short, the message I got was that “petting” (whatever that is) needed to be confessed, hand holding did not, and everything in between was nebulous.
I acknowledge that what I’m about to say will sound cynical and maybe (to a degree, blunt) but here goes:
“Leaders of the LDS Church (for generations now) have told its’ membership (including me) all kinds of stories, myths, homily(s), statements of mis-direction and/or re-direction and (in my opinion) some out-right lies-whoppers if you will! If I (in order to keep peace with my still deeply believing family members) return this favor with a few stories and statements of re-direction of my own – then candidly, so be it”. “I’ve become very proficient of looking these people steadily, straight in the eye and without hesitation, declaring that Yes, I consider myself worthy. Period.
Through my eyes, the “Spirit of Discernment” is nonsense and a residual product from bygone years. If I need a Temple Recommend to see a family member get married in the Temple – I simply go get one. I owe these people nothing (except maybe some kindness and good will which I would try to extend to anyone) and will (never again) share ANYTHING about my personal life, financial issues, sexual habits etc. with any of them.
If the current LDS Leadership had any (so called) discernment they would end these private interviews immediately….For, people are quite fed up and are simply not putting up with it any longer.
I’m in the camp of self determination of worthiness. I hate these interviews – and from all the comments here this topic obviously hits a nerve. It’s also timely for me as I recently had my recommend interview and decided that I was going to try to be my most authentic self. I am in the midst of a faith crisis but believe there are no worthiness issues that should keep me out of the temple. Not that I’m a big fan of the temple but I’d like to be there if family members get married or go on missions. I just don’t want to confuse the younger members of my close family. I was honest that I struggle with believing that the prophet is the one and only mouthpiece for God on the earth and other similar such questions – I can sustain but don’t always agree etc. I’m sure it’s often a case of leader roulette and I’m fortunate that I have local leaders who I admire and respect and who after lengthy interviews did sign my piece of paper. Will have to see how this goes two years from now!
I do believe there is a place for worthiness interviews and much good can come from them. I have kids in middle and high school and while I like the schools they go to I can’t tell you how many times when I’ve had to visit for sports or school functions the immodesty and promiscuity that is visible is high. Today it seems sex in school and during teenage years is incredibly high. Unfortunately we don’t have a lot of youth in our ward so many of my kids friends are from school, they have boyfriends and girlfriends not of our faith and while they seem like good kids they have their own thoughts and ideas about relationships and such that may not always align with our teaching. Interviews provide a way to help set that standard , most kids I know and also myself would have dreaded talking about sex/chastity with parents. This is not to say that Bishops should ask anything other than “Do you keep the law of Chastity”, or “do you feel yourself worthy” but this time allows for youth to have a sounding board if needed, to set bounds and goals. I don’t believe youth should be made to feel guilt or worse than they are if they have some things they struggle with like thoughts, masterbation etc.. I think these interviews provide an opportunity to inspire, to repent, improve and allow youth to feel good about themselves and where they are.
“Worthiness” is another of those terms for which the Mormon definition doesn’t appear in the dictionary. “Worthiness” has something to do with the worth of something or someone. It doesn’t mean conformance to a list of rules. The LDS version of worthiness, however, is not even synonymous with righteousness. It is really more a conformance to a list of beliefs and behaviors. So, the purpose of “worthiness” interviews has nothing to do with worth or spirituality or righteousness. It’s has everything to do with conformity and pressure to behave in certain acceptable ways.
MIrza: You can rest a little bit on one of your worries because recent studies show a double digit drop in teen sexual activity: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/waiting-right-one-teens-having-sex-later-cdc-finds-n775236. The concerns teens have about pressure to have sex before they are ready are, if anything, much less now than they were when I was a teen and the only Mormon in my graduating class. In fact, kids are not only having less sex, they are also delaying first sexual experiences and more often using protection. These are all great trends. Kids have also normalized non-pair social activities, which is another encouraging trend. Even at traditionally “couples” dances like prom and homecoming, going stag or with a group of friends is totally normal for today’s teens.
I’m not sure that worthiness interviews generally improve teen self esteem. That feels like a novel assertion. There are many anecdotes that they do produce or foster scrupulosity. I suppose different kids respond differently.
Mirza: If your kids need another trusted adult they can confide in (which I totally understand as my oldest child entered middle school this year), there are other options beside the Bishop. For example, we introduced our daughter to the school counsellor, who is educated and trained in helping teenagers navigate the scenarios you present above. Many health care plans also cover several visits per year to a trained counsellor or psychologist if your child needs an additional resource.
A Bishop, on the other hand, is not properly trained in how to counsel teenagers about sex and modesty in my humble opinion.
Your comment about different standards among friends is an entirely different conversation. But I’m of the opinion that, if you break it down entirely, those kids and their parents essentially want the same things you do out of life (purpose, joy, mental and physical safety/security) even if they do drink green tea.
To the original question “What is the point of a worthiness interview” I can only answer with “Nothing.”
There is probably widespread disagreement among local Church leaders about the purpose of worthiness interviews.
Many years ago, my then-bishop started a temple recommend interview by explaining “even if you are untruthful in this interview, I will probably give you the recommend anyway. You are ultimately accountable for your worthiness, not me. My job is to get people into the temple, not keep them out.” I miss that bishop.
I once interviewed with a stake presidency counselor who maintained unbroken eye contact through the whole thing, and had a deep penetrating gaze. It was really uncomfortable. In hindsight, I think he was just trying to impress me with his memorization skills. He delivered the questions verbatim, but it was unnecessarily creepy and invasive when done that way.
When I renewed a few months ago, I interviewed with a newish counselor in my current stake presidency, whom I had never met before. He started the interview by saying something to the effect of “now, you aren’t really speaking to me, you are speaking to the Lord when you answer these questions” which I found very manipulative, especially in his condescending tone of voice. We went through all the questions as scripted, then he paused a few beats, then he said “I sense there is something else that you aren’t telling me…” and I emphatically assured him there was nothing more to talk about. He begrudgingly signed my recommend, but also admonished me to talk to my bishop. I hope I never have to speak to this man again.
In these examples, the leaders conducting the interviews each had a different purpose for it in mind, and it shaped their approach, for better or worse.
Angela I am glad the trends are better now, “The new study shows that just over 40 percent of boys and girls reported having had sexual intercourse by age 18 — a huge decline from the peak of 1988 when 57 percent of teens between the ages of 15 and 19 reported having had sex.” Although just over 40% is still extremely high in my view I am happy to see improvement. Chadwick I appreciate your comments and suggestions and those are certainly viable options as well. While most Bishops aren’t professionally trained I do believe they bring a lot to the table in life experience. Most Bishops have families and have had their share of struggles and learning to help in situations they come across. When they are confronted with something new that is beyond their scope family services is also an option to assist them and the member. I’ve met some professional counselors who are more concerned with drawing a paycheck than really helping, that is also a problem you don’t have with a Bishop. Speaking for myself I am grateful for my interviews growing up, and the Bishops I had. Over the years I’ve leaned on the things I’ve learned from them and was always motivated to try and be a better person. In the end though it’s important that the onus is on the parent’s to be involved in the child’s life and no one elses. The church and it’s leadership, are an aide to help us raise our children to be their best selves and I think they help play a part in that.
Mirza, for what it is worth, teen pregnancies have gone down quite a bit since 1991. This suggests that teens are having either less sex or more protected sex. I have read several pieces of research showing that the youth today are generally having less sex than they used to. Thanks to the internet, young men’s sex drives are lower. Additionally the internet has completely redefined the concept of sex and has raised the bar unrealistically high as to what one’s body should look like to be presentable for sex. Young people are now more self-conscious about how they appear without clothes than they have ever been. I think that beating teens up about modesty, “self-abuse”, and internet viewing is likely to have more adverse consequences than positive ones. I think that we have to accept that teens will view porn, and probably quite regularly. They will also masturbate, regularly, as humans always have. I am not exactly sure where the requirement for bishops to ask about masturbation is spelled out in any current manual. But it seems that the leaders who do ask teens about it have unrealistic expectations. In fact, given the research on human masturbation habits, I find it hard to believe that the leaders asking about it aren’t doing it themselves. If anything, the availability of porn and human masturbation habits don’t appear to be leading to more sex. In fact, they seem to be leading away from it.
Control. It’s all about maintaining control.
I don’t know what the point of worthiness interviews are, but I’m pretty sure whatever the Church thinks the point of worthiness interviews are is not what is happening.
I an almost 100% certain that a worthiness interview is what drove my oldest child from the church. He wouldn’t discuss it then and he won’t discuss it now, but he spoke to the bishop in our ward, he stopped blessing the sacrament ,and hasn’t been to church since he graduated from high school 3 years ago. Whatever happened in that office had a profound lasting affect on my child.
As for TR interviews, I’ve determined that if I feel personally worthy to hold one I will say whatever I have to to get the signatures. That’s if I ever decide to get mine renewed. It’s been invalid for three years. Three years that we have lived in our current ward. Three years in which neither of the two bishops we’ve had have had a more personal interaction with me than the occasional handshake and trite greeting. I’m not very inclined to discuss my personal life, spiritual life, or sins with him at all. Of course, my husband has been asked to visit in the office twice in attempts to ferret out why he doesn’t hold a current recommend, or why he, or our sons, aren’t more active and involved members of the ward. As if he is the one who has been the driving force of any of our church attendance. Spotty as it is. At this point I will be as honest and forthcoming with the church, as the church, and its representatives, have been with me.
I feel whatever the original point was, the process now is keeping the believers in line by proving their willingness to humble themselves before men before they can humbles themselves before God. For a church that emphasizes the importance of a personal relationship with Christ they have set up an awful lot of gatekeepers to the most profound way we can reach that goal. Whatever lines I may have crossed, I need to go to the Lord about them, not the guy in the ward who doesn’t know anything about me.
Sorry, clearly I am working through things and this topic aggravates me.
Growing up, I only had 1 bishop I ever felt comfortable enough with to discuss anything even remotely personal and his background gave him a bunch of training. Now, I’d never open up to a church leader. I see worthiness interviews as a hoop I must jump through much as I have to do annual safety training for my other organizations. Nothing personal about it. Just a box to be checked.
I also don’t trust leadership with my kids. I’ve heard our local leaders say too many outlandish things.
Mirza
After finding out how the BYU Honor Code Office functions, and has been so slow to respond after its egregious but common behavior and practice has been exposed over the last several years, I do not have a lot of confidence in LDS Social Services. I figure the BYU HCO is representative of the church’s approach to mental health and social services. I consider it more along the lines of faith-based healing. I’ll take a qualified professional who is required to adhere to set licensing standards any day.
Sorry for the tangent.
Sib, while LDS Family services has its problems, the counselors who work there are trained, licensed, qualified professionals. Most are marriage counselors and social workers. They most likely have a master’s degree or even PHD, and all have passed state licensing requirements. It is not “faith based healing” but regular old talk therapy, like you would get in a down town agency. While I don’t like their lack of confidentiality because you have to sign that your bishop gets a report of everything you say, it is still professional counseling. Just as a social worker myself, I would never work there because I refuse to discuss my clients with busy body bishops.
In Life after Life Raymond Moody summarizes the life review as
“The initial appearance of a being of light and his probing non-verbal questions are a prelude to a moment of startling intensity during which the being presents the person to a panoramic review of their life. It is often obvious that the being can see the individual’s whole life displayed and that he doesn’t need the information himself. His only intent is to provoke reflection.”
There is a video/DVD of Life after Life available on YouTube in which several people report their experience of life review. They emphasize that “nothing is hidden.”
This sort of thing also correlates to the 4th step and 5th steps in recovery. A searching and fearless moral inventory and complete disclosure to another person. In Healing the Shame that Binds You, John Bradshaw distinguished between healthy shame and toxic shame. Toxic shame says “I am a mistake.” Healthy shame says, “I am human and consequently makes mistakes and therefore need boundaries.”
The disclosure in Recovery is crucial because it releases shame, and the shame is an element of addictive systems. Shame says, “If anyone really knew me, they would reject me.” That generates secrets, serves acting out that generates more shame. In disclosure for recovery, we disclose, and through experience discover that some people can know us fully and not reject us. Milton Magness and Marsha Means even include polygraph tests as part of their treatment. It provides accountability and boundaries, as well as experience in releasing shame. Marsha Means has an account on her website called “The Gift of the Polygraph” something far more intense than an LDS worthiness interview.
https://www.journeytohealingandjoy.com/helping-resources/articles/335-the-gift-of-the-polygraph
There is a huge difference between forcing a confession to inflict shame and having a complete disclosure to release shame. One of the things that helps that work in recovery is that we confess our sins to each other, something the scriptures recommend. The point is to release and heal toxic shame, not to willy nilly inflict it. All of this turns out to be consistent with what happens to people in an NDE life review. That is, I think, how it should be done, and how it is demonstrably healing and effective. If we know how it is supposed to work and what happens when it is done right, then, we have a better chance of doing it right and getting the benefit.
One thing that characterizes addicts is the reflex to take other people’s inventory, to focus on hypocrisy elsewhere, as a distraction from having to self reflect, as fountain of ongoing self-justification.
Jesus seems to have gotten the idea that we all need both accountability and boundaries. He doesn’t seem to think that “Keep it all to yourself because it’s nobody’s business what you do, and do whatever you feel like doing, because, why not? I’ll see to it that none of your secret acts ever comes out or leads to negative consequences. Cause that what friends are for. Enabling and covering up.”
Kevin, I’m a little surprised you invoked Raymond Moody as some sort of expert. He has also promoted the idea of past life regression and believes that he has had nine past lives. Should we also start believing in reincarnation and having past lives where we inhabited other bodies? At any rate, he is largely regarded as a crackpot and his research pseudoscience by the leading circles of psychologists in mainstream academia. So I take what and his followers say with a grain of salt.
On the polygraph, that is also regarded to be an inconclusive test. Yes, it has been useful in law enforcement as an intimidation tool to get people to ‘fess up. But failing the test is not seen as evidence of guilt in any court. Many government agencies, who once used the test, have now disavowed it and moved away from it.
You seem to be arguing that worthiness interviews are important because people might become addicts of some sort and these interviews serve as addiction prevention. (Maybe I’m reading you wrong and correct me if I am). But if that is the case, then you’re treating everyone as if they are potential addicts. I’ve read studies that show that about 10% of the US population has a substance abuse problem of some sort. That is a high number, and is a huge problem, but is a low percentage. If worthiness interviews were solely focused on keeping kids away from substance problems and to having a healthy body, I would find that far more commendable than the current practices. Instead, bishops seem obsessed about minutiae and particularly sex. Teen boys are beaten up about masturbation and teen girls are beaten up about modesty. What’s worse is that teen female victims are often treated as if they are to blame. Bishops often fail to distinguish between addictive behavior and casual/normal habits. Bishops never seem to say anything about video game addiction and other problems. Local leaders also often fail to distinguish between the gravity of different “sins.” Many preach “exact obedience” and “not-even-once” doctrines which tend to treat all “sins” as if they are equal, as if having sex before marriage (even if the two are engaged to be married) is as serious as violent crimes, of as if masturbating to porn is the same thing as having an adulterous affair (please).
If we must have worthiness interviews, it is high time to revise them. How about emphasis on health, not consuming too much sugar and carbs, and of course keeping away from harmful drugs (including prescription drugs), and no longer obsessing about coffee and tea? How about teaching kids about safe sex, how to say no, how to report sexual assault and rape, and about how private masturbation in moderation is OK, normal, and healthy.
I just sat in on my son’s first ever “annual interview” last night. Bishop went through For the Strength of Youth pamphlet almost line by line asking him about it. It was nothing like a temple recommend interview with specific questions, this seemed very open ended. I went through all his rights with my son before going in, made sure he knows he isn’t required to answer anything he doesn’t want to answer and that if I had concerns I would intervene. It went fine, but I saw so much room for dangerous ground, honestly.
My understanding of why everyone is encouraged to have a TR, etc. is to get us ready for the Second Coming and take it seriously as it’s time. Pres. Nelson has said time is running out and if you still need ordinances done, get to the temple and get it done. We’ve been told the purpose of Church is to get us to the Temple for the saving ordinances. Once we have ours then we need to help our ancestors obtain their ordinances. The emphasis is on acceleration of temple work trying to get as many people baptized and sealed before the Savior comes. There will be enough people to do during the Millennium. People aren’t free in the spirit prison in the hereafter.
No one goes anywhere until they’re baptized.. That takes temple work and most of us here being able to access temples for them. It’s everyone working together.
The way the church typically frames it, interviews are for telling men placed in authority positions over us about serious sexual sins and that’s about it. Almost nothing else requires confession, and whenever they speak of confession, they rarely give any other examples of what needs to be confessed besides sexual sins – at most they might add a phrase such as, “and other serious sins.”
The Doctrine & Covenants has an interesting passage in which it states that those who refuse to forgive others, apparently no matter what those others have done to them, are guilty of “the greater sin” – so given the gravity of the sin of unforgiveness, I don’t know how it’s possible that it’s not a temple recommend question. Something like, “Is there anyone who has offended or trespassed against you, that you have not forgiven?”
Church members often get confused though about the sexual sins. They think any minor thought, a glance at a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue or a Victoria’s Secret catalog, perhaps a bra model at Walmart or a department store, or masturbation all count as serious sins next to murder in seriousness, on par with actual adultery, fornication, rape, etc.
Every once in a while I’ve seen a statement from a church leader clarifying that some sexual sins are serious and others are much less so, but overall this seems to be a poorly taught and understood topic in the church, i.e. which sins are actually serious and require confession. Even many church leaders think you need to confess lesser things when it comes to sexual sins than what many others have said are necessary to confess. And many think it’s a “sin” to for example notice someone is physically attractive, when it’s not, believing themselves guilty of lust etc.
This whole entire subject could use massive clarification – just like many other subjects in the church.
It doesn’t make any sense for any priesthood leader to claim they have some duty to keep the “unclean” out of the temple.
Their only duty is to ask the questions. If the person answers them correctly, that’s it. No need to second-guess, to accuse, to act all suspicious. If the person is lying, they’ll answer to God someday and that’s enough, no need to to be anything other than friendly and give people the benefit of the doubt.