This is another set of reflections on the recent General Conference, this time focusing on President Nelson’s closing remarks on Sunday afternoon. Let’s start with a positive observation: It is nice that Pres. Nelson is now using this time to inform the membership about upcoming events and changes directly — as opposed to through a Newsroom press release that few members will notice or a First Presidency letter to local leaders that a member might or might not hear read, once, over the pulpit. If you are an optimist, that’s another step towards transparency.
Two topics were addressed in those closing remarks. Pres. Nelson told us that the next General Conference “will be different from any previous conference.” He also stated that “the year 2020 will be designated as a bicentennial year” because it includes is the 200th anniversary of the First Vision. My guess is that all of the apostles will travel to Palmyra and that’s where Conference will be held, with their remarks broadcast to the general membership just as they have always been from Salt Lake City. What’s exciting about this plan, if indeed something like this is what transpires, is there will lots of LDS history topics discussed. They might even let the Church Historian speak. Maybe even about LDS history. Going out on a limb, it is even possible (remotely) that an LDS historian or two would be invited to address the congregation. Let thy prayers so ascend to heaven.
The other topic Pres. Nelson addressed was changes to the LDS temple recommend (“TR”) questions. He states: “Some of those questions have recently been edited for clarity.” In another step toward transparency, he then read the entire text of the newly edited questions, all fifteen of them, which take effect immediately. As they are now published in the text version of his talk posted at LDS.org, I’m going to go ahead and quote them here:
- Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?
- Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?
- Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
- Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?
- The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41).Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior?Do you obey the law of chastity?
- Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?
- Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
- Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament; and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
- Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?
- Are you a full-tithe payer?
- Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?
- Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children?If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
- Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?
- Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?
- Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?
Now “edited for clarity” suggests minor changes in wording that do not change the meaning or import of the questions. The disclaimer suggests the leadership have no intention of changing the way the questions have been understood and applied in the past. That’s problematic because, based on many, many first-person reports of individual members who interact with local leaders, there is significant variation in how local leaders understand and apply the questions. If by clarity the senior leadership means less diversity and more uniformity by local leadership in how the questions are presented and applied, this talk won’t do it. They need to send a ten-page letter to all locals and spell out what the boundaries of each question are and what they can or cannot, should or should not, inquire into. As far as I know, they have not provided any such clarity to local leaders. So by clarity they don’t mean uniformity. They are apparently perfectly fine with bishop roulette. So am I. Like Sartre said, we all get the bishop we deserve. If you are troubled because your bishop is a hard-a## conservative, you shouldn’t have moved to Utah.
Really, if your intent is to not change the meaning or application of the questions, you don’t change anything. So to the extent that “edited for clarity” is suggesting that nothing has changed, I think they are practicing the art of dissimulation. They want to change a few things while claiming they aren’t changing anything. That’s certainly easier than acknowledging there are changes, identifying what they have changed, and explaining why they changed it.
Let’s look at two of the changes-not-changes. First, Question 11: “Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?” That’s kind of ironic, because I’ll bet 99% of local leaders asking the question don’t understand the Word of Wisdom. I doubt many GA’s understand the Word of Wisdom. It may be the case that no one understands the Word of Wisdom. Ask a local for an explanation, and you will get a couple of answers, both wrong: (1) It is D&C 89. No, because many suggestions in that text are conveniently ignored, and the ones that are applied don’t make any sense. “Hot drinks” includes iced tea but not hot chocolate? If the English words in the text aren’t taken to mean what they mean in English, then it makes no sense to appeal to the text of D&C 89 as somehow explaining or defining the Word of Wisdom. (2) It is the Lord’s Law of Health. No, because lots of unhealthy foods and practices are perfectly fine, and some of the proscribed items offer health benefits. Energy drinks are allowed and tea is prohibited. Caffeinated sodas are allowed but decaf coffee is not. This only makes sense as an arbitrary list of do and don’ts, not as any law of health.
So here is the closest one can come to explaining and understanding the Word of Wisdom as it has developed over time and how it actually operates in the Church: The Word of Widsom is an arbitrary set of food prohibitions applied to members of the Church in order to create social distance between members and non-members, to create an impression of moral cleanliness for admission to LDS temples, and to foster the habit of obedience to directives of LDS leadership. I’m fairly confident you will not get an answer like that from any leader. And before you post your knee-jerk disagreement with that statement, go read Thomas Alexander on early-20th-century development of the Word of Wisdom and Armand Mauss on assimilation and retrenchment.
What is revealing, of course, is the use of the term “obey” in the revised question. You don’t obey a book or a text. You obey a person issuing a command or directive, hence the last clause of my definition. It’s not about D&C 89 or health, it’s about obeying priesthood leadership. They say, “Don’t do coffee, tea, cigars and cigarettes, and illegal drugs.” You say, “I comply.” That’s it.
The second change worth looking at is Question 13: “Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?” I’m not going to go into so much detail on this one. There has been a lot of discussion on this on social media and elsewhere. On the one hand it clearly identifies temple garment requirements as an “instruction,” not a covenant, but also tries to use that clause as one item in the larger group of “covenants that you made in the temple.” Clarity, not.
In an email the Church sent out to the general membership the day after Conference concluded, the revised questions were again stated and, in addition, the text of a First Presidency letter sent to all senior and local leaders was attached. That letter again repeats the new questions, but also includes a revised two-paragraph section titled “Wearing the Temple Garment,” as follows:
The temple garment is a reminder of covenants made in the temple and, when worn properly throughout life, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil. The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.
It is a sacred privilege to wear the garment and doing so is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.
The phrase “day and night” no longer appears in that explanation. Make of that what you will. The new wording appears to be delegating a fair amount of discretion to the individual members: “Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.” Only time will tell to what extent local leadership will actually defer to the individual member’s authority to make those personal decisions.
And we might as well repeat the initial paragraph of instructions to those local leaders about how to conduct TR interviews, also part of the First Presidency letter:
As leaders conduct temple recommend interviews, they should not omit, add to, or modify any of the temple recommend questions. However, they may adapt the discussion in an interview to the understanding of the member and respond to his or her questions, especially with youth and new members. As directed by the Spirit, they may teach basic doctrine and correct principles. They should not present personal beliefs, preferences, or interpretations
That seems like stronger language against moral fishing expeditions than I have seen in the past. But again, only time will tell whether local leaders honor these clear directives and limitations on how they conduct TR interviews.
Conclusion. Two cheers for transparency, first in stating the text of the TR questions publicly in Conference, then for sending the First Presidency letter out to all the full membership via email. That’s why I could comfortably quote all those items above. We ought to applaud such positive changes in how the Church does business. I think some of the TR question changes raise new questions rather than providing clarity, but that should play out over the next year or two. Don’t show up to your next TR interview in a tank top with a cup of coffee your hand. But more generally, the changes do seem to relax certain items that were previously assumed to apply, as well as seeming to grant individual members a little more authority to make their own decisions on some items.
Wheat & Tares 
“They are apparently perfectly fine with bishop roulette. So am I. Like Sartre said, we all get the bishop we deserve. If you are troubled because your bishop is a hard-a## conservative, you shouldn’t have moved to Utah.”
I really hope you’re joking.
This is interesting: Official questioners “may adapt the discussion in an interview to the understanding of the member and respond to his or her questions, especially with youth and new members. As directed by the Spirit, they may teach basic doctrine and correct principles. They should not present personal beliefs, preferences, or interpretations ”
The first sentence here may seem to limit the matter to the interviewee’s questions, but “adapt the discussion” may mean some will take significant latitude in explaining what they think the questions mean despite the fact that “they should not omit, add to, or modify any of the temple recommend questions.”
I would not have described reading a list of questions and accepting yes or no answers as a “discussion.” Unfortunately, in my experience there is not much consensus on what constitutes “basic doctrine and correct principles” or on distinguishing them from personal interpretations, etc. I’m thinking, for example, of a stake president poised to deny a temple recommend for lack of belief in a literal, single Adam as progenitor of the entire human family and before whose fall there was no death (at least among animal life) on this earth. BRMcC and others would not have agreed on whether that was “basic doctrine.” Some would insist it implied by Question 2. But how could it come up without adding to the question? Maybe the interviewee brought it up.
I wonder if we really “we all get the bishop we deserve?” I wouldn’t have thought so But when do youth and new members (or others) learn not to ask bishops questions about doctrine unless they want to hear their bishop’s personal beliefs about doctrine.
I currently intend next year when asked if I understand the Word of Wisdom to say that I do not. From there, we will see how much of a lecture ensues. I don’t really care about the explanation I’ll receive from a local leader, but my hope is if enough people say they don’t understand it, further light and knowledge can be ours.
Regarding Bishop roulette, I don’t think the Brethren have rubber stamped it per se. But the Brethren I think genuinely want Bishops to seek guidance by the Spirit. I tried this approach as a GD teacher and was gently rebuked a few times by some well-meaning busy-bodies (just stick to the script and you’ll be fine they would assure me). But Bishops seem to get a pass for going off-script and interrogating young people about their personal lives. While I’m sure of these stories would horrify the Brethren, they probably assume it’s worth the cost. Otherwise the role of Bishop is reduced from ministering to administering. An entirely different post could explore whether or not it should be reduced to such.
I LOVE the new temple garment language. Principles to govern ourselves and all that.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Dylan, maybe I’m half joking. But if you move to Montana, don’t complain about cold winters. If you choose to be a Mormon, don’t complain about bishop roulette. If you live in Utah, don’t complain about bishops who think Bruce R. McConkie still runs the Church. I am serious about the leadership not really caring about bishop roulette. If they wanted to reign in loose cannons, they certainly could. The diversity in bishop conduct and thinking probably mirrors diversity in senior leadership conduct and thinking (behind closed doors).
Wondering, I believe you are correct in thinking no gentle reminder to stick with the questions as written, however clearly expressed, is going to keep a motivated bishop from exploring any line of questioning he feels impelled to pursue. “As directed by the Spirit” tends to trump any written directives, however clear. If Nephi could chop a guy’s head off and Mormons can nod along saying, “he thought the Spirit told him to, so that makes it alright,” that pretty much opens the door for what you might call antinomianism of the Spirit.
Chadwick: I think your idea is brilliant…when asked whether we understand the WoW we should say we do not and then let them try to explain it. And I would not be lying if I said I did NOT understand it. Is it a recommendation or a commandment? I don’t know. Is it a health code? I know the recent public statement on LDS Newsroom said it is but that defies common sense. Why are some parts (coffee and tea) so defined yet everyone is allowed to ignore the “eat meat sparingly” part? I really don’t understand the WoW, sincerely.
Chadwick: I love your idea…when asked if we understand the WoW we should say we do not if we do not. And I do not.
Good post on two of my hobby horse topics (WOW and garments). My big question that remains unanswered is the whole purpose behind the TR interview in the first place? I think one group of leaders would think they are gatekeepers to temple worthiness and are there to grill people and determine their worthiness, like a polygraph. I would guess another group would see it as a chance for the member to think about the question and assess their own worthiness.
But, in the middle there is a lot of confusion in the middle as well. Do you explain the nuances of your understanding of each question and let the leader determine if you get a recommend? Do you answer in a lawyerly way the way the Church PR department answers tough questions? Do you answer the questions they should have asked?
I, for one, feel like most of these questions are nobody’s business and are really between me and God. I am very happy about the change in the question on garments. I think the old question was manipulative and commanded people in all things. To me, it’s clear that the temple instructs us to wear them throughout our lives and that gives a person a lot of discretion in how they do that. On the WOW, I think the values of physical health and avoiding potentially harmful substances like drugs, alcohol and tobacco are admirable. I think the tea/coffee thing breaks down so easily, I’m amazed that the Church doubled down on it. Do you know that some of the caffeine in soda and energy drinks is partially extracted from coffee in the decaffeinating process and part is manufactured? Did you know the First Presidency has said it’s OK to drink decaffeinated coffee? So the decaffeinated coffee is OK and the caffeine extracted from coffee, but God really doesn’t want you to combine the two? I think more and more people will see the WOW as silly and do what they want and treat the recommend interview like a formality.
I propose that the temple recommend process be pared down to one question: Do you follow the teachings of the Christ in your private and public behavior? A modified version of question 6.
About Bishop Roulette: I have been a member of the Church for 45 years, having joined at the age of 22. Most Bishops I had were a blessing to my life, but I quickly learned that with some, I needed to keep my conservation to, “Nice weather we’re having, today!” And they would still harrumph in disapproval.
In my opinion, the less confident a Bishop is, the more likely he is to be rigid. I once attempted to serve as a Bishop as his First Counselor, for 4 years. He got visibly upset and agitated when confronted from time to time with situations that the General Handbook of Instructions gave him leeway on. He wanted rigid, no room-for-maneuver instructions. I tried telling him (but eventually gave up) to just try to do the right thing, seeking inspiration. But he got upset when he made mistakes, even though the Stake President who called him told him to not worry about mistakes, just try to love the people. But this Bishop could not square the fact of his mistakes with his having been given the priesthood keys for Bishop. He retreated in to rigidity.
My favorite Bishop once publicly used the s-word to describe a foul-up at Church. I wanted to hug him.
The way to do a TR interview is to use one word answers: “Yes/No” Problem solved!
I appreciate President Nelsons attempt to change the recommend focus. But, the WOW and the “Keeping the Covenants you make in the Temple” are problematic. We all realize that. I might ask next time – “What Covenants DID we make in the temple?”. Wearing of the Garment is not a covenant. Loving your neighbor is not a covenant. Not laughing loudly IS, though. Not speaking badly about your Bishop IS. All of the focus on covenants lately, begs the question: what exactly is the covenant path? What are those covenants? We would be surprised at the reality.
Chadwick says, But the Brethren I think genuinely want Bishops to seek guidance by the Spirit. I tried this approach as a GD teacher and was gently rebuked a few times by some well-meaning busy-bodies (just stick to the script and you’ll be fine they would assure me).
I’ve encountered that attitude before as a teacher (and probably been released at least once because of it). My response has always been, “I was set apart and blessed with the inspiration to prepare the lessons for this class. I have, according to the Lord’s counsel in the Scriptures, ‘studied it out in my mind’ and taken it to him. This is what I feel the lesson was supposed to be. This, not by script, is how we are told to teach in the Church.”
Some people seem to have an issue with that viewpoint, who knew?
Similar to Chadwick, I plan to answer as follows:
Q: Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?
A: No, but I abstain from alcohol, tobacco, tea/coffee, and harmful drugs.
I think the change to question #7 is interesting.
“Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”
The old question was
“Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”
The last time I had a TR interview, I answered yes since my wife was out of the church and I affiliated with her and some of her post-mo support group socially. The counselor was flustered, but then said that didn’t count, and moved on. On a surface level the question is indeed a “clarification”. On a different level, though, I wonder how much more my situation occurs today then it did, say twenty years ago?
Overall I think this change is positive since it no longer implies one is unworthy associating with people who do not believe in the church.
Saying I understand the WOW could be answered the same as the question about if I consider myself worthy to enter the temple. Personal judgment is involved, and I’m OK with taking that on without asking clarity on it. No questions will be a surprise going into the interview, so I agree with them or I skip the interview. I mean…I think I pretty much do consider myself worthy enough… but I’m not going to go perfectionist on it or try to make a point of something to the interviewer who is just there doing their job. I think I get the gist of what the interviewer is asking, and I don’t need to split hairs or create an issue out of nothing. I’m good.
As felix said…I kind of feel the same…that I “feel like most of these questions are nobody’s business and are really between me and God.”
I just need to be honest with myself, and accept maybe those things don’t all mean the same to me as they do to the person interviewing me…and it isn’t my job to reconcile those. I’m not sure it matters much on the answers. I’ll stick to binary yes and no, without elaboration. If I’m mostly worthy, it falls to yes. If I am not…I won’t be in the interview.