Continuing the theme from last week on updating the 10 Commandments, how would you update the Temple Recommend question for the year 2020?
First we must define why these questions are even needed. D&C 97:15 says “do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled…”
Now that we have established the need for a temple recommend, keeping out the unclean, what questions would you have a bishop ask to make sure people are clean or qualified to enter the Temple? I’m intentionally not using the word “worthy”. As G. F. Erichsen wrote in a recent blog post at Still More To Say, the word worthy is the most problematic word in the Mormon vocabulary. Please read the whole post, but the summary is that the opposite of worthy is unworthy and worthless. Both of these can cause serious harm to our sense of inherent worth. He proposes that for the temple, we use the word qualified. To be unqualified to attend the temple should be no more harming to our sole than being unqualified to play tennis against Serena Williams, or fly an airplane
So, unlike last week when you pretended to be God, this week you are pretending to be Pres Nelson. What questions should be asked to ascertain that we are clean and qualified to enter the temple? Does not paying tithing make one unclean? The ground rules are that the LDS church has the right to define who is and is not qualified not be into the temple. Below are the current questions.
What would you ask?
- 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?
At least in 2019 a number of Church statements have used the word “prepared” more often than “worthy”. “Prepared” might be even better than or as important as “qualified.”
Part of being prepared is being prepared to make covenants in one’s own, first endowment experience should be knowing what covenants one will be expected to make and understanding them in a way that one believes they can keep them. Another part of being prepared should be a desire to make those covenants and not only to fulfill a social expectation of, e.g., getting married in the temple or going on a mission. Perhaps there should be questions in a live-endowment temple recommend interview as to the interviewee’s knowledge of the wording of all those covenants and the fact of a covenant not to disclose certain other matters. As to understanding, the question need only be whether the interviewees desire to make those covenants and understands them in a way they believe they can keep them.
I wonder where anyone got the idea that one can make covenants of one’s “own free will and choice” without any prior knowledge of what those covenants are to be.
Another part of being prepared is having at least some expectation of ritual. Outside the temple, ritual is a very, very small part of our Church’s practice. Another might be having some understanding of at least the fact of historical development of/changes in the temple language, and of the use of symbolism and imagination as teaching tools in prompting thought about progression through this life to the presence of God.
I would consider revising the last question for a live-endowment interview to: “Do you consider yourself prepared to enter the Lord’s house, to make covenants of obedience to the law of the God, the law of sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, the “special charge”, and the law of consecration?” and “Do you consider yourself qualified through repentance and the atonement and grace of Christ to enter the temple and participate in temple ordinances?”
Agree wholeheartedly with the “worthiness” problem and also feel that the practice of worthiness interviews is itself spiritually abusive. So I suppose I’d go with Bishop Bill’s approach for the first time through and perhaps for subsequent times would simply ask “are you doing your best to live the covenants you made in the temple and do you have any questions about them” and leave at that. No faith audits or probing into sexual or dietary habits, etc.
One of the biggest issues my Evangelical friend had with the Church was the Temple Recommend. He felt it created an unnecessary dichotomy of members. I have to disagree, at least to an extent. In some ways, I think it shines a better light on the path in helping people from point A to point B. I think the problems some members have is thinking they don’t have to worry about anything else once at point B or having a false view of what point B is.
I was not a perfect youth, but my worthiness interviews did nothing to make me feel worthless, but rather made me feel like I had a lot of worth and even more potential worth. I felt like Heavenly Father was using every tool he had short of ripping away my faith and agency to help me see that and stay on the right path. I realize not everyone feels that way, but I cannot bring myself to say the system is inherently broken.
I think the questions are pretty good as they are, and even in those there is some wiggle room. I don’t know if the handbook still states this, but fifteen years ago it indicated that a spouse struggling with a pornography addiction might be allowed to attend the temple with his or her spouse in order to fill his or her life more with the Spirit and occupy time with activities more conducive to recovery. That sounds like a church less concerned with worthiness and more concerned progress on the right path, whatever speed that progress is and using whatever godly tools that requires.
First, thank you for referring to my blog post. I don’t have all that many readers, so it was a pleasant surprise to get an email this morning about the pingback.
For temple attendance, I’d prefer “prepared” to “qualified,” largely for the reasons that Wondered gave; the temple experience is so different than that of the meetinghouse! I like the approach that Wondered takes in those suggested questions.
I like the move from worthy to clean (and have advocated it elsewhere). Once you make the move, I then ask myself whether that could mean bathing? It’s been reflected that way–ritual baths, baptism, 19c Mormon text. It leads to an interesting discussion. Modern Mormons resist the idea, but why? Another version would be whether you have confessed serious sin? Analogous to Catholic practice.
However, I believe the real test, from an institutional church point of view, is neither worthiness nor cleanliness but loyalty. In effect do you pledge allegiance to The Church? If that were my purpose, tithing would sometimes be the only question I need.
How about an open ended question like “what do you do in your everyday life to be like Christ?” The downside is leadership roulette.
Variability is really the issue. If you leave room for anything besides a yes/no answer you’re going to have some zealots screening everyone and other leaders will let anyone in.
For first timers. Same question but spend 30 or 60 minutes telling them exactly what happens. When I was bishop that’s what I did. I told first timers exactly what they do. I still feel that I was coerced as a 19 year old boy once I was in the temple. I remember wearing nothing besides a shield to do my own initiatory and being coaxed out of the locker (this was before current policy).
As I read those questions, if members were truly honest, I don’t think very many temples are really necessary.
I agree that people need a prepitory class to know what they are actually doing. I only went to the temple one time and that was to take out my endowments prior to leaving on my mission. Never did I feel prepared to go and never went again. In the late 70’s and early 80’s, you were not permitted to attend the temple while serving on a mission.
I think that the majority of the members fudge on their answers. The question should probably be scrapped.
1. For me, the Temple Recommend requirements for temple entrance seems to negate the Atonement of Christ. I would get rid of the entire list and simply ask someone if they felt worthy/ready/prepared. If not, how could the church institute help them to become so.
My thought is that if the atonement makes us all spiritually clean in the eyes of God, maybe we should be interpreting D&C 97:15 a little differently.
.. “do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled…”,
Maybe it would be more appropriate to interpret this scripture as being a focus on physically cleaniness. Ritual bathing could be much more symbolic of preparing to enter the temple than a check list of requirements.
I look at the LDS temple ceremony and the recommend questions and I wonder if the focus is more on loyalty to the church than loyalty to God. Many people would state that those are the same thing. I would argue that they are different. That is why so many other faith traditions do not consider the LDS church a Christian faith.
I view the LDS temple ceremony as very much like a Catholic nun or priest taking their vows. In the Catholic tradition , they know the ritual, the questions and the requirements in advance. The LDS church does not share those things in advance.
It seems to me that full disclosure in advance of the temple questions, rituals and required promises would allow people to think and ponder over the temple and make personal commitments that are based on full knowledge.
Note: I have always felt that my own temple ceremony was based on coercion.
The church needs to get away from a culture of secrecy in temples, in finances and in a hyper focus on protecting the social image of the institution. God is big enough to not need our protection, so if we are not protecting Him, who are we protecting when the institution lacks transparency.
#4 – only when they’re not completely embarrassing me with attitudes characteristic of the 14th Century. Not even Prophets Seers & Revelators get a pass on that (see #s 7 & 11 below)
#7 – of course I do: gender & racial equality, LGBT rights & dignity, environmentalism, human progress, health & fitness (see #11), etc.
#11 – any health rule that favors a 400lb meat eater who drinks a gallon of Diet Coke a day over a fit person who brews green tea as part of a health regimen is not only worthless but counterproductive. It’s also nuts. If even an abject sinner like me can see this, why can’t the Brethren?
I saw a proposal a few years ago that the church make the temples “open temples.” It was a radical idea, but it’s grown on me. I love the idea of making temples open spaces where anyone, regardless of belief or even church membership, could go to meditate and seek peace.
When we worry about defiling the temple, we need to recognize that were that possible, they would have been defiled long ago. Good, honest people have made sacrifices to make these spaces available. What a great gift to mankind if we could make them available as other churches do with their sacred spaces.
Barring open temples, I would like to see the interviews concentrate more on treating others with kindness and grace. And the covenants as well.
If the purpose of the temple is to strengthen testimonies, build spirituality, and teach advanced principles, then many of the questions serve to keep those who are not already “there” from participating.
A loyalty test (to leaders and the church) seems to be the primary focus.
Temple “worthiness” can almost be equated to a VIP pass to the premium levels of heaven – which is hard to reconcile with broader Christianity’s concepts of the atonement and Christ’s role.
I grew up Catholic name and one thing that bugged me was the indulgences. The Mass cards one could buy to have the priest pray for your deceased love one every Sunday for a year–for a price.
So I would like to see money, tithing, not be a part of the temple recommend interview. The deceased ancestors we do the work for here, accept it there where they are not working to earn a living and don’t pay tithing. What people give to the Lord is between Him and them–it isn’t the Ward’s business to know. It should be paid to Salt Lake church headquarters instead of the local bishop. It should be confidential.
Been There: “If the purpose of the temple is to strengthen testimonies, build spirituality, and teach advanced principles..”
Through years of participation, it had never occurred to me that those things might be the purpose of the temple, though I do hear from some that they think their participation builds spirituality. Maybe by “strengthen testimonies” you mean deepen commitment (loyalty) to the Church — most of the “testimonies” I hear seem to have more to do with commitment to the Church than with witnessing of either Christ or his teachings. But “advanced principles”? Really,? I can’t think of even one principle taught in initiatory, endowment, or sealing that is not taught outside the temple. Maybe you mean something different by “priinciple” than I understand. I wonder about the basis of your speculation as to the purpose of the temple.
Wondering
I am 100% with you. I meant that, regarding the TR questions, “*If* the purpose of the temple is . . . “ then the belief screening questions would prohibit honest folks without the “Do you have faith in and a testimony of . . “ from getting a recommend and receiving the fortifying benefit of the experience.
My temple experience never lead to further light and knowledge. However – my parents, teachers, and leaders really hyped up the temple and what I would learn – yes, advanced principles only revealed in the temple. And all of those testimonies over the pulpit of “I learn something new every time I go.”
I went weekly after my mission. After about 20 times I pretty much had it memorized. I would go over the ceremony in my mind, trying to find the hidden nuggets. I started to think it must be my fault.
After 100 times I realized that it is what it is – not a magical experience and no unique content.
I agree with you, Wondering. And the mystique of the temple lives on in in lesson manuals and testimony meetings. It’s almost like the Emperor’s New Clothes.
Beenthere. Your experience is exactly like mine. I haven’t learned anything new in hundreds of visits. Perhaps I don’t have enough faith or I’m not truly worthy.
Personally, I think the TR process is a loyalty test which makes it like a cult. We should be loyal to God and to doing what’s right, not to human organizations. It’s also wrong, IMO, to require payment of tithes for entry which is literally a membership fee. I don’t see any other way to see it. I’m fine with expecting and teaching that we pay tithing. I’m not OK with making it a literally price of entry.
Having said that, here’s a radical idea. Only allow entry if people bring their own names. For those who need “assigned” names, still have them research and bring them with them to the temple. Make it a place where we do a specific type of work, not a place where people do the lamest date-night ever. The idea that people should attend regularly without any specific purpose seems kind of aimless to me. I don’t really see the point of routine attendance.
Barring members from participation in ward callings if they don’t maintain a TR (the loyalty test) is IMO controlling and harmful and ineffective. You know who has no problem passing the interview? Embezzlers and domestic abusers who feel justified in their bad actions. People who blame others for their shortcomings (which is almost everybody). White supremacists, sexists, and homophobes have no problem passing that interview.
Thanks Angela C. Amen and hallelujah!
I would reform the temple recommend questions to reflect a loyalty to Christ and the Gospel, not the Church and leaders, as has been mentioned above.
But here’s a more radical idea: why don’t we reform the rituals themselves? Rituals were useful at a time when Joseph Smith wanted to “restore” what had done before in a way to be able to communicate to even the uneducated. But these days, all the rituals do is distract us from the covenants themselves. Think of the experience. It’s so centered on the actual rituals that you forget the importance of the actual covenants. This is especially true for the recently initiated.
My understanding is that the covenants can be traced back to ancient times (i.e., Solomon’s Temple) but that the rituals were basically borrowed from the Masons (that only go back a few hundred years). So let’s scrap the rituals, beautify the covenant execution, and make the temple more special and less weird.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
My only question: “Would you like to go to the temple?”
1. Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior?
2. Are you striving to follow His teachings?
3. Have you forgiven yourself for past sins?
4. Have you sought forgiveness from those you have sinned against?
The more I read comments like the above, the more I realize we are all having our own unique experiences with our Heavenly Father , the Savior, the Holy Ghost, the temple, each other, the swirling LDS culture, and the world we live in. I absolutely love it . It is messy, it is gut wrenching , it is exquisitely painful and wonderful all wrapped up in one little fuzzy furball ! OK, bad analogy, but so worthwhile and meaningful. I remember in high school some of my friends telling me we ” Mormons ” are just a bunch of monochrome blind sheep. Hah, how can you read the honest and well thought- out comments above and say that ?! I embrace the honesty, the struggles , the concerns and can say , the temple experience is clearly a different experience for all of us. So, if some decide they were coerced or it doesn’t work for them are they heretics ? NO . Or, if others state they are changed in some meaningful way and strengthened by making and keeping covenants and receive heavenly power or personal revelation, are they wannabe , PC, loyal, pony- soldier liars ? NO. We all need to chill a bit. We need to accept and celebrate our different journies , and focus on basic principles ( Like Gregggg above ). The recommend questions are great food for thought and introspection. They allow the Holy Ghost an opportunity to prompt and guide me – but I can’t pin that on you. The questions and the endowment are changing, because , thankfully, our culture is evolving. We are trying to see through others eyes, the pain our old traditions, perceptions and healing wounds inflict on one another. For me the whole big mess is beautiful and meaningful, a sign that God loves us and is a patient and merciful ( as well as just ) person . If He is patient, we can be so too.