Imagine coming face to face with someone suffering from starvation, their body already failing, life hanging by a thread. Instead of freely offering life-saving nourishment, you pause. You ask questions—not about hunger, not about need—but about alignment. You inquire into beliefs, loyalties, moral positions, and existential commitments. Only after satisfactory answers are given will food be released.
The absurdity of such a moment is so plain it borders on the grotesque. We instinctively recognize it as wrong—not merely impractical, but exploitative. To leverage vulnerability in order to secure agreement is not discernment; it is coercion. It is the conversion of hunger into a test.
This is precisely why food pantries exist; for the hungry, not for those who successfully prove they are. Hunger itself is the credential. Need is the only qualification. If religious life is understood as spiritual nourishment—given to sustain, repair, and revive starving souls—then the logic of worthiness collapses under its own weight. Souls do not starve because they are immoral. They starve because they are human.
Jesus and the Refusal to Screen the Hungry
The feeding narratives in the Gospels are not incidental miracles; they are theological declarations. Again and again, Jesus is confronted with crowds marked by confusion, misunderstanding, mixed motives, and profound need. And again and again, he feeds them without precondition.
No interviews are conducted.
No beliefs are verified.
No distinctions are made between the faithful, the doubtful, the curious, or the opportunistic.
The Gospels are explicit that many who eat will later misunderstand Jesus, abandon him, or participate in the systems that destroy him. Yet they eat. Nourishment precedes comprehension. Belonging precedes alignment. Transformation, if it comes at all, comes after the meal.
Even the disciples resist this logic. Their instinct is managerial: Send them away. Jesus’ response is both command and revelation: You give them something to eat. The scandal is not the multiplication of loaves, but the refusal to ration grace.
In Jesus’ economy, hunger is not a threat to holiness. It is the occasion for it.
From “All Should Eat” to “Only the Aligned May Eat”
Temple worthiness interviews quietly invert this order.
They do not ask whether one is starving for meaning, healing, or connection. They do not inquire into reconciliation, mercy, or love of neighbor. They ask instead for affirmation—closed-ended answers to predetermined propositions. Dialogue is neither expected nor desired. The outcome is already known.
Access to sacred nourishment is thus made conditional—not on hunger, but on agreement.
This shift is subtle, but profound. Grace becomes reward. Participation becomes compliance. Flourishing is recast as something earned through assent rather than received as gift. The table is no longer set for the hungry; it is reserved for the correct.
Anticipating the Orthodox Defense
It is often said: The temple is different. It is sacred. It requires preparation.
This objection deserves seriousness. Not all spaces are the same. Not all practices are public. Yet in the gospel imagination, preparation is inward and relational—concerned with humility, repair, attentiveness, and openness to grace. It is not ideological uniformity.
The worthiness interview does not measure readiness in this sense. It measures loyalty. It substitutes alignment for discernment and agreement for hunger. What it protects is not holiness, but predictability.
Another defense follows quickly: Without doctrinal agreement, the community cannot survive.
History suggests otherwise. Early Christianity endured not because of propositional precision—it had very little—but because of shared practices: meals, care for the poor, fidelity to the sick, and an astonishing tolerance for unresolved difference. Doctrine hardened later, largely in response to scale, power, and institutional anxiety.
Agreement creates efficiency, not faithfulness. It simplifies governance while training members to mistrust their own conscience. When flourishing depends on propositional assent, propositions inevitably become arbitrary—not because leaders are malicious, but because the propositions are doing social work rather than truth work. Their function is no longer illumination, but sorting.
Belief becomes currency.
The Fragility Beneath the Fence
Systems that gatekeep nourishment through belief reveal something unintentionally honest: their ideas cannot stand on their own. If a truth were genuinely life-giving, it would not require coercion. If a practice were truly nourishing, it would not demand unrelated preconditions.
The interview exposes this fragility. It quietly admits that belief must be enforced because it cannot persuade, that agreement must be extracted because trust is insufficient. The system does not merely offer meaning; it requires validation. More troubling still is the moral inversion that follows. Human dignity becomes contingent. Flourishing becomes conditional. Hunger is treated as dangerous. Questions are tolerated only until they threaten the system. Belonging is offered on the condition of agreement.
The Risk of Gifts—and the Refusal to Weaponize Them
Gifts are always risky. Some will receive without gratitude. Some will misunderstand. Some will exploit generosity. Judas eats the bread. The crowd is fed and later walks away. Grace is wasted constantly.
But this risk is not a failure of grace. It is the cost of love.
The moment nourishment is turned into a reward, it ceases to be a gift. It becomes currency—exchanged for compliance. Those who hunger are taught to perform wholeness in order to be healed, to demonstrate life in order to receive it.
Jesus refuses this economy. He feeds first. He gives without leverage. He trusts the gift to do its dangerous, transformative work.
Feeding as Faith
To insist that spiritual nourishment be offered freely is not naïve. It is faithful. It trusts that truth does not require coercion, that dignity is not fragile, and that grace—though often abused—is still the only thing powerful enough to heal.
The choice is not between order and chaos, or holiness and care. It is between feeding the hungry and using hunger as a test.
One builds people.
The other builds fences.
And the gospel, again and again, chooses the table.
Discussion Questions for consideration.
1. If worthiness was not the aim, what would replace it as a more suitable motivation tool?
2. How would you rewrite interview questions to be pastoral instead of gatekeeping?
Wheat & Tares 
Do you think the LDS Church is the only place to go for spiritual nourishment? If not, then why not spend your time and effort where you can find what you are looking for? It seems to me that what you’re looking for with this post is an intellectual critique of the LDS Church’s practices rather than a honest effort to find spiritual solace and meaning. If you haven’t found it in the LDS Church then why spend your time critiquing it? The deficiencies in the LDS Church’s approach should be sufficient motivation for you to find what you are looking for elsewhere.
A church needs to have standards and needs to show that it takes those standards seriously. Raising the matter of standards in personal interviews is incredibly powerful for impressing the importance of those standards.
With that said, I would rate the current TR interview a ‘B’. The emphasis of the TR questions is to establish if a person earnestly desires to go to the temple and on this I think it does an ok job. The questions are much less accusatory than they used to be. Some esoteric ones persist (such as asking men over and over again if they have unpaid child support). Of particular note, the question on the Word of Wisdom does not even ask if one keeps the standard, but asks if one understands the standard with no explanation of what it is! I’ve wondered if this is a backdoor way of the church eventually changing how it addresses the WoW. As it exists, the WoW question is very odd and I wonder what discussion happened that lead to its current form.
Worthiness interviews for teenagers have always been a mixed bag and on this the church deserves much of this criticism it has received. Confession should NEVER be coerced and yet the dynamics of these interviews was to coerce admission of guilt. Interviews with an ecclesiastical leaders should invite teaching and learning and developing spiritual confidence. When a person feels prompted to ask a leader for help in repentance, the leader should be ready and willing.
When there is awareness of questionable conduct concerning a church member, I feel it is appropriate for the leader to raise that concern. But with fair mindedness and not with a spirit of condemnation. Judgement should only follow facts and not be initiated by whim or feeling.
Perhaps most revealing of the inadequacy of church “worthiness” interviews is how varied the outcomes can be. Some members find themselves with a leader who nitpicks every imperfection and denies church privileges if one admits an errant thought or action. Others have leaders who treat the interviews as nothing more than a procedural step. This inconsistency is not fair to members and harms confidence members have in leadership.
A great error in the LDS church Ecclesiastical mindset (of some) is the notion that punishment is necessary for repentance. Apparently President Oaks believes this. However, I think many members are not so keen to be condemned – and why should they? It will be interesting to see what policy adjustments to church interviews occur in the next while.
Ah, the classic discussion killer:
If you don’t like the church/country/job/whatever, just leave. So ok…if you disagree with the premise of this post, arelius, why don’t *you* just leave?
But if you just leave, we don’t get to hear about how the LDS approach to gaining spiritual meaning works for you. And you don’t get to hear ideas for improving or adding to that approach (not that you seem to be interested). No one learns anything. And by the way, when those people do go find another church, it’s your loss as much as theirs.
arelius11. It is those that speak out that help the church to evolve. I used to be critical of the feminist movement. “Why don’t they just go to a different church if they aren’t happy?” I get it now. As slow as the progress as been made due to them speaking out, (they will not receive credit for the movement) changes have been made that are needed for the church to become more christlike. Those women paid a price as they were excommunicated from a church they loved, but I am grateful for their courage to speak out. It has become a pharisee religion because of leadership. It is the people on the ground that have to speak out or it will continue to cause damage and harm to so many good and faithful members.
The temple interviews questions could be centered on wholeness instead of compliance. None of the questions asked are about family, rather institutional loyalty and conformity.
Relational safety. Does your family feel safe around you? Do you try to repair conflict or do you avoid and withdraw?
Presence. Are you present in the lives of your children and spouse? Not just to correct and teach.
Repair and accountability. Have you caused harm in close relationships that has not yet been acknowledged or repaired? (My husband spent our whole marriage lusting after other women with zero accountability from him. I was held accountable for his actions. Yes, I’m bitter.
Love. Is your love unconditional? This is a tough question, because we are taught conditional love without realizing it.
Overall question. Are you becoming more loving, honest, and caring in your relationships?
These are some examples that could replace the stupid questions they ask presently.
Todd S – I really appreciate the thought that went into your article. I have often had the same feelings about “Temple Interviews” and the format of the questions.
Before I go further with my comment though, may I critique one item? Sorry, I am not actually asking because I am going to critique that item regardless, obviously.
Before I do though, let me state, or generalize what my perception of the audience here on “Wheat & Tares” is about. It seems to me that we are comprised of those that are: 1. Completely out of the church, but still have attachment and understanding due to family and friends, and past participation in it, hence participation here on W&T. 2. Inactive, but still attached due to some deep beliefs regarding facets of His Gospel, with a little bit of Mormon doctrinal belief. 3. Still in the church, but “nuanced” and still participating. 4. Active members who often find themselves questioning directives, doctrine, leadership etc. I know there are many other categories, but they probably fall somewhere in my generalization.
My critique: Why turn off the lion’s share of the readers with your title that included “Disgraceful” when you could have used a word like “Puzzling?” Using the word “Disgraceful” in your title connotes your utter disgust for the interview practice and the church at large, while your article dialogue does no such thing. Your questions even suggest that there has got to be a better way to allow people to attend the temple or to generate a discussion with someone on a biennial basis regarding their temple attendance. So my critique generates this question: Why the dichotomy between the title and the very well thought article? Please understand, I am in very solid agreement with your thoughts as stated in the article, but why the indicated anger in the title?
Cheers Friends – Mongo
I would like to see the corporation of the COJCOLDS be honest enough to be in compliance with all the requirements asked of its members. i.e. “Are you honest in all of your dealings?” Why are members held to a higher standard than the Institution?
Having many years ago undergone significant questioning of my faith, and having spent many of the years since then in online spaces supporting others going through similar transitions, my primary critique of the current temple recommend system is that the belief questions are a significant barrier to making the church feel like a welcoming big tent for people who have long association with the church and wish to continue to participate but don’t believe in the same way they did before. To many assume that a faith transition renders them ineligible for the temple. In fact, those questions are a relatively recent addition. I believe they were added in the 1980s. I don’t see that they have a lot of value and would like to see them all go.
The question of what process or what questions should exist is more challenging for me. The best idea I’ve encountered on this subject is from my friends Cynthia and Susan on their podcast At Last She Said It. Early on after they created the podcast, one of them once suggested we replace the word “worthiness” with “willingness”. I think that hits the nail on the head for me, and I think it can be backed up with scripture. The origin of the concept of worthiness probably comes from when Jesus, in both the New Testament and Book of Mormon, speaks of not allowing the unworthy to partake of the bread and water. We don’t fully know the intent there, but we should note that we do not withhold sacrament from small children or non-member visitors, and we know there are wildly divergent interpretations by bishops of when baptized members should be excluded, which leads me to think maybe we should think about “willingness” instead. Indeed, “willing” is right there in the sacrament prayer. Maybe it’s not a test of how well we’re following specific rules, but a test of whether we have a “sincere heart, with real intent”, to quote Moroni. To be “unworthy” in this sense is to participate without good intention, taking the Lord’s name in vain. That is what we should consider unworthy, and that should be the bar for participation in sacrament. For the temple there should be questions to ascertain preparation, and I don’t even mind keeping some questions about the daily practice of one’s religion, but I’d like them to be broad and allow for a lot of individual interpretation. Doing it right, in my mind, requires discerning bishops, which can be a hit or miss proposition. But if we’re really serious about the importance of the temple, the ordinances, the value of getting people there as a part of their spiritual practice, then surely the process for getting people in should be as generous as possible.
A Disciple – NAIL ON THE HEAD brother!
Your WoW comment causes me to state info I have found in my study of lds.org, that Heber J Grant is the President that instituted the current thinking on the WoW. Section 89 specifically says it is not a commandment, but “sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint.” Heber J Grant was to have had a “very slight” build. So slight, that his doctor regularly told him he needed to put on weight for health’s sake. After several such MD admonishments, the doctor prescribed that Heber drink at least 4 glasses of beer daily to help him gain the needed body mass. Heber diligently drank the required quantity, and then some, and eventually came to the conclusion that he had a “drinking problem,” which then made him a “teetotaler.” He then got on that bandwagon for many of his church and leadership meetings. He became the president of the church during prohibition and then instituted being “on the wagon” for the current thinking of the WoW. After prohibition ended, church leadership wanted the State of Utah to stay “dry” but the good citizens voted the state “wet”, LOL, with a few alcohol restrictions in varying counties.
Also agreed that repentance should not be constrained, especially with the youth, but something that an individual comes to on their own, be it through spiritual prompting or close personal relationships. When someone comes to their religious leader seeking advice regarding their repentance, that is nearing the very end of the road in the process, with rare exception, and the leader should be doing nothing but help strengthen and encourage the individual at the terminus of a repentance experience.
I especially like the questions that specifically mention “striving.” That denotes having a conversation as to where a person is regarding their current state and ability to go to the temple and make several promises that they may not be able to keep. The previous sentence could generate volumes regarding the necessity of all of this “covenant path” adherence.
I may have more to say on this…..but that is enough for now? 😉
If the temple really taught of Jesus we could throw the doors open and let the world in. Then people could decide if they like it and if they want the things it teaches. It could truly teach and hold nothing secret and people could decide to follow or not. God does NOT need us to have secret “signs and tokens” or secret code words to recognize his children. He knows our hearts and the whole premise of secret pass words to get back to his presence is so unChristlike that my first trip to the temple horrified me. I still cannot reconcile the idea that God needs secret passwords to know which of his children are righteous and which ones go around hurting others. He says he will have no servant at the gates. So, no angels at the gate we give secret code words to get passed. The whole idea of the endowment is so bogus. No wonder we have to keep anyone who will not swear loyalty out.
I am just going to admit my position. Not only do I think temple recommends are refusing to feed the starving if they don’t swear loyalty first, I think the very temple endowment is blasphemous. It paints a false picture of God.
So, maybe I should just bow out of a discussion of temple recommends, because I think the whole thing is false.
But my argument is going to be that IF the temple ceremony truly spoke of Jesus Christ, we would not have to keep it secret or protect it from outsiders. But it is made up gobbledygook so, we have to protect it from the ridicule it deserves.
If that isn’t anti Mormon enough to get me down votes, I have failed in my mission. 😉
But it is my honest opinion. If the temple spoke of Jesus Christ instead of having secret code words, we would not need to regulate who goes. It could be totally open and let people choose if they want the baptisms, sealings, and family work done there. But it is the secret code words that make it so we have to protect it from nonbelievers. Yet anyone can lie and get in. And Jesus does not need secret words to know his true followers and our Heavenly Father does not need secret code words to recognize his children and know their hearts. So, the endowment is bogus and there should be no recommends or interviews.
I came across this set of revised temple recommend questions last year and I think they are much better at focusing on what the actual purpose of the gospel actual is:
https://exponentii.org/blog/answering-the-temple-recommend-questions-was-not-feeding-my-spirit/
All I can say is that we love our boundary maintenance in the church.
A Disciple–there is nothing wrong with having standards. All organizations have standards. But half the TR questions are not standards questions. For example, asking someone if they have a testimony that Pres Oaks is the only person on the earth with all priesthood keys is not a standards question–it one of agreement. We have to be careful with standards though, especially in a gospel setting. Restoration scripture invites everyone to come without money and without price and partake. We’ve literally made money a requirement to partake. The church is supposed to be different from all other orgs, it is supposed to be a hospital for the sick–and a hospital doesn’t requirement agreement before care is rendered. So, I’m curious, in the context of the church and the temple specifically, why do you think required adherence to baseline standards so important as a barrier for entrance? Especially in light of the fact that the promises you make in the temple you have to already be saying you live or else you don’t get in.
My first reaction to the OP was to ask if this is evidence that the temple rites/rituals/sacraments/ordinances aren’t as essential as we sometimes say they are? In some ways, this comes out of a common apologetic I see around those decades when we denied these same ordinances to people based on skin color/lineage. This apologetic insists that such denial doesn’t matter because God will redeem people who didn’t receive these ordinances in this life for other, non-worthiness issues. We generally assume that, even if you don’t receive these ordinances yourself, someone will perform the ordinance on your behalf and that will be the same as if you’d done it yourself.
The OP frames the question in terms of feeding the hungry. Over the years as I have observed the conversation about food assistance, there is always a conversation thread going on about what kinds of food should be allowed. We like the idea of food assistance buying basic staples and nutritious foods, but should food assistance be allowed to purchase candy, desserts, high end expensive cuts of meat/seafood, or similar? Perhaps by restricting access to certain rites/rituals within the church, we are subtly admitting that these are not necessary or are “luxury” items in our discipleship cart.
A Disciple: Question 11 for a temple recommend is: “Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?” (Handbook 26.4.1) The question clearly asks about keeping the standard.
17RRider: Todd is being punny, by arguing that withholding spiritual nourishment because of worthiness is withholding grace from people. Thus, the policy is the opposite of grace, making it dis-graceful. Hence the hyphen in the title. Removing the hyphen creates the word disgraceful, which is generally used in a context that we should be ashamed of something. And I think Todd is arguing that we should, collectively, be ashamed of the way our church is operating. Obviously not everyone is going to agree.
Readers here at W&T do cover a wide range in their relationship with the LDS church, but I think that for the strong majority of us, it still feels like “my” church. My feelings towards the church have changed a lot over the last decade, but it’s still *my* church. And even if I were to step away more fully, it still will be. It’s my family, my people. I pulled weeds in the flower beds, I cleaned the building. I played the organ. I led the choir. I taught the lessons. I played with the kids in the nursery. No matter what happens in the future, I will always, in at least some ways, be Mormon.
Great post, and I have a few comments.
First, to those who don’t like the tone or perspective of the post and who want to nitpick, my response is: Hey, the post is what it is, as written by the author. If you don’t like it, go start your own blog or site and write your own posts. And good luck with that. Or, alternatively, submit a guest post here. As one who has written a very lot of blog posts, let me say: Yes, you would have written this post differently, but so would every other commenter or contributor. It’s a fairly personal medium. Part of writing is finding and using your voice, your own individual writing voice and perspective. Final point: almost any blog writer looks at their own post the next day or even the next hours and says, “Yeah, I might have made that point or written that paragraph rather differently.” Just enjoy the post and make a comment.
I admit I was/am a little confused initially if this was about standards bishops use to parcel out “church welfare” resources to members of the Church (that’s the whole food angle) or just about general interviews and worthiness. The first view brings to mind President Monson’s remarks maybe twenty years ago in a talk where he reflected on his experience as a bishop and said something to the effect that he would have been much more generous in providing resources and support to those in need. The Church, rich as it is, doesn’t have the resources to allow local units to support those in need for an entire local population. So the primary focus has to be LDS members. But often that LDS person or family in need is less active or inactive and possibly fairly “unworthy” as LDS bishops and TBMs judge these things. But that’s just life: those most in need, even in the LDS world, are going to generally be on the fringe in many ways. So I’m thinking this post’s critique would be: Follow Monson’s advice and be quite generous. Ignore the LDS urge to judge and (for a local leader) withhold assistance because the one pleading for help doesn’t regularly attend church or is in some way unworthy (aren’t we all, isn’t that what the scriptures teach?).
If the post is talking about LDS worthiness interviews in general and the whole theological concept of “worthiness,” wow there is a lot to talk about. Slowly in recent decades the senior leadership has dialed things back a bit, but it still feels like a medieval practice in a modern church. And, as always, LDS reforms are always a day late and a dollar short (meaning a generation or two behind the rest of society). Big reforms needed, but I’ll do my own post on it sometime. Maybe start with a “theology of the bishop” discussion to clarify who it is that parcels out grace and blessings (it’s God, not the bishop).
I could have stayed Mormon if it weren’t for worthiness interviews. Not that I am some giant sinner but the idea that I had to continually sit in front of my peers and declare my unequivocal belief and loyalty I just couldn’t do any longer. If we gave up on them completely it would make the church a better place.
Encourage something like catholic confession or some kind of counseling instead of declarations of worthiness and loyalty. And then train bishopbrics for the actual job.
The current system just makes liars out of everyone. When I was in leadership I knew that people weren’t completely honest. When they were it was bad for everyone involved.
I’m reminded of the parable in Matthew 22 wherein the king invites his noble subjects to a wedding feast for his son–but none of them will come. So he tells his servants to go out into the streets and bring anyone they can find. And what’s so interesting about this parable (to me) is that it ends so differently than one would expect. Instead of everyone having a jolly old time what happens is–the king, upon his arrival, notices that one of the guests is not wearing a wedding garment. And so he has him thrown out of the feast–into “outer darkness.”
I think one of the things we might glean from this parable is that when we’re dealing with the sacred it isn’t always enough to respond to an invitation to receive it–that is, in order to be able to bear the weight of it. Sometimes we must go through a degree or two of preparation in order to properly receive it “lest [we] should look for that [we] ought not and [we] should perish.”
And so, in that light, the temple recommend questions are as much a *safeguard* for the initiate as they are a standard of worthiness. The “cherubim” are placed to guard the way of sacred things not for the sole purpose of keeping the unworthy out. They also protect those who are *unprepared* from being harmed by things that are too great for them to bear.
That said, with the understanding that the OP thoughtfully anticipates the orthodox response, let me just say that–IMO–we need to look at the *total* experience of being in the community of the saints — rather than the temple recommend interview per se — in order to discover how the “hungry” are being fed. And in my opinion it is–overall–a veritable smorgasbord.
Dave W. – Thanks for that clarification of the hyphen. Truly. It does make it hold a different meaning.
Dave B. – Agreed that nitpicking is not needed, but often what one perceives as a nitpick, others see as slaying dragons. 😉
Finally, maybe, 😉 I will say that Todd’s article above helped me make a decision regarding church welfare, and Dave B’s comments about Pres Monson’s thoughts on the subject solidified my thinking, which has always been, spend the money, don’t worry about it, Salt Lake will tell me if I’m overboard! Certainly, the church has plenty of money to help the members in need, although our welfare system is second only to State Welfare, we have a pittance comparatively. So it should be rationed or triaged appropriately. My stance is, “don’t hesitate to give, better to be in the wrong on the overspend.”
Todd, I know that you were utilizing the Welfare Program as a comparator to spiritual need and grace as it should be in His church. I am on the last few months of a position where I engage members routinely in this “interview” situation. I have been counseled by leadership above me to “consider what the Savior would do,” and that has always, when pondering what He would want, prompted me to act with grace. I was considered a “Santa Claus” in my professional life where I was a standards evaluator, ……..cough, DFU, cough…..and I find myself being the same way with individuals. If they are talking to me, they are looking for help to follow Him. Not that I am an authority on being a great disciple. Far from it. I have taken treks well clear of His path to know that the last thing someone needs when they are struggling, is judgement and more guilt. Only one person wants us to feel crappy about ourselves. I wish they would change the “interview” and make it more of a biennial “check in,” with individuals to help them feel good about their efforts. In situations where people feel “unworthy,” my thoughts and words to them are expressions of the Saviors love for them personally, regardless. I advise them to take the sacrament when they feel they are ready for a “reset” of their baptismal promise to be a disciple. They don’t need my permission. They know. The sacrament is there for them for that very reason. Truly, I wish that several of the questions were deleted and that they all were conversational regarding key attributes of following Christ. My thinking follows Robison’s “Believing Christ.” I am of the firm opinion that all followers should read this book, especially those of the LDS faith.
Note: The above paragraph was written with a little bit of the same feeling, of the “sporty” side of my career, much like that of climbing a very steep hill on a roller coaster with the track clacking and the reverse slide locks popping, excited for the coming thrilling ride!
Cheers Everyone – Mongo
Jack: temple interview questions as a safeguard for the unprepared would hold a lot more weight if most of us here hadn’t first gone to the temple during a time when the church was completely unwilling to tell you what happened at the temple. When I went, not a single person gave me a heads up on what I would be expected to covenant to. How is that safeguarding the unprepared? If the church feels that the unprepared need to be protected, it is clear that they consider themselves the sole arbiter of who is and isn’t prepared, and that the individual has essentially no part in that decision.
I will grant that significant improvement has been made in the last decade or two, at least in being more willing to talk about temple covenants. Most members would have been completely unwilling to even say what they were until an Apostle listed them in GC.
Let me clarify the Monson quote I referred to above. I can’t find the original Conference talk, but here’s a Church News interview related to his remarks. It says, “He erred on the side of generosity, wanting people to have what they needed, and seeing to it that they got it.” So his implicit advice is the same (be generous) but I may have had the details of his story wrong.
https://www.thechurchnews.com/2011/4/16/23226981/church-welfare-program-pres-monson-defines-caring-for-others/
I think Todd S has overlooked one reason behind the TR interviews which is that attending the temple is not simply spiritual nourishment (which is available at any sacrament meeting in the church to members and non-members alike), but is focused on making covenants. If a person is not prepared or able to keep those covenants, they are better off not attending the temple. That said, I don’t think the current questions are always optimal: focusing on Christlike behavior (Brenda’s suggestions, for instance) might be more appropriate.
Are we not all sinners? I fail to see the point of worthiness interviews, especially for fragile youth. The church is clear on what the commandments are, it should trust its members to make an effort to keep them. Down with shame culture.
I don’t think replacing the current questions with better, more introspective questions that still need to be answered in front of a bishop or stake president is the best solution. People shouldn’t need to have a face-to-face conversation with another mortal to enter the temple.
I’ve spent the majority of the last 12 months in Islamic countries and have visited dozens of mosques. Their approaches to access vary considerably: some allow visitors to enter freely at any time, including during religious services; others permit full access but ask non-Muslims to leave when services begin; still others restrict non-Muslims to a visitors area in the back; and some don’t allow non-Muslims to enter at all. There is no mosque recommend system in place or interrogators posted at the door. A sign stating something like “Muslims only” is posted, and the sign is generally respected.
Why can’t LDS temples do something similar? Post the current—or an improved set of—temple recommend questions on the temple door and ask that those who don’t meet the criteria not enter.
I don’t think such a self-evaluation process would significantly change which Church members actually entered the temple. The questions could be publicized in Church meetings, websites, and manuals. Approximately the same number of members who currently lie to obtain a temple recommend would likely give themselves a passing grade on self-evaluation criteria as well.
What it *would* change is the problem of “bishop’s roulette.” Under the current system, whether a member receives a recommend can depend heavily on which leader happens to interview them. An iron rod bishop may refuse a recommend over the same issue that a Liahona bishop would consider irrelevant. One bishop treats occasional pornography use as an automatic disqualifier requiring months of repentance before a recommend can be issued; another treats it as a common struggle that doesn’t preclude temple attendance while the member works on it. One bishop questions a member’s worthiness because they’ve expressed sympathy for LGBTQ members or attended a child’s same-sex wedding; another sees no conflict whatsoever. The result is that worthiness becomes an arbitrary function of geographic and leadership lottery rather than any consistent standard—let alone the member’s actual relationship with God.
A self-evaluation system would leave the question of worthiness where it belongs: between the member and God. Members who desire a conversation with their bishop about temple attendance would remain welcome to have one, but it wouldn’t be required.
Perhaps the biggest disruption to the Church if temple recommend interviews were eliminated is that the Church could no longer use them as a filter for callings, BYU employment, and similar gatekeeping functions. Too bad. The Church should never have tied worthiness for what it considers a sacred ordinance to these administrative concerns in the first place.
The most likely initial problem with eliminating recommends is that some curious visitors—and yes, probably some people not very Church-friendly—would head to the temple. I’m not sure the curious would be much of a problem, provided they were respectful. Orthodox members would object that these people were taking on heavy covenants they had no intention of keeping, but we already have plenty of Church members doing exactly this under the current system. Signage explaining what the temple endowment is and what it entails, along with self-evaluation criteria, would likely deter most casual visitors—just as mosque signage deters most non-Muslims.
People who went to the temple to “cause trouble” could be a problem initially, but I doubt they would bother after the initial excitement died down. Plenty of people dislike Muslims and could disrupt mosque services if they wanted to, but this is rare.
If the concern is non-believers participating in ordinances, another solution presents itself from the mosque model: most mosques provide a visitor area where non-Muslims can observe services without participating. Temples could similarly allow visitors to sit in the back of the endowment room and simply observe.
Let’s be honest: there are no secrets of the LDS temple anymore. A video or transcript is a simple click away. Even David Bednar has acknowledged that most of the temple endowment doesn’t need to be kept secret. The small portions that the ceremony asks participants to keep confidential appear to be vestigial elements borrowed from Masonic ritual—elements that could probably be removed or simply don’t need to be secret in the first place. Given all this, what’s the actual harm in letting visitors observe?
I think Church members, even nuanced Church members, think we need to have temple recommends issued with face-to-face meetings because that’s just the way things have always been done. A quick look at how Muslims (and I suspect other religious traditions, as well) handle this problem quite successfully might provide some inspiration for improvement.
Mountainclimber479:
I love this idea of eliminating bishop roulette & also eliminating the gatekeeping for church employment and universities. Several interesting ideas here!
The Church will never give up the TR interviews, however, because it requires paying tithing to be granted access. Grace has to be bought and paid for.
I like Mountainclimber’s suggestions that the list of “worthiness” questions could just be posted on the building and we let people judge themselves. If the whole temple recommend process had been between me and God as I was told it was, I might sill be active. But we are told, “the way you wear your garment is between you and God.” And then the bishop grills us on when and why we might not be wearing them. “sister Jones saw you mowing your lawn in a tank top.” We are told that how we determine tithing is between us and God. Then the bishop grills someone on why they are not paying on money given them for university tuition. We are told that our beliefs are between us and God. Then we have to explain why we criticized the prophet on a feminist blog. We are told that how we keep the Word of Wisdom is between us and God and then my mother gets drug over the coals for obeying her doctor that coffee will mean she doesn’t have to take a medication that the family cannot afford. (She never went back to church after that.) If the church really meant that these things are between us and God, we could tell the bishop it is none of his blankety blank business, because if it is really between us and God, then it really is none of the bishop’s business.
Then any talk we had with a bishop would be things we asked to talk about and he could offer support and encouragement instead of feeling he somehow has to protect the sacredness of the temple by keeping the unworthy out. As is, I know many people who were harmed by bishops who got all judgmental, even if they ended up signing the temple recommend. It is digging into some of these things that really are not the bishop’s business that can be humiliating to the person being questioned. If the temple recommend process is harming even a few members, then it is not being done as Jesus would have it. And saying it is a few bad bishops doesn’t change the fact that people are harmed. I just think God doesn’t need some little bishop with an oversized ego trying to protect the temple. God isn’t going to get his feelings hurt. And why does the temple need protecting? I mean, really, the temple is a *building.* It isn’t going to get its feeling hurt if an “unworthy” goes in.
A previous poster says some bishops deny temple recommends if member admits occasional pornography use, expresses sympathy for LGBTQ members, or attends a child’s same-sex wedding. But if a bishop and member handle a temple recommend interview correctly, these matters should never arise. Bishops are instructed to ask the questions as written and without deviation. A bishop errs if he asks different questions, and a member errs if he or she gives answers such as above.
The law of chastity is that a member has sexual relations only with his or her spouse — the law of chastity does not reach to occasional pornography use, so this is not cause for a “wrong” answer. The question about cleanness asks if one strives to be clean, not if one is perfectly clean, so again, a “wrong” answer might not be called for. Having sympathy for other members who are differently situated or having attended a family member’s non-church wedding also do not necessitate a “wrong” answer.
This, based on what I am reading, I wonder if too many bishops violate instructions by deviating from the established questions, or of too many members go beyond the simple answers that are called for.
I admit that I have always lived far from the center place and have never had a LDS co-worker or neighbor and my bishops have always asked only the established questions, so my lived experience may differ from that of other readers. I don’t know what I would do if a bishop deviated from the established questions, but I hope that I would interrupt and possibly end the interview if that occurred. My only purposes here are to remind readers that the church leaders have instructed bishops not to deviate from the established questions, and to suggest to readers that they need not answer the established questions by including information that goes beyond the simple scope of the questions.
Brenda’s questions are the best! Those really get to the heart of healthy relationships. They would make the interview about an hour long though.
Great post, very thought-provoking. And I LOVE the acknowledgment that Christ feeding the masses is doctrinal. He did, he really did. Feeding the hungry is based on who needs food, not on who deserves food or who is worthy of food. Christ said and did so much to feed the hungry that you can’t call yourself a Christian unless you strive to feed the hungry.
But the comparison to the temple doesn’t really work for me. Perhaps this is an indicator of how far out of the Church I am, but the temple isn’t like Christ feeding the hungry. The temple interview questions are geared to assess your loyalty to the Church because the temple is ABOUT your loyalty to the Church. I picked up a library book about Freemasonry and its rituals once. I opened it at random to the script for one of the advancement ceremonies. The sponsor picks up a mallet and taps a pillar three times. Whereupon the person asks “what is wanted?” It was … it was … we all know the temple ceremony is heavily drawn from Freemasons, right? The temple isn’t Christian. The temple isn’t universal. People don’t need the temple the way they need to eat. Jesus didn’t pass out ordinances, signs, and tokens the way he passed out bread and fish. Christian teachings should be universal — love your enemy, help the hungry and sick, visit the imprisoned. But learn a secret handshake? Not universal. Wear ceremonial robes? Also not universal.
The temple is about sealing families together. That’s not universal either. I don’t want to spend eternity with a family, and I know a lot of other people who also don’t aspire to an eternal family. The Church raised me to believe that only being married “until death do you part” was a tragedy. I no longer believe that.
Christianity could be universal. The temple is not univeral.
@ji, those are fair points, and I appreciate the reminder that bishops are instructed to stick to the established questions.
That said, I’m personally aware of cases where bishops have gone off-script. In one instance, a bishop questioned a member about their social media support for LGBTQ issues—not criticism of the Church, just general advocacy—and declined to issue a recommend. In another, a bishop examined tithing records and required members he suspected of underpaying to provide detailed accountings during their interviews. The Church is trying to stop this, but it still happens.
On the flip side, many members have internalized the teaching that their bishop is a “Judge in Israel” with special discernment powers. Some feel compelled to volunteer detailed information about their thoughts, opinions, and actions so the bishop can exercise that discernment on their behalf. The Church hasn’t made any effort I’m aware of to discourage this (in fact, I’d say they encourage this).
But you’re right: if bishops stuck to the script, and if members understood how much leeway they have in answering yes/no questions, temple recommends wouldn’t have to be quite so difficult. The question is—if that’s really how it should work, why not just post the questions on the Church website and the temple door and let members evaluate themselves? At that point, what’s the meaningful difference between an in-person interview and individual self-assessment?
We have worthiness tests in lots of places in church practice. I dislike the current practice for a variety of reasons, but different reasons in different places. I’ve actually given this a lot of thought and written thousands of words on subject. If I had the magic wand (or if I were once again in a position to make decisions, which is one of many reasons I will never be in such a position), I would do the following:
Baptism, Sacrament, Ordination: (a) Do you know what you’re doing? (b) Do you have a sincere desire to participate? (c) Are you acting with respect and honor?
Temple: same (a), (b), and (c) plus (because it’s a communal experience) (d) Would your presence offend others? OR (d’) Will you be welcome in a prayer circle?
Calling to a position of authority: same (a), (b), (c), and (d/d’) plus a careful review of abuse of authority issues, past and present.