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.
The ability to discern, as given to bishops in D&C 46:27, is not a general power to discern truth from error. It is an ability to discern which spiritual gifts displayed by his ward members do not come from God. If one reads the verse in its context, I don’t see how one comes to another interpretation
As a couple of commenters have noted, the problem of interviewers disregarding instructions and going off script is real. Most frustratingly, more than once my wife and I have gone in for interviews at the same time, and the same interviewer who gave me an ordinary routine interview decided to press her on whatever the current version of the “do you disagree with the church” question was at the moment. In reality, for at least the last 15 years I’m probably the more likely of the two of us to disagree with things the church is doing, but she gets the unauthorized follow-up questions. Certain types of men with authority seem to want to make assumptions about certain types of women with education and careers. At least that’s the only explanation I can come up with. And it’s inexcusable.
Quentin, would she be able to ask, “Are you deviating from the established questions?”. Or to ask, “Oh my, have the temple recommend questions been updated?”
Quentin,
I can provide an answer about what your wife (and my wife) have experienced as far as women being cross-examined more frequently than men, but it is far simpler and less charitable to local leaders than your explanation. Let’s just say that it is primeval in nature. It is a sexual dominance display. I’ll leave it at that.
Yes there is a script to the temple recommend questions–and its important that leaders try to stick to it. Even so, the same script includes the question (in so many words): do you feel the need to address anything else happening in your life? And that right there opens the door to going off script–so to speak.
Temple recommend interviews aren’t given solely for the purpose of proving one’s worthiness. They are also an opportunity for the saints to repent–and for that opportunity alone a Judge in Israel is typically willing to go as far off script as it takes them–within the scope of propriety, of course.
Jack, I respectfully disagree. I recommend a re-reading of section 26.4 in the handbook, where one will find the following:
“To make this determination, priesthood leaders interview the member using the questions below. Leaders should not add or remove any requirements. However, they may adapt the questions to the age and circumstances of the member.”
Leaders should follow instructions. A temple recommend interview’s purpose is indeed solely to allow the member to attest worthiness for temple attendance — it is not intended to be an inquisition or a confessional, as you seem to suggest — there are other forums for those purposes.
You may be remembering the old days, but those days are gone. Local leaders should faithfully follow current instructions, not impose their own rememberings of the old days.
@Jack, you said, “Temple recommend interviews aren’t given solely for the purpose of proving one’s worthiness. They are also an opportunity for the saints to repent…” I believe that statement is false. I’ve never heard a Church leader say this before. The Church Handbook section 26.3 states:
“Temple recommend interviews allow members to demonstrate that they have a testimony and are striving to obey God’s commandments and follow His prophets. Priesthood leaders also affirm, through the interview, that the member is worthy.”
Section 26.4 states:
“The temple is the house of the Lord. Entering the temple and participating in ordinances there is a sacred privilege. This privilege is reserved for those who are spiritually prepared and striving to live the Lord’s standards, as determined by authorized priesthood leaders.”
“To make this determination, priesthood leaders interview the member using the questions below.”
I can only find information that states that TR interviews are for determining worthiness, and nothing that indicates they are an opportunity for repentance.
You also said, “Yes there is a script to the temple recommend questions–and its important that leaders try to stick to it. Even so, the same script includes the question (in so many words): do you feel the need to address anything else happening in your life?” I believe the questions you are referring to are:
“15. Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?”
“16. Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?”
Pretty much the only sin in orthodox member’s heads serious enough to need to be resolved with priesthood authorities would be sexual behavior, and not many Mormons are going to show up asking for a temple recommend if they feel they “haven’t taken care of it yet”.
Question 16 is a yes/no question, and wise members would answer this question as “yes”. Bishops don’t have any special spiritual abilities that exceed those of other members, and bishop’s roulette is a real problem, so a wise member would answer “yes” and answer this question on their own through self-reflection and personal prayer. Bringing up anything that might be questionable whatsover as an answer to question #16 is a huge mistake in the context of a temple recommend interview. Members are groomed to falsely believe that bishops are “Judges in Isreal” (such a goofy term!) with special discernment powers that enable them to make decisions like this for their “flocks”, but in reality, members would be much better off making this determination on their own. The fact that Church leadership and the handbook so strongly requires bishops to stick to the script is strong evidence of the Q15’s lack of faith in their bishops’ special spiritual powers, and their fear (based on past experiences) of what happens when bishops choose to rely on their special spiritual powers and go off sciript.
The recent times I have heard of bishops deviating from the script, it is by lumping things like support for gay marriage or ordain women under “supporting and sustaining the prophet.” They lump something that they see as a failure to obey or apostasy under the question about supporting and sustaining church leadership. So, they are not exactly going off script because they feel it is important and kind of the question covers anything the bishop defines as sustaining leaders. They feel their ward member is speaking out against the church by publishing something, and that is proof to them that they are not properly supporting priesthood. Some excommunications in the last decade or so are for people publicly saying things and suggesting that the church’s stand is wrong. So, if such things can get Kate Kelly excommunicated, for sure it means that sister X is not worthy of a temple recommend. They always seemed to be something the bishop was already aware of and the bishop brought it up as failure to sustain leaders/apostasy.
I have been busy the past couple of days, but have thoroughly enjoyed the insight, and quality of thoughts here. It’s a hot topic and one that is not going away anytime soon. Although I could respond to every comment above with thanks and possibly further questions, I think the section in the handbook posted by “mountainclimber” suffices to illustrate what divides the argument between those who adamantly support the “worthiness” model and those who oppose it.
Here is how I see it. I’m not suggesting I’m necessarily right, but I’m making an argument.
Worthiness, Holiness, and the Inversion of the Gospel
Section 26.4 of the LDS Handbook states (by mountainclimber above), “The temple is the house of the Lord. Entering the temple and participating in ordinances there is a sacred privilege.” On its face, this language appears reverent and uncontroversial. Sacred things matter. Preparation matters. Covenants matter. From within an orthodox framework, it is understandable why access to the temple would be carefully guarded. If the temple is sacred space and ordinances are covenantal acts, then worthiness interviews appear to function as a means of preserving reverence, integrity, and communal order.
The problem, however, is not the desire for holiness. The problem is the definition of holiness being quietly assumed.
The word privilege does significant theological work. A privilege is conditional. It is something granted or withheld based on compliance. Once temple participation is framed as a privilege rather than as spiritual substance, the logic of worthiness shifts from formation to qualification. The temple ceases to function as medicine and begins to function as reward. The central question is no longer, “What does this person need in order to be healed and transformed?” but rather, “Does this person meet the standard to be admitted?”
This shift explains why worthiness interviews feel necessary within the system. If access is a reward, then proof of compliance is required. If compliance is required, then monitoring behavior makes sense. From this lens, restricting temple access from someone viewing pornography is not punitive; it is protective. The concern is that unclean behavior will contaminate sacred space—that participation without moral purity will cheapen holiness.
Yet this concern rests on a theological assumption that Jesus explicitly overturned: that unclean things make clean things unclean.
Throughout the Gospels, holiness is not fragile. It does not retreat from brokenness. Jesus touches lepers without becoming defiled. He eats with sinners without absorbing their impurity. He allows the morally compromised to approach Him without first requiring behavioral proof. In every case, holiness moves outward. It heals. It restores. It transforms. Defilement does not spread toward Jesus; wholeness spreads away from Him.
The worthiness framework, however, unintentionally, reverses this movement. Holiness becomes something that must be protected from people rather than something that heals people. The temple becomes a marker of belonging rather than a means of transformation. When access is restricted based on private moral struggles, the system trains participants not toward honesty but toward image management. Confession becomes strategic. Shame becomes hidden. Compliance becomes performative. The gospel quietly turns into a battle over appearances—the very problem Jesus confronted most fiercely in the religious structures of His day.
Those who raise concerns about worthiness interviews are often dismissed as arguing that sin does not exist or that standards should be abandoned. This is a straw man. The argument is not that sin is irrelevant, but that brokenness is precisely why spiritual substance is needed. A hospital that admits only the healthy has confused treatment with reward. If temple ordinances are truly formative, then they must be accessible to the unformed. Otherwise, they function as symbolic confirmations of righteousness rather than instruments of grace.
None of this requires the abolition of standards or the denial of moral responsibility. It requires recognizing that standards cannot serve as prerequisites for healing. Once holiness is defined as something that divides the clean from the unclean, it inevitably becomes a mechanism of exclusion. Once sacred participation is framed as a privilege to be earned, it ceases to function as a gift that dignifies.
The irony is that the worthiness system exists to protect holiness, yet it does so using a definition of holiness that Jesus rejected. From within the current lens, this inversion is nearly impossible to see, because the system rewards compliance and interprets discomfort as disobedience. But through the lens of Jesus, holiness does not sift humanity into those who belong and those who do not. It enters the broken and makes them whole.
In that light, the question is not whether worthiness matters, but whether the gospel is being asked to serve holiness—or holiness is being asked to serve the gospel.
arelius – You are correct in suggesting that simply leaving is an option, many have done so, and for good reason, as they reached a point where they felt not only lack of nourishment, but malnourishment. While I see problems, some, like this one are rather large issues, I still find much beauty in my local ward experience.
17RRider – Although Dave already pointed it out, I add my response to his. It’s always a bit risky choosing an article title that is provocative, perhaps, as you said to the alienation of some readers. That being said, the intent as Dave mentioned was to beg the question as whether “worthiness interviews” are “Graceful”. Great contributions you made.
Janey – I greatly appreciate your respectful candor is saying the analogy doesn’t work for you. I think every metaphor or analogy has holes and this one is certainly no exception.
I think I’m going to throw everyone’s comments into ChatGPT and see how it analyzes and produces a new set of questions. So many incredible ideas posted here.
Christian Kimball – I have read your book and heard you speak on this topic a few times, of which I greatly appreciate your courage and integrity on the matter. I currently serve as the 1st counselor in a Bishopric and frankly, am struggling a bit to administer these interviews. I really love my local ward and the community I am part of, but the dogmatic parts are quite triggering.
“I really love my local ward and the community I am part of, but the dogmatic parts are quite triggering.”
Dogmatism and legalism, overlapping yet different, really should have no place among us. However, my experience is that both are very present. We cannot achieve Zion as long as these are so present.
Todd, I really appreciate your ideas as to whether the temple is reward for the righteous or healing for the less than perfect. And can holiness be destroyed by coming into contact with anything unclean. Jesus sure acted like Holiness was strong enough to withstand coming into contact with the unholy.
It is purity gospel rather than behavioral gospel. The purity concept is seen most clearly with women and virginity. Is a woman’s righteousness destroyed if she is raped? Well, the answer is still struggling to be a firm “no” in the current century. We still have scripture in both the BoM and Bible that says very clearly that a woman’s worth is taken from her by rape, and as recent as 1990’s we had general authorities suggesting that women needed to explore how they were at fault for child sexual abuse, (Scott, 1992) or that a woman was better off dead than raped. (still in the lessons)
Can the temple be defiled by a sinner entering? Or is God strong enough that he can protect the sacred purpose of the temple even if the unworthy enter? I had to kind of face that question with my abusive father who I knew to be going to the temple unworthily. I ended up ratting him out to protect him and never thought the temple needed protecting from him. Is it the purity of the temple we worry about when we keep the unworthy out? Because how can a building be unworthy or unrighteous. How can the purpose of the temple be made unworthy? If priesthood ordinances are still good even if the priesthood holder is unworthy, then how can anything about the temple be damaged by the unworthy? It is holding the raped woman guilty of sin, because that building didn’t do anything wrong. Sorry, but a building just can’t sin, so why are we judging the cleanliness of a building by the sins of those who go in it? Kind of stupid really. But then purity gospel is kind of stupid.
Now, if we are protecting the sinner from going into the sacred building, we need to be clear just what we are protecting them from. They already told a lie to their bishop or lied to themselves about their worthiness, and to me it is the lies told getting there that are the problem, not them entering a building.
It is NOT about preparation because back when I went through, I had the usual temple recommend interview but there was absolutely no preparation. No one told me a thing about what really happened. Not the covenants made, or anything. I was totally blindsided by what the endowment actually was, and felt lied to and betrayed by that lack of preparation. So, it most certainly has not been about preparation of the individual.
Therefore, we all think God is so weak that he cannot protect the sacred nature of a building from the unclean things that enter it. As you said, Jesus touched the unclean and he did not become unclean, but they were healed by his holiness. What kind of a puny weak God do we believe in? Jesus told Peter that eating the food offered to pagan Gods did not make one unclean. He even told Peter not to declare unclean that which he had declared clean. So, we are worrying our silly little heads over nothing. If the temple really is the house of the Lord, then it cannot be made unclean by anyone who enters it.
But unChristlike behavior on the part of our leaders might make it something that the Lord rejects as his own.
Our leaders keeping the sincere out might be the real sin. Just saying.
I’m a lot more interested in how we feel about providing for the hungry, and how we boundary that, or not. I think I’m responsible for my own relationship with the temple, with God and those who administer the church, and I take responsibility for my own actions. But what will we do about feeding the poor? What will the church decide to do?
mountainclimber479,
“Members are groomed to falsely believe that bishops are “Judges in Israel” (such a goofy term!). . .”
Not to me. It is a common notion that angels and cherubim are placed to guard the way of the sacred. And bishops, stake presidents, and other presiding high priests are placed in church in the same way and for the same purpose. It is an heavenly pattern.
Of course, that’s only one side of the equation. The other side is to help initiates repent so that the might pass into realms of greater sacredness and felicity.
handlewithcare brings up something interesting that I have noted from other posters here. He or she seems, if I read correctly, to assert some individual responsibility for one’s relationship vis-à-vis the temple, God, and church leaders, but (if I read correctly, and I might not) suggests that feeding the poor engages no individual responsibility. Instead, he or she wonders what the church is going to do about feeding the poor, because this is outside of the realm of responsibility of his or her own actions. But is it? Instead of wondering about what others are going to do, or not do, to feed the poor, one can give to the Salvation Army, or to local charities, rescue missions, food banks, and shelters. Some of Jesus’ disciples thought that the woman should donate her expensive alabaster box of ointment for sale for the proceeds to help feed the poor, but Jesus basically told those disciples not to worry about what this woman did with what was hers, and they could give to the poor anytime they wanted to from their own assets. I agree that a church can do things on a scale that individuals cannot do, but independently of what this or any church might or might not do, and without worrying and complaining about what someone else does not do, I can do good on my own. There’s no call on my part to abolish any government programs. I don’t wonder what the church is going to do about feeding the poor, and fortunately I don’t need to wait for them to set up a program. A lot of white-collar workers can contribute to a charity of their own choosing with automatic payroll deductions.
Georgis, yes, we can as individuals help feed the poor, but that does not change the question of when is the church going to do as scripture says our tithing does? Scripture specifically says tithing is to help feed the poor. So, if the church is asking ADDITIONAL fast offerings and humanitarian aid to feed the poor, what is it doing with all those tithing funds that it is supposed to be using to feed the poor? I think that question of when is the church going to help feed the poor is not only valid, but way overdue.
Anna, we agree that tithing can be used for the poor, but in the OT at least from Moses the first goal was to provide for the Levites, and I imagine that they got theirs first. But I wonder how many people who say the church should do more with tithing funds do not themselves tithe, and also do not give to support the poor. It seems to me that those who do not tithe and/or do not support the poor from their own purses might speak almost like hypocrites when they complain about what someone or something else should do. Different topic but somewhat related: people who took pictures of themselves in front of the Church’s vending/giving machines before Christmas, and then posted those pictures all over the internet. I wonder if that is akin to blowing the trumpet while giving alms. I say that I don’t want to judge my neighbor for the mote in his eye when mine has a beam in it, and yet I make this comment. It is not always easy to live as one wants.
Georgis, I think you are painting people who complain about where tithing is spent, with them not paying tithing at all and not doing anything for the poor themselves, with a rather broad brush. Granted, there might be some, but it might also depend on income, expenses, debt, and many other things, which we can’t really judge someone for. I know that with me, when I finally decided I wasn’t even going to bother with not feeling guilty for not paying tithing after a horrendous interview with a stake president and his total insensitivity to my situation, I decided that when I was in a place where I could pay that I would give it to causes I believe in and feel are worthy of support for the work they do. So now, after years of paying off debt acquired from raising a large family on a teacher’s income and being naive about letting my ex-wife manage our finances while she stayed home from work, while I worked two to three jobs at a time, (I didn’t the last few years of our marriage which I’m sure contributed to us getting divorced but it also lowered our debt burden), I give reguarly to many worthwhile organizations. The largest contribution every month is to the Utah Food Bank, but I also contribute to public radio and TV, the Red Cross, the ACLU, and other organizations that work for what I believe in.
I totally agree with you on people posting their pictures in front of the Giving Machines. It would be interesting to see how the church accounts for that money, but without any transparency, who knows? I figure they count it in their accounting of charitable donations along with a monetary representation of voluntary hours and their contributions from time to time to various organizations, which are published in the newspaper or reported on KSL. So I think not only individuals but the church itself gives up its alms before men to get praise or to lower criticism for us who question.
BTW, I appreciate your comment and bringing this to the conversation. None of us is perfect, and I guess neither is the church.
Georgis, I imagine there are many of us who pay a full tithing to a charitable organization that has transparency and actually feeds starving children and/or adults. Giving Machines seem to me like a publicity stunt for the Church!
Growing up, I was taught that paying tithing was one commandment that I could be perfect in fulfilling. But after the Church was proven to be dishonest, breaking tax laws, and working so hard to hide its Billions instead of even 5% charitable giving, I give my tithing elsewhere.
I don’t expect the Church to solve world hunger- but I would like it to TRY, and do better than giving .01% of its ~$400 Billion.
The Church would not be allowed a temple recommend if it were held to the same standard expected of temple going members.
Jack,
Just because multiple ancient religions (it was not just Israel, it was pretty much every religion in the region) had divine guards to mediate who and who could enter the divine presence does not mean we need to continue the practice. Jesus happily left behind that notion by bringing the divine presence to us and dwelling with those that are unclean (aka unworthy) without as much a single interview question as whether or not they were worthy to receive it–not a single one. The shift Jesus brought was one of freely giving grace to all and to completely reorient our idea of God–for as the BoM, come without money and without price. This is one of those ideas he was trying to change, but we humans keep wanting to stick to. Time to let it go.
chrisdrobison,
I agree that the heavenly gift is something we receive “without money and without price.” But even so, there are things we need to do in order to position ourselves to receive it. The Savior says that we must be born of the water and of the spirit in order to enter his Kingdom. And while it’s something that we do freely–he won’t force anyone to do it. And this is where we run into the reality of heavenly beings guarding the way. How many of us will successfully enter the Kingdom without receiving the Holy Ghost? Even the Savior himself says, “no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” And so, while the Lord wishes to grant us access to the divine–we must be willing to do it his way. Whoever tries to gain access by some other means is a “thief and a robber” and will be detected.
Jesus began his ministry with a call to repent, and it appears throughout the gospels. One one occasion, he healed a man (without a worrhiness interview), but then Jesus sought out the healed man the next day to tell him to repent. Repentance is part of the gospel.
Jumping in late, and making the unpardonable sin of not reading all the prior comments. When I first read the post, my initial thought was that this is the age-old argument between pastoral care and what LDS leaders are told to do, which is judging “worthiness.” The author of this OP strikes me as a leader who sees himself as a pastoral leader, as someone who is supposed to help others as Jesus would do. But there are also plenty of bishops / leaders / and even higher ups who do not see their role as pastoral at all. They gravitate toward the cut & dried / black & white thinking that functions well in a bureaucratic role where “judge in Israel” (meaning arbiter of worthiness so I can do the “real work” of filling the callings so things run smoothly) is the most important job. After all, should people seek flawed human counselors if they need pastoral care, or just pray directly to God? I’m not saying they are right, and I’m not even saying that they are thinking those thoughts openly–just that they gravitate toward the practical concerns of running a ward rather than the complex and confusing concerns of helping people flourish. If there are 32K bishops at a given time, they can’t all be great. There are going to be plenty of lemons in that batch. I think everyone here at least knows that going to the bishop for pastoral care is about as good an idea as going to your dentist to talk about your marriage. It might go well, or it might be disastrous.
Jack,
To put “reality” and “heavenly beings guarding the way” in the same sentence is a bit of an incongruity. It’s a theological proposition to protect the in-group’s reward and keep the “filthy outsiders” away. We just don’t know–even a little bit. I would hope that whatever is there–if there is a “there”–that it would defy all puny human thinking and petty identity politics on the subject.
Georgis, just so you know I pay 10 per cent to charities of my choice and I also volunteer. I am an active member and have paid tithing for 50 years. I am, after many years of faithful unquestioning membership, interested in what the stunningly well financed church plan and communicates about feeding the poor. I think I’ve been patient, and understand both personally and ecclesiastically what a thorny issue this is. We need to converse about this with compassion.