TR Questions Change-up

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
Katzpur
Posts: 419
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 08:40
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: TR Questions Change-up

Post by Katzpur » 06 Oct 2019, 22:38

Curt Sunshine wrote:
06 Oct 2019, 17:53
publicly promoting opposition to the Church.
To me, this really says it all. My previous bishop knew about my affiliation with Mormons Building Bridges and was fine with it. He didn't see it as a group that was promoting opposition to the church and I certainly don't. Since I've discussed it with him at length, and have his blessing, I figure I don't have to run it by every bishop I have in the future. Obviously the LGBT issues, including the POX, aren't the only issues members might have problems with, but for me, it's the biggie, and for me, the matter is solved.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." ~Rudyard Kipling ~

User avatar
felixfabulous
Posts: 118
Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 07:13

Re: TR Questions Change-up

Post by felixfabulous » 07 Oct 2019, 08:24

Do you think these new questions make it more difficult for someone with unorthodox views to get a recommend? I think a lot of these questions, if taken very literally could weed a lot of people out. Question 9 seems to cover personal views that go against the Church, even if they are not made public. If someone personally thinks gay marriage is OK, they could see Question 9 as disqualifying them from having a recommend. I wonder if we will see a dip in people getting recommends and if these will be quietly adjusted.

User avatar
mom3
Posts: 4077
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 14:11

Re: TR Questions Change-up

Post by mom3 » 07 Oct 2019, 09:16

Do you think these new questions make it more difficult for someone with unorthodox views to get a recommend? I think a lot of these questions, if taken very literally could weed a lot of people out. Question 9 seems to cover personal views that go against the Church, even if they are not made public. If someone personally thinks gay marriage is OK, they could see Question 9 as disqualifying them from having a recommend. I wonder if we will see a dip in people getting recommends and if these will be quietly adjusted.
I see it as opposite. On another thread Nibbler explained that we are losing people, at least apathetically, my guess is temple attendance is also on the down turn. These are grayer, you can slide through better.
"I stayed because it was God and Jesus Christ that I wanted to follow and be like, not individual human beings." Chieko Okazaki Dialogue interview

"I am coming to envision a new persona for the Church as humble followers of Jesus Christ....Joseph and his early followers came forth with lots of triumphalist rhetoric, but I think we need a new voice, one of humility, friendship and service. We should teach people to believe in God because it will soften their hearts and make them more willing to serve." - Richard Bushman

User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 7225
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: TR Questions Change-up

Post by DarkJedi » 07 Oct 2019, 09:50

mom3 wrote:
07 Oct 2019, 09:16
Do you think these new questions make it more difficult for someone with unorthodox views to get a recommend? I think a lot of these questions, if taken very literally could weed a lot of people out. Question 9 seems to cover personal views that go against the Church, even if they are not made public. If someone personally thinks gay marriage is OK, they could see Question 9 as disqualifying them from having a recommend. I wonder if we will see a dip in people getting recommends and if these will be quietly adjusted.
I see it as opposite. On another thread Nibbler explained that we are losing people, at least apathetically, my guess is temple attendance is also on the down turn. These are grayer, you can slide through better.
That's a good point, and RMN did preface the announcement with a statement about wanting as many people as possible to be able to enjoy the blessings of the temple.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction

User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 7225
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: TR Questions Change-up

Post by DarkJedi » 07 Oct 2019, 09:51

felixfabulous wrote:
07 Oct 2019, 08:24
Do you think these new questions make it more difficult for someone with unorthodox views to get a recommend? I think a lot of these questions, if taken very literally could weed a lot of people out. Question 9 seems to cover personal views that go against the Church, even if they are not made public. If someone personally thinks gay marriage is OK, they could see Question 9 as disqualifying them from having a recommend. I wonder if we will see a dip in people getting recommends and if these will be quietly adjusted.
I think the previous questions if taken exactly literally could also "weed" people out. I honestly don't think that's mostly their intent.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction

User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 4453
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe

Re: TR Questions Change-up

Post by nibbler » 07 Oct 2019, 10:40

Even though I think we are losing people, even in the temple (as evidenced by allowing more people to witness, requiring fewer PH holders), I felt less welcome to attend the temple than I did a week ago. As far as supporting and promoting go, it feels like they're going after thoughts as well as actions.

If they're tying to be more welcoming to boost temple attendance, I haven't felt it. If they're tying to be more welcoming to boost temple attendance they could start by not having 15 or more questions for a TR interview. This was an opportunity to scale the interview down to 5 questions or so.
The wound is the place where the light enters you.
— Rumi

User avatar
DevilsAdvocate
Posts: 1392
Joined: 19 Feb 2010, 12:56
Location: Utah

Re: TR Questions Change-up

Post by DevilsAdvocate » 12 Oct 2019, 09:33

As similar as these new questions sound on the surface, I think some of them are significantly different in terms of emphasis and the overall experience they will create for many active members. Here are my initial thoughts on some of these changes.
the Church before wrote:Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?
the Church now wrote:Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?
Good change. Maybe they saw many complaints and/or many active members not wearing garments all the time anyway similar to the way they stopped preaching so much against birth control after many active members already weren't listening to their advice on this anyway.
the Church before wrote:Do you live the law of chastity?
the Church now wrote:The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him...Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior?
Do you obey the law of chastity?
Sounds like a perfect recipe for even more guilt, shame, and discouragement than before. Many things reportedly said by the Lord in the scriptures are not explicitly emphasized in temple recommend questions so why single out this one as if it is so important to try to enforce this way?
the Church before wrote:Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
the Church now wrote:Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
I think removing the part about affiliating with groups or individuals that don't agree with or live the way the Church teaches was definitely an improvement but I also thought that was mostly talking about polygamists. However, the way it is worded now is so general that it still makes it sound like you need to outwardly agree with every single thing the Church teaches and if not then you are not worthy if taken literally. It's even worse because of social media and leadership roulette because local leaders can easily see something members said and decide they aren't worthy and need to repent.
the Church wrote:Do you keep understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?
Similar to garments, could this be a reaction to seeing many active members already not living this tradition anymore at this point? It sounds like they are basically doubling down on this and insisting that members should interpret this the same exact way they do as strictly prohibiting alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea.
the Church wrote:Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament...
This heavy emphasis on keeping the Sabbath day holy is entirely new (as an explicit recommend question). My family always used to eat at restaurants and watch TV including sports, etc.on Sunday, and my parents and brother have always paid tithing, fulfilled callings, etc. I think this could easily weed out quite a few people that would have remained faithful otherwise especially if some parents are extremely strict about this with children that end up associating the Church with this and leave often before ever serving a mission or getting married in the temple.
the Church before wrote:Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?
the Church now wrote:Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?
I like this change because it sounds like it is now talking about any current sins instead of making people feel like they need to confess things that are no longer relevant. The old question was actually one of the main reasons I never got married in the temple along with tithing because I thought I would have to confess (pre-marital sex) and go through an extended groveling repentance process and face possible Church discipline which was extremely unpleasant and almost overwhelming to consider.
the Church before wrote:Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?
the Church now wrote:Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?
Ironically one of the few questions that sounds more lenient than before is actually one of the few questions that I think should have been taken more seriously by many members the way it was before. What I liked about the old question was that it sounded like it wasn't just talking about everyday dishonestly that does little or no harm but rather treating people fairly such as not knowingly ripping people off in business or that kind of thing.

Overall I appreciate that President Nelson is willing to change things and at least try to make improvements in the Church but I suspect some of these intended solutions like thinking the answer is more "spirituality", strict obedience, expecting people to think the way the Church teaches they should, etc. will end up backfiring in more ways than one.

For example, before it seems like many Church members could drink iced tea or green tea, do stuff that is fun or convenient on Sundays, read "50 Shades of Grey", vote Democrat, etc. and still feel like they were worthy and living the spirit of the law in good conscience. But now it seems like a lot of this is no longer technically possible for many people if they really pay close attention to these questions and take them literally (e.g. the line has been drawn).
"Truth is what works." - William James

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7336
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: TR Questions Change-up

Post by SilentDawning » 12 Oct 2019, 13:41

For this one, you could be a member of an online discussion forum like this which sometimes is very liberal in its interpretation of LDS doctrine, to the point that hard liners don't agree with it. But if you aren't supporting or promoting such doctrinal "misstepts" (from hardliner perspective), you could still be in the clear.

Regarding Sabbath day, there is still lots of wiggle room on that one. It's still very much a personal decision what it means, but they threw in 'at church'.

Does this mean you can be going to church but not keeping the sabbath day holy, or is this a backend way of asking if you go to church?
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

Minyan Man
Posts: 1974
Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 13:40

Re: TR Questions Change-up

Post by Minyan Man » 12 Oct 2019, 15:28

From time to time, I think they have to go through an organizational change in format for these questions. Otherwise, members
are answering the question before the question has been asked. To avoid a robotic response. They want us to reflect on how we
answer. (I'm guessing.)

User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 4453
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe

Re: TR Questions Change-up

Post by nibbler » 19 Oct 2019, 08:08

I included a portion of this quote in another thread. It comes from Oaks' talk 'Two Great Commandments' that was given during the October '19 general conference:

(emphasis added)
But there are many we love, including some who have the restored gospel, who do not believe in or choose not to follow God’s commandments about marriage and the law of chastity. What about them?

God’s doctrine shows that all of us are His children and that He has created us to have joy. Modern revelation teaches that God has provided a plan for a mortal experience in which all can choose obedience to seek His highest blessings or make choices that lead to one of the less glorious kingdoms. Because of God’s great love for all of His children, those lesser kingdoms are still more wonderful than mortals can comprehend. The Atonement of Jesus Christ makes all of this possible, as He “glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands.”
It sounds like Oaks is saying that if I do not believe in the church's position on gay marriage then I get one of the still-cool lesser kingdoms... or maybe people will only have to hang out in one of the lesser kingdoms while they're busy fumigating the CK.
The wound is the place where the light enters you.
— Rumi

Post Reply