Temple Recommend Requirement Flexibility

[Give It Time]

I'm putting this under support rather than doctrinal discussion, because I'm may be World Series pissed! Even if it turns out to be just a local thing, I'll only be major league pissed. Before I write much more, I would like to determine exactly how pissed I am. We all know that there is room for flexibility in answering the temple recommend questions. However, I learned that there are questions where flexibility is not allowed and flexibility is allowed for all the others.

What I'd like to know, and I'd appreciate the most official and recent source possible, are the temple recommend questions in which there is really no flexibility allowed. If so, which ones are they?

P. S. I was told a short list. I want to confirm it is true.

[GoodBoy]

I've never heard that there was no room for flexibility on certain questions. You can interpret and answer the questions however you wish.

I think you may have heard that from someone who would like for there not to be flexibility, when in fact there is.

[Give It Time]

I've never heard that there was no room for flexibility on certain questions. You can interpret and answer the questions however you wish.

I think you may have heard that from someone who would like for there not to be flexibility, when in fact there is.

I was being reassured that I wasn't holding myself to too high a standard. That a recommend was much closer than I thought.

I want to wait for a few more answers to roll in.

[Red Ryder]

TLDR; lie if you NEED a temple recommend.

You're trying to rationalize an irrational situation and your trying to play the odds against leadership roulette. In short, you're putting too much thought into this.

Let's start at the top.

Do you want or need a TR?

If yes, then answer the appropriate questions with the correct "yes" and "no" answers. Nothing more, nothing less. Just a simple yes or no is required. You're in and out in 5 minutes with some small chat. Lie if you have to have the TR. Worry and console yourself after the paper is in hand. Many members do this, don't feel bad. You're just playing the game and living among a bizarre situation. Yes it sucks, but there are valid reasons you need a TR.

If you don't need a TR but want to test the leadership roulette wheel then go ahead and nuance your way through and see how favorable you come out.

[Give It Time]

The bishop is fine with my having a recommend. However, he also didn't list certain heinous and immoral acts as being inflexible and I'm not talking about chastity.

[Corsair]

What I'd like to know, and I'd appreciate the most official and recent source possible, are the temple recommend questions in which there is really no flexibility allowed. If so, which ones are they?

Short answer: It's leadership roulette, but you can simply ask "is that one of the official questions?" when something extra is added. There is no expressed flexibility allowed.

Here are the guidelines from the copy of CHI Book 1 (1998) that I have (with emphasis added):

Exercise great care when interviewing applicants for recommends to enter a temple. Make it clear that you represent the Lord in determining worthiness to enter his holy house. No unworthy applicant should receive a recommend. Be certain that each applicant is worthy as a result of living up to Church standards and principles. Acceptable answers to the recommend interview questions ordinarily will establish worthiness to receive a recommend. Do not assume that worthiness to enter the temple at one time is reason for a casual interview later. Discuss the interview questions with each applicant, and keep each interview private.

Require an applicant who is not living up to Church standards and principles to demonstrate true repentance before receiving a recommend to enter a temple.

When interviewing an applicant for a recommend, do not inquire into personal, intimate matters about marital relations between a husband and his wife. Generally, do not deviate from the recommend interview questions. If, during an interview, an applicant asks about the propriety of specific conduct, do not pursue the matter. Merely suggest that if the applicant has enough anxiety about the propriety of the conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it. If you are sensitive and wise, you usually can prevent those being interviewed from asking such explicit questions.

Leaders are told "Generally, do not deviate from the recommend interview questions". I had a stake president add the question, "Are you addicted to porn?" I answered, "Is that a new question?" and he backed down before I could give a "No" answer.

It depends on the leader and if they are on a scrupulosity kick. You can quote from the handbook "Generally, do not deviate from the recommend interview questions", but that will probably just annoy many leaders. Certainly, stick to 'Yes' and 'No' and do not provide answers for questions they did not ask. While there is no express permission for adding to the questions, some leaders may claim to "feel the spirit" about adding more details. Your best strategy is to politely refuse to deviate and simply arrange for a different leader to go over the question.

A bored leader is best. It's nine "Yes" answers and five "No" answers. Keep it short and polite.

[Give It Time]

What I'd like to know, and I'd appreciate the most official and recent source possible, are the temple recommend questions in which there is really no flexibility allowed. If so, which ones are they?

Short answer: It's leadership roulette, but you can simply ask "is that one of the official questions?" when something extra is added. There is no expressed flexibility allowed.

Here are the guidelines from the copy of CHI Book 1 (1998) that I have (with emphasis added):

Exercise great care when interviewing applicants for recommends to enter a temple. Make it clear that you represent the Lord in determining worthiness to enter his holy house. No unworthy applicant should receive a recommend. Be certain that each applicant is worthy as a result of living up to Church standards and principles. Acceptable answers to the recommend interview questions ordinarily will establish worthiness to receive a recommend. Do not assume that worthiness to enter the temple at one time is reason for a casual interview later. Discuss the interview questions with each applicant, and keep each interview private.

Require an applicant who is not living up to Church standards and principles to demonstrate true repentance before receiving a recommend to enter a temple.

When interviewing an applicant for a recommend, do not inquire into personal, intimate matters about marital relations between a husband and his wife. Generally, do not deviate from the recommend interview questions. If, during an interview, an applicant asks about the propriety of specific conduct, do not pursue the matter. Merely suggest that if the applicant has enough anxiety about the propriety of the conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it. If you are sensitive and wise, you usually can prevent those being interviewed from asking such explicit questions.

Leaders are told "Generally, do not deviate from the recommend interview questions". I had a stake president add the question, "Are you addicted to porn?" I answered, "Is that a new question?" and he backed down before I could give a "No" answer.

It depends on the leader and if they are on a scrupulosity kick. You can quote from the handbook "Generally, do not deviate from the recommend interview questions", but that will probably just annoy many leaders. Certainly, stick to 'Yes' and 'No' and do not provide answers for questions they did not ask. While there is no express permission for adding to the questions, some leaders may claim to "feel the spirit" about adding more details. Your best strategy is to politely refuse to deviate and simply arrange for a different leader to go over the question.

A bored leader is best. It's nine "Yes" answers and five "No" answers. Keep it short and polite.

Thank your, Corsair. I will write a fresh post explaining my major league anger.

[Rebel]

What Pisses me off is that you need a recommend at all !!!!!!!!!!!!! All members should be able to go no matter what !!!

[Give It Time]

The bishop and I have opened up a discussion. I told him the reason I've pulled away from the church is a previous leader issued my now ex a temple recommend at the time we were divorcing. We were divorcing over abuse. The leadership knew it. My ex owned up to it, but made excuses for it (which the leaders would recognize as excuses, if they were trained). That previous leader also had my now ex administer the Sacrament to our ward with our two Aaronic priesthood holding sons. So, my son's are administering the Sacrament with their father who abuses them and the bishop was okay with this. I conscientiously objected out in the hall.

First visit with the bishop. He was terrific. Empathic. Basically let me scold the previous leadership through him for forty-five minutes. I felt some actual healing from the experience.

I went for a subsequent visit initiated by me, because there are a few reasons I want to be more involved in the ward, so I was already thinking about a recommend.

This visit went pretty well. Except, he indicated he didn't take verbal abuse seriously. I'm not surprised. No one does. Except me and a few other people that know how this is how it all starts. The bishop may have been told that, but most people don't take it seriously. I wouldn't be bothered except for what he said later. Toward the end of the interview, he did make it sound like I needn't feel ashamed. That a recommend isn't that far off for me. The shame language took me a little by surprise. I'm not perfect and I'll admit that. The reason I stay away from church is because it, through its leaders, policies and doctrines, has violated my trust. If anyone needs to do work to get back into good graces, it's the local ward and church getting into mine. I know that sounds hubristic, but I don't want to relive my story so that people who don't understand that the simple fact that a known and admitted abuser getting a recommend is enough to send any person with half a brain out the door, if leaving is any kind of option.

Anyway, I thought it interesting how he was placing me in an inferior position. I've known him quite awhile. What I've observed of him is he is a man of integrity. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he truly believes that the only reason someone would distance themselves from the gospel is because of unrepented sin, even if they aren't aware of that sin. There is a sin, down there, somewhere. So, I'm going to choose to wear those glasses in looking at this.

I'm also putting on the bi-focal lens that he has possibly been told women in the church have a tendency to feel unworthy and I'll include the remote possibility that he came across some information that feeling not good enough is common among abuse victims. So, I'm really going to try to take my anger down to minor league, because I was actually beginning to feel kind of good about my situation.

He said that what was required for a recommend was:

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?



Here is what he said is optional (I've bolded the ones with which I take particular issue)

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
(2 actual segues out of this. I don't really see them as separate questions)


6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 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?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

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?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

I'm not going to get all sarcastic, because I like the guy. I'm also going to give some benefit of the doubt that he was reassuring me and if he had someone in the room besides me, his list would be personalized to that individual. However, in light of

His previous stated direspect for verbal abuse
His not believing that a person can be genuinely morally outraged at the church and stay away for that reason
His not including in his list of required behaviors ones that would be important to me and, important here, win back some of my trust.
The fact that this exonerates the previous bishop's actions

His leaving those out just tells me, that in another situation with another member, he's going to be one of *those* bishops. He might do a better, more empathic job, but he'll end up being like most of the rest.

That's the reason for my anger. He knew my issues and in an unguarded moment let me know his ultimate truth of the matter. I think what hurts most is there are very few men I trust and I was starting to trust him. Since, I've been led to believe, incorrectly, that he would be different, my trust is now a little more broken than it would be had he been upfront about his views and defended his predecessor.

[Give It Time]

What Pisses me off is that you need a recommend at all !!!!!!!!!!!!! All members should be able to go no matter what !!!

Actually Jack, even in light of my previous post, I agree with you. If it were open to all, I'd recognize that the ones who aren't conforming to the requirements need the temple, too.

Personally, I think they need separate wards for victims and abusers. Same goes for manuals and temples, etc.

[2bizE]

Do you feel guilt-ridden for telling your kids Santa Claus brought the presents? If not, then you shouldn't worry about fudging on the TR questions. They are both human inventions.

[Give It Time]

Do you feel guilt-ridden for telling your kids Santa Claus brought the presents? If not, then you shouldn't worry about fudging on the TR questions. They are both human inventions.

I don't feel guilty.

I never stated I did.

I said I'm pissed that my present bishop led me to believe that the previous bishop was wrong to give a temple recommend to an abuser, but when push came to shove he would allow himself to do the same.

By extension, I'm not impressed that the church doesn't lay down better guidelines about what exactly repentance looks like for an abuser, because, to an extent in can be quantified. The church could lay down better guidelines for all of these.