LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **February 28th, 2018, 8:51 pm**

There is no way someone should possess a Temple Recommend that

Supports.. Affilates with... or Agrees with homosexuality or gay marriage
These are contrary with the Church

This straight from the questions to obtain a Recommend

So what is the reality here?

Posted: **February 28th, 2018, 9:02 pm**

Anyone in favour of homosexuality/transexual/etc has prized man’s philosophies above God’s pure and precious truths.

Posted: **February 28th, 2018, 10:24 pm**

The instructions are very clear to those giving the interviews. Ask the questions as it they are worded.
So how can any member that agrees with gay marriage receive a recommend? Yes they agree, no they don't. No fence, one side or the other.

It really is that simple, so if that is the standard, why all the confusion?

Those that are on FB like the wife of the Bishop in Riverton seem to agree with gay marriage so how does that work?
Do they act one way on FB, and a different way in interviews?

I realize this last bit is speculation, but when will we get a clear answer?

Do we get direction in General Conference in 4 weeks?

Posted: **February 28th, 2018, 10:39 pm**

The source of the confusion is Elder Christofferson's statement that it is fine to support gay marriage on social media as long as one is not trying to damage the church. He specifically said temple recommends were not in jeopardy if one marches in gay pride parades or joins groups like Affirmaion.

For more on this, Google sltrib Mormons free to back gay marriage.

Posted: **February 28th, 2018, 11:26 pm**

TRANSCRIPT OF ELDER CHRISTOFFERSON’S INTERVIEW WITH DANIEL WOODRUFF OF KUTV NEWS
Starting at 4:11 in the video:

Woodruff (KUTV):
Well there is a diversity of opinion among church members in that regard. And you know that’s always been true, I guess, on many subjects over the years, over the decades, and we don’t have qualms about that. I mean people, we urge people to take part, for example, in the political process and we don’t tell them how to vote or who to vote for, but that they exercise their own good judgment and and make their decisions. Obviously that’s different than when somebody attacks the church you know, per se, or tries to hinder its work.

Elder Christofferson:
But anybody pursuing their view of what ought to happen in the community– that’s what we hope to see frankly. And in a way you saw it here in the legislature. The vast majority of legislators in Utah are members the LDS Church, and you see a wide variety of opinions in them and among them as you do in our, at the federal level in the US and in other countries. So we, if we’re trying to get everybody to sing the same song and say exactly the same thing we’re failing miserably. But you saw that in this case as in most I hope, people do work to come together on what can be the best solution for everyone.

Woodruff (KUTV): 6:02 in the video
“I know that in one of the temple recommend interview questions it asks, “do you agree with elements that are against the church?” and I guess, I mean, could it be interpreted that if people supported gay marriage that would be agreeing with something that was against the church?”

Elder Christofferson:
“Well, it’s not do you agree with a person’s position or an organization’s position, it is are you supporting, are you supporting organizations that promote opposition, or positions in opposition to the church.”

Woodruff (KUTV):
“So would supporting gay marriage threaten somebody’s membership in the church? If they went out, say, on Facebook or Twitter and actively advocated for it?”

Elder Christofferson:
“No. That’s not an organized, you know, effort to attack our effort or attack our functioning as a church, if you will.”

Woodruff (KUTV):
“So members can hold those beliefs even though they’re different from what you teach at the pulpit?”

Elder Christofferson:
“Yes and we, you know, our approach in all of this, as Joseph Smith said, is persuasion. You can’t, He said you can’t use the priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate– you can’t compel, you can’t coerce– it has to be gentleness, persuasion, love unfeigned, as the words are in the scripture.”

Woodruff (KUTV): 7:12
How would you describe the evolution of the church over time on this issue. I mean, for the last couple of years the anti discrimination act got no traction. The church coming out was a game changer, that many people believe that’s what made this law come into play. But we know over the decades rhetoric from church leaders hasn’t always been so supportive of measures like these. How would as an apostle would you explain to members the movement in church leaders and what they say about this issue from decades ago to today.

Christofferson:
“Well the doctrines have been clear and been consistent. And I want to emphasis that this is not a doctrinal evolution and doctrinal change as far as the church is concerned. It’s how things are approached, how things can come together when the time is right. How to talk about things, you know, how to be sensitive as you grow in understanding for example about same sex attraction as we all have. How do we help families, not just individuals but families cope with what that means and to maintain love and communication and fellowship within the family and in the church to the extent that is possible.”

Woodruff (KUTV): 11:09
“We’ve reported on your situation, you have a brother who is gay, and you’ve talked about how that has impacted your family. Has that, personally for you, has that family dynamic impacted at all how you’ve approached this issue– how you’ve approached publicly advocating, as an apostle, for SB296?”

Elder Christofferson:
“No. The the real genesis of, of the movement, if you will, behind these issues has been a matter of counseling together as we do in the church. We operate by councils: there’s the Quorum of the Twelve, which is a council, the First Presidency, is a council, and at the ward, the local levels, and the stake levels, we rely heavily on counseling together to determine which way to go and to, as a way of facilitating revelation and inspiration and receiving guidance that way. So it’s not one person says, you know, because of this experience that I’ve had in my life this is how we need to do it. But it’s this sharing of past experience, sharing of knowledge and background, but it’s after everything else a search for revelation– a search to know what the Lord’s will is and that’s what we try to follow.”

Woodruff (KUTV):
“What would you say to those members who wonder, is it possible: would the church ever, one day, accept monogamous same-sex marriage or move further beyond the position that you’re currently at?”

Elder Christofferson:
“I don’t think so, because that’s such a fundamental aspect of what we see as the purpose of life. You know, we talk about the plan of salvation as we call it, and take into account the pre-mortal existence, this current existence, and what comes hereafter– marriage between a man and a woman, the family that grows out of that– all of that is so fundamental to what has happened, what needs to happen here, what comes hereafter, that without it falls apart. So I don’t think we can take away the cornerstone without everything else coming down.”

Woodruff (KUTV):
“Now, you say you don’t think ..is there.. are leaving any room at all for…”

Elder Christofferson:
“No.”

Unidentified Man:
“This has been a divisive issue, in all of society, but I think also within the church– that people are still trying to sort out exactly how they think and feel and how to act and they don’t like feeling like they’re in opposition to the church but they may in their heart feel like marriage equality is something that they have a personal conviction of. What would be your message to those individuals within the church, that are trying desperately to stay within the church, but feel like that because they’re so at odds with what is publicly stated that they no longer feel like they might fit– your message to them? You know the church has done a lot with the I’m a Mormon campaign to emphasize the diversity of the backgrounds and perspectives within the church, but on this issue specifically I think people sometimes feel like it’s in or out.”

Elder Christofferson:
“Well it’s, it’s not an easy thing, and I believe we recognize that. Our hope is that over time, as we stay together and worship together and search for inspiration together, that ways open up for people of all persuasions to come to feel that they’re comfortable here. While they don’t know the eventual outcome and what’s going to happen in the near term– I should say what’s going to happen in the near term, they know the end result can be happiness– a state of happiness, a state of fulfillment, something that God desires for all– and we firmly believe no one is predestined to a second class status and… have a… no one who is is faithful to the commandments and the principles that we teach even though that may involve some very significant sacrifice in the short term (even all of mortal life, if you can call that short term) it’s all worth it in the end because nothing is denied anyone who is faithful. We don’t see all how that comes together, but we have the faith that it does because we have a God who created us all, loves us all, and is gonna give everyone who tries and who is loyal to him everything that he has to give.”

Posted: **March 1st, 2018, 5:36 pm**

Thanks for sharing the info, I really think that this is one of the greatest issues of our day....Mixed messages

Posted: **March 1st, 2018, 5:37 pm**

BTH&T wrote: ↑February 28th, 2018, 10:24 pm The instructions are very clear to those giving the interviews. Ask the questions as it they are worded.
So how can any member that agrees with gay marriage receive a recommend? Yes they agree, no they don't. No fence, one side or the other.

It really is that simple, so if that is the standard, why all the confusion?

Another twist on your question, and speaking of mixed messages - what if the person GIVING the interview, and asking this question, is publicly and vocally pro-SSM? Such is the case in my ward, currently (if you get interviewed by the 1st counselor in our Bishopric - and the months he's conducting sacrament meeting, he also gives all the recommend interviews). Oh what a tangled web...

Posted: **March 1st, 2018, 9:11 pm**

I once had a Bishop ask if I supported the legalization of same sex marriage (Just in conversation not as his role as Bishop.) I told him I did not. My wife scolded me for not being truthful with him because I failed to point out that I didn't think the government should be sanctioning anyone marriage.

So what about people such as myself who felt, and continue to feel, that governments should not be involved with marriage at all. That marriage is a religious matter and if a religion feels so inclined to marry same sex couple well so be it. Would I be considered to be supporting same sex marriage then? Do I get a recommend or not?

Posted: **March 1st, 2018, 9:26 pm**

gkearney wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 9:11 pm I once had a Bishop ask if I supported the legalization of same sex marriage (Just in conversation not as his role as Bishop.) I told him I did not. My wife scolded me for not being truthful with him because I failed to point out that I didn't think the government should be sanctioning anyone marriage.

So what about people such as myself who felt, and continue to feel, that governments should not be involved with marriage at all. That marriage is a religious matter and if a religion feels so inclined to marry same sex couple well so be it. Would I be considered to be supporting same sex marriage then? Do I get a recommend or not?

What does that have do with going against church policy or doctrine?
I'm in agreement, Gov't is involved in too much of our lives.
Gay marriage does go against The Lord's plan

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 5:36 am**

BTH&T wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 9:26 pm
gkearney wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 9:11 pm I once had a Bishop ask if I supported the legalization of same sex marriage (Just in conversation not as his role as Bishop.) I told him I did not. My wife scolded me for not being truthful with him because I failed to point out that I didn't think the government should be sanctioning anyone marriage.

So what about people such as myself who felt, and continue to feel, that governments should not be involved with marriage at all. That marriage is a religious matter and if a religion feels so inclined to marry same sex couple well so be it. Would I be considered to be supporting same sex marriage then? Do I get a recommend or not?
What does that have do with going against church policy or doctrine?
I'm in agreement, Gov't is involved in too much of our lives.
Gay marriage does go against The Lord's plan

The point is that I am perfect willing to permit same sex marriages if a church or other organizations want to do them. I simply do not care at that point as it would be none of my business anymore than any other such practice. So are my views tanimount to supporting same sex marriage because I would take no stand in opposition to it and indeed would defend the freedom of those faiths that do so practice it on the ground of freedom of religion.

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 5:57 am**

BTH&T wrote: ↑February 28th, 2018, 8:51 pm There is no way someone should possess a Temple Recommend that

Supports.. Affilates with... or Agrees with homosexuality or gay marriage
These are contrary with the Church

Agree 1,000,000%

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 6:17 am**

gkearney wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 5:36 am
The point is that I am perfect willing to permit same sex marriages if a church or other organizations want to do them. I simply do not care at that point as it would be none of my business anymore than any other such practice. So are my views tanimount to supporting same sex marriage because I would take no stand in opposition to it and indeed would defend the freedom of those faiths that do so practice it on the ground of freedom of religion.

The question would then be do you "support or agree" with gay marriage, the Recommend question given asks that.
Do you think from a Plan of Salvation standpoint that it is ok to do that?

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 6:32 am**

gkearney wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 5:36 am
BTH&T wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 9:26 pm
gkearney wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 9:11 pm I once had a Bishop ask if I supported the legalization of same sex marriage (Just in conversation not as his role as Bishop.) I told him I did not. My wife scolded me for not being truthful with him because I failed to point out that I didn't think the government should be sanctioning anyone marriage.

So what about people such as myself who felt, and continue to feel, that governments should not be involved with marriage at all. That marriage is a religious matter and if a religion feels so inclined to marry same sex couple well so be it. Would I be considered to be supporting same sex marriage then? Do I get a recommend or not?
What does that have do with going against church policy or doctrine?
I'm in agreement, Gov't is involved in too much of our lives.
Gay marriage does go against The Lord's plan
The point is that I am perfect willing to permit same sex marriages if a church or other organizations want to do them. I simply do not care at that point as it would be none of my business anymore than any other such practice. So are my views tanimount to supporting same sex marriage because I would take no stand in opposition to it and indeed would defend the freedom of those faiths that do so practice it on the ground of freedom of religion.

Even though it violates the commandments of God?
What about a religion that requires or permits bestiality? Child sacrifice?
What will you oppose?

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 6:51 am**

BTH&T wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 6:17 am
gkearney wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 5:36 am
The point is that I am perfect willing to permit same sex marriages if a church or other organizations want to do them. I simply do not care at that point as it would be none of my business anymore than any other such practice. So are my views tanimount to supporting same sex marriage because I would take no stand in opposition to it and indeed would defend the freedom of those faiths that do so practice it on the ground of freedom of religion.
The question would then be do you "support or agree" with gay marriage, the Recommend question given asks that.
Do you think from a Plan of Salvation standpoint that it is ok to do that?

From our theology, no ,I do not see how we can fit it into our theology. For others? I'm not in a position to answer that. Back when there was talk of a Constitutional Amendment on the issue I was, to say the least, doubtful of the idea because it would seem to tread upon the religious liberty of those faiths who do not have an issue with same sex marriage. Any attempt to amend the constitution in such a manner as to prohibit a religious observance like this is troubling to me. Which is why government should have no role in marriage to start with. The religious liberty of the Unitarians/Universalist is just as valuable as our own and an infringement upon one is an infringement upon all.

Now I am asked about a religion that requires or permits bestiality? Child sacrifice? Those are different cases as they do not involve adult consent. Marriage, is a contract and contracts demand a "meeting of the minds". There can not be such in the case of animals or children. We have lots of things that violate the commandments of God but which we do not suppose to make illegal. Fonication is but one such example.

So while I do not see any way forward for same sex marriage in our faith I can at the same time fully support same sex marriage when done so by others under the dictates of their own conscience (See Article of Faith 11). So am I supporting or agreeing with same sex marriage or not and under this test do I qualify for a temple recommend or not?

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 6:53 am**

gkearney wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 6:51 am
BTH&T wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 6:17 am
gkearney wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 5:36 am
The point is that I am perfect willing to permit same sex marriages if a church or other organizations want to do them. I simply do not care at that point as it would be none of my business anymore than any other such practice. So are my views tanimount to supporting same sex marriage because I would take no stand in opposition to it and indeed would defend the freedom of those faiths that do so practice it on the ground of freedom of religion.
The question would then be do you "support or agree" with gay marriage, the Recommend question given asks that.
Do you think from a Plan of Salvation standpoint that it is ok to do that?
From our theology, no ,I do not see how we can fit it into our theology. For others? I'm not in a position to answer that. Back when there was talk of a Constitutional Amendment on the issue I was, to say the least, doubtful of the idea because it would seem to tread upon the religious liberty of those faiths who do not have an issue with same sex marriage. Any attempt to amend the constitution in such a manner as to prohibit a religious observance like this is troubling to me. Which is why government should have no role in marriage to start with. The religious liberty of the Unitarians/Universalist is just as valuable as our own and an infringement upon one is an infringement upon all.

Now I am asked about a religion that requires or permits bestiality? Child sacrifice? Those are different cases as they do not involve adult consent. Marriage, is a contract and contracts demand a "meeting of the minds". There can not be such in the case of animals or children. We have lots of things that violate the commandments of God but which we do not suppose to make illegal. Fonication is but one such example.

So while I do not see any way forward for same sex marriage in our faith I can at the same time fully support same sex marriage when done so by others under the dictates of their own conscience (See Article of Faith 11). So am I supporting or agreeing with same sex marriage or not and under this test do I qualify for a temple recommend or not?

This is snowflake thinking in my view.

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 6:59 am**

I think it is up to the key holders to decide, and they will answer for that judgment some day. No worries on my account.

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 8:37 am**

BTH&T wrote: ↑February 28th, 2018, 8:51 pm There is no way someone should possess a Temple Recommend that

Supports.. Affilates with... or Agrees with homosexuality or gay marriage
These are contrary with the Church

This straight from the questions to obtain a Recommend

So what is the reality here?

'Supports' 'affiliates' or 'agrees' are all varying levels of agreement on this and it's pretty broad.

Back in the days when the church was still practicing polygamy but the Government was cracking down hard, one thing they enacted was an anti-polygamy oath which all Mormons who wanted to exercise their right to vote needed to take. It didn't matter if they were practicing polygamists or simply believed it because the church taught it, they were disenfranchised for not denouncing it.

So, is this where you want to go? Do you want to punish those who don't practice or engage in homosexuality or gay marriage, but in their own beliefs, think it's okay for others to do so? If they attend a gay pride parade because a gay loved one asked them to, or attended a birthday party for a gay person, is that 'affiliating'? What guidelines does a Bishop/Stake Pres. use to determine what is meant by 'support, agree, affiliate' in order to deny a temple recommend?

So, then, if a person acknowledges that Gay marriage is legal in this country and they accept that the govt. can allow it and people can enter these 'marriages', is that 'agreeing' or 'supporting' the law and do you think they should be punished for that belief?

Sounds to me like you believe the church should set up a kind of 'Edmunds-Tucker' act-like test for Temple worthy Mormons to keep out those who don't actively oppose the practice for others--even if they are not of our faith or have left the church and are living a gay lifestyle.

If we do that, then we'll have to broaden the net. How about those among LDS who agree that Abortion is wrong, but feel that since it's legal, others are allowed to have them?

What about the use of alcohol or tobacco among non-members and no longer active LDS? Should we make LDS who want a recommend, denounce the use of these products by anyone, even non members?

How about illegal immigration? The church has taken a soft stand on it, so does that mean that LDS members are not supporting the church if they take a hard stance against it? If they join a protest demanding the deportation of illegals, would that be 'affiliating' with those who don't agree with the church?

The way I see it, once the church starts down this road of punishing those who don't agree completely on all it teaches, there's no end to what you can make an offense that keeps members from the temple. "Simply not committing the sin will not be enough, they will have to actively show that they oppose the sin as well. Will LDS have to put in place some kind of 'shunning' of others in order to show they don't 'support, affiliate, or agree' with anything that the Bishop/Stake pres. views as 'contrary' to anything and everything the church teaches and supports?

The church forbids polygamy, but I know many on this forum that approve of it and want the church to bring it back. There are many on this forum that believe (and even teach) Adam-god theory, which has been denounced as false doctrine. Should we find those members and force them to denounce these beliefs? Make sure that we're all in agreement on what we're allowed to believe?

So, I fully support what Elder Christofferson said, because not only is he a prophet, seer and revelator, he's also inspired. Some may feel he's waffling and secretly supports gays and is just waiting to implement it in the church, but to me, I view a man who knows that it's a fine line to walk between engaging in what you know is immoral behavior (this is condemned) and having to accept that we live in a wicked world where many sinful behaviors are now accepted and even sanctioned by our society and are completely legal and protected by our Federal Government. He's not interested in the church being the 'thought police' on some of these things which would make the church as tyrannical as the Federal govt. once was in dealing with lds church members.

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 11:45 am**

What guidelines does a Bishop/Stake Pres. use to determine what is meant by 'support, agree, affiliate' in order to deny a temple recommend?

Great question - I wish we, the members of the Church - knew the answer to that question - and I'm sure the bishops and stake presidents wish they knew the answer, too. This has been on my mind a lot the last several years, so when I went to my most recent recommend interviews, I asked both my bishop and my stake president, what exactly does that question mean? Their reactions were identical - first, a kind of surprised look on their faces; then, silence as they thought for a moment; then, a comment similar to, "I've never thought about it before, and honestly, I have no idea." So, at least my local leaders have no idea what the question is even asking - so why ask it? What is the "right" answer? There isn't one! Because nobody even knows what the question means. Here is the actual question, as written and asked by our local leaders during our recommend interviews -

"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 way I see it, once the church starts down this road of punishing those who don't agree completely on all it teaches, there's no end to what you can make an offense that keeps members from the temple.

I agree, which is why it is my opinion that the Church should do away with that particular question, as there is no honest or "right" way to answer it. Four of my siblings are self-named apostates from the LDS Church - I don't support them in their apostasy, but I love them and associate with them (I asked my bishop and stake president about them particularly, and they said, "No, the question doesn't apply to things like that" - yet, they couldn't tell me what/who the question DOES apply to, which I thought was, frankly, bizarre.). Many people consider the Democrat Party to be one of the groups mentioned - and conversely, the Republican Party; also, the BSA and a bunch of other organizations. In the end, the Church itself doesn't even define who/what they're talking about - the local leaders have no clue - therefore, IMO, the question is moot and should be removed from the list of recommend questions, as it serves exactly ZERO purpose.

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 12:41 pm**

EmmaLee wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 11:45 am
What guidelines does a Bishop/Stake Pres. use to determine what is meant by 'support, agree, affiliate' in order to deny a temple recommend?

Great question - I wish we, the members of the Church - knew the answer to that question - and I'm sure the bishops and stake presidents wish they knew the answer, too. This has been on my mind a lot the last several years, so when I went to my most recent recommend interviews, I asked both my bishop and my stake president, what exactly does that question mean? Their reactions were identical - first, a kind of surprised look on their faces; then, silence as they thought for a moment; then, a comment similar to, "I've never thought about it before, and honestly, I have no idea." So, at least my local leaders have no idea what the question is even asking - so why ask it? What is the "right" answer? There isn't one! Because nobody even knows what the question means. Here is the actual question, as written and asked by our local leaders during our recommend interviews -

"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 way I see it, once the church starts down this road of punishing those who don't agree completely on all it teaches, there's no end to what you can make an offense that keeps members from the temple.

I agree, which is why it is my opinion that the Church should do away with that particular question, as there is no honest or "right" way to answer it. Four of my siblings are self-named apostates from the LDS Church - I don't support them in their apostasy, but I love them and associate with them (I asked my bishop and stake president about them particularly, and they said, "No, the question doesn't apply to things like that" - yet, they couldn't tell me what/who the question DOES apply to, which I thought was, frankly, bizarre.). Many people consider the Democrat Party to be one of the groups mentioned - and conversely, the Republican Party; also, the BSA and a bunch of other organizations. In the end, the Church itself doesn't even define who/what they're talking about - the local leaders have no clue - therefore, IMO, the question is moot and should be removed from the list of recommend questions, as it serves exactly ZERO purpose.

I think a lot of us are in that same boat having friends, associates and/or loved ones who may even be hostile to the church, but we don't cut them out of our lives.

My understanding of this question is that it is to self identify (if they answer honestly) those who are involved with polygamist groups. There are a lot of them, not just the biggies like FLDS and AUB, but also groups like the Lambs of God. But, nowadays, it will also cause a person to self identify (if they are being honest) if they are involved with Snuffer's Remnant or in the 90's, with Harmston's TLC--if they answer that question honestly, they will admit they would have to answer 'yes' to that question if they are attending, being rebaptized, or involved with a group 'who's teachings, practices are contrary to or oppose those of the LDS church.'

This is an interesting posting you might like to read which goes along with this discussion;

http://www.the-exponent.com/guest-post- ... -question/

I think the point is that if a member is unsure of whether the answer is 'yes' or 'no' to any of the questions, they can discuss it with the person interviewing them. Hopefully they will be able to explain.

I agree, the way that question is worded is pretty vague, especially if it was put in there for determining if a person was involved with a dissident group, such as a polygamist organization, which was the most likely dissident group in earlier times.

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 12:57 pm**

EmmaLee wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 11:45 am I agree, which is why it is my opinion that the Church should do away with that particular question, as there is no honest or "right" way to answer it. Four of my siblings are self-named apostates from the LDS Church - I don't support them in their apostasy, but I love them and associate with them (I asked my bishop and stake president about them particularly, and they said, "No, the question doesn't apply to things like that" - yet, they couldn't tell me what/who the question DOES apply to, which I thought was, frankly, bizarre.). Many people consider the Democrat Party to be one of the groups mentioned - and conversely, the Republican Party; also, the BSA and a bunch of other organizations. In the end, the Church itself doesn't even define who/what they're talking about - the local leaders have no clue - therefore, IMO, the question is moot and should be removed from the list of recommend questions, as it serves exactly ZERO purpose.

Thanks again for the insight (both Emmalee and AI2.0)
I do see things very straightforward and I do think the question is a valid one, but as pointed out it does leave much to interpretation, which is not good.

It is my belief that we should not be in any way supportive of those people or groups that are against The Lord or the Church
We do need to choose sides and not fight against the right

In the end isn’t that what it comes down to. Who’s side are we on

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 1:29 pm**

My father, who built LDS Churches for many years used to always answer this recommend question :"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?" , in the affirmative. When asked what organization he affiliated with, he stated it was the church building department.
He always got his recommend.

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 1:32 pm**

BTH&T wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 12:57 pmIt is my belief that we should not be in any supportive of those people or groups that are against The Lord or the Church
We do need to choose sides and not fight against the right

In the end isn’t that what it comes down to. Who’s side are we on

Yes, and God knows what's in our hearts, regardless of how we answer this, or any, recommend question. We may be able to fool our local leaders, but God? Never.

Like the hymn says, Who's on the Lord's side, who? It's a question I ask myself frequently these days, as it's very hard to tell sometimes.

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 2:07 pm**

AI2.0 wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 12:41 pm
EmmaLee wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 11:45 am
What guidelines does a Bishop/Stake Pres. use to determine what is meant by 'support, agree, affiliate' in order to deny a temple recommend?

Great question - I wish we, the members of the Church - knew the answer to that question - and I'm sure the bishops and stake presidents wish they knew the answer, too. This has been on my mind a lot the last several years, so when I went to my most recent recommend interviews, I asked both my bishop and my stake president, what exactly does that question mean? Their reactions were identical - first, a kind of surprised look on their faces; then, silence as they thought for a moment; then, a comment similar to, "I've never thought about it before, and honestly, I have no idea." So, at least my local leaders have no idea what the question is even asking - so why ask it? What is the "right" answer? There isn't one! Because nobody even knows what the question means. Here is the actual question, as written and asked by our local leaders during our recommend interviews -

"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 way I see it, once the church starts down this road of punishing those who don't agree completely on all it teaches, there's no end to what you can make an offense that keeps members from the temple.

I agree, which is why it is my opinion that the Church should do away with that particular question, as there is no honest or "right" way to answer it. Four of my siblings are self-named apostates from the LDS Church - I don't support them in their apostasy, but I love them and associate with them (I asked my bishop and stake president about them particularly, and they said, "No, the question doesn't apply to things like that" - yet, they couldn't tell me what/who the question DOES apply to, which I thought was, frankly, bizarre.). Many people consider the Democrat Party to be one of the groups mentioned - and conversely, the Republican Party; also, the BSA and a bunch of other organizations. In the end, the Church itself doesn't even define who/what they're talking about - the local leaders have no clue - therefore, IMO, the question is moot and should be removed from the list of recommend questions, as it serves exactly ZERO purpose.

I think a lot of us are in that same boat having friends, associates and/or loved ones who may even be hostile to the church, but we don't cut them out of our lives.

Unless or until their behavior starts affecting us and our families in negative ways. Then, I believe, as heartbreaking as it is, we have the responsibility to do what is best for our own family (spouse/children), and sadly, sometimes that does indeed mean not having associations with those who will teach our young children incorrect, untrue things - because if we do allow that, then the sin will be upon OUR heads. As responsible parents, our God-given duty is to protect our children from physical harm, but protecting them from spiritual harm is even more vital.

My understanding of this question is that it is to self identify (if they answer honestly) those who are involved with polygamist groups. There are a lot of them, not just the biggies like FLDS and AUB, but also groups like the Lambs of God.

Yes, after I pressed my stake president about the question - and after he'd thought for a few minutes - he decided that it probably refers to polygamy - then he also gave his opinion that the question is out-dated and should be done away with. Part of his reasoning, and I agree, is that polygamy seems to be a Utah thing, or at most, a 'Mormon Corridor' thing. Out here in the Midwest (and I'm assuming anywhere outside the MorCor), it's a non-issue for members and non-members alike - it just doesn't even come on our radar, so it is bizarre to us to connect that question to polygamy. And besides, if that truly IS what it is referring to, just say it! Say, "Do you support, affiliate, or agree with any polygamous groups?"

But, nowadays, it will also cause a person to self identify (if they are being honest) if they are involved with Snuffer's Remnant or in the 90's, with Harmston's TLC--if they answer that question honestly, they will admit they would have to answer 'yes' to that question if they are attending, being rebaptized, or involved with a group 'who's teachings, practices are contrary to or oppose those of the LDS church.'

I agree completely with this. As we know, there are several who post here on LDSFF that have been 're-baptized' outside the auspices of the LDS Church in recent years (following the counsel of Snuffer, et al) - yet they still claim to be faithful, temple-going members of the LDS Church. This confuses me, as while reading through the CHI the other day, being re-baptized like this, outside the authority and records of the Church, is an excommunicable offense. So it makes me think these people have not, in fact, been honest in their dealings with their fellowman, and told their bishop and stake president about their Snuffer-baptism. But in the end, it doesn't matter, as the Lord knows - nothing is hidden or kept from him.

This is an interesting posting you might like to read which goes along with this discussion;

http://www.the-exponent.com/guest-post- ... -question/

I think the point is that if a member is unsure of whether the answer is 'yes' or 'no' to any of the questions, they can discuss it with the person interviewing them. Hopefully they will be able to explain.

Thanks for the link - interesting. Yes, that is why I did just that, and asked my local leaders about that question. Their response was about what I expected, but I have to admit, it kind of disappointed me, as I was hoping to get more insight/more specifics.

I agree, the way that question is worded is pretty vague, especially if it was put in there for determining if a person was involved with a dissident group, such as a polygamist organization, which was the most likely dissident group in earlier times.

Yep, a re-wording, or elimination of it altogether, would make a lot of sense. In fact, try as I might, I can't think of any reason to ask any other question (at least for those who have already been through the temple), other than - "Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?" because honestly, if you answer "Yes" to that, it covers all the other questions - and if you answer "No", then your answer to any of the other questions doesn't matter. But, they don't ask for my opinion on the matter, so...

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 5:15 pm**

These are the instructions for the recommend interview

Church officers make every effort to see that no unworthy person enters the house of the Lord.
Temple recommend interviews must be private. They should not be rushed.
Interviewers should not add any requirements to those that are outlined in the temple recommend book.
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.

From what I read of the instructions I am more convinced that this is very important to the Lord that we are worthy to enter His House.

The question being discussed (#7) is important to show where our allegiances are.
Do we side with the temporal and wishy washy ways of man or is our heart and mind clean and worthy.

I don't think that association with family who have strayed is what is meant, unless we are so overcome with worldly compassion that we put temporal things ahead of putting God first and support the causes of our loved ones.

When we "Support, Affiliate with, Agree with" earthly causes and groups that are opposed what is right and true we are unworthy to enter the House of The Lord.

When you are asked and answer questions during your Interview, it is as if you are in fact stating your worthiness to the Lord.
If you are supporting gay marriage/homosexual causes that fight against The Lord's Church The answer to that question should be Yes" in my opinion, we are to be honest aren't we?

Posted: **March 2nd, 2018, 7:20 pm**

BTH&T wrote: ↑February 28th, 2018, 8:51 pm There is no way someone should possess a Temple Recommend that

Supports.. Affilates with... or Agrees with homosexuality or gay marriage
These are contrary with the Church

This straight from the questions to obtain a Recommend

So what is the reality here?

News Flash: the church is made up of lots of individuals that have recommends that really shouldn’t.

They are only condemning themselves as God can see right through the lies.

LDS Freedom Forum

No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage

Re: No Temple Recommend for those that are pro homosexuality or pro gay marriage