Page 1 of 1
Change to Temple Recommend Question
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:26 am
by _I have a question
In an uncharacteristic outburst of gossip and breaching of confidentiality, the normally cowed and faithful church-broke Brother Smac has registered a discussion about a change to one of the temple recommend questions that appears to have been quietly slotted in.
A friend of mine who is in a bishopric just told me that he noticed what appears to be a change in the online list of temple recommend questions for limited-use recommends. Specifically, question 7 states:
Do you support any group or person whose teachings oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
The corollary question for regular temple recommends is:
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.
Anyone know anything about this?
-Smac
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/712 ... -question/Assuming for a moment that Brother Smac's gossipy bishopric friend is being truthful, and that this change has happened...I think we can clearly identify what recent events have prompted such a move, but what are the wider implications of taking this step closer to an Orwellian 1984 institutional operating model?
Re: Change to Temple Recommend Question
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:48 pm
by _lostindc
I wonder if they will add a question about vitamin intake?
Re: Change to Temple Recommend Question
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:56 pm
by _DrW
Assuming for a moment that Brother Smac's gossipy bishopric friend is being truthful, I am personally aware of a multitude of souls residing in Southern Utah whose temple recommends will not be renewed.
These include my BIC, life-long, TBM mother and several of her relatives and offspring. A significant proportion of the more rural and senior LDS members in this small part of the world, most of whom still consider themselves Mormons, now attend alternative community gatherings on Sunday.
Perhaps this is a manifestation of an metropolitan culture / rural culture split in LDS Church membership that is reflective of that in the politics of US population in general.
Re: Change to Temple Recommend Question
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:25 pm
by _oliblish
Notice that the change is for Limited Use Recommends only.
Re: Change to Temple Recommend Question
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:29 pm
by _Maksutov
"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."
Does this mean multitudes of scientists, historians, philosophers, journalists, researchers of various kinds? It's kind of hard to know what's "accepted by TCOJCOLDS" when they can't keep their stories straight from one prophet to the next.
Re: Change to Temple Recommend Question
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:34 pm
by _Craig Paxton
I have a question wrote:In an uncharacteristic outburst of gossip and breaching of confidentiality, the normally cowed and faithful church-broke Brother Smac has registered a discussion about a change to one of the temple recommend questions that appears to have been quietly slotted in.
A friend of mine who is in a bishopric just told me that he noticed what appears to be a change in the online list of temple recommend questions for limited-use recommends. Specifically, question 7 states:
Do you support any group or person whose teachings oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
The corollary question for regular temple recommends is:
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.
Anyone know anything about this?
This change (if true) would seem to fix a mental gymnastic problem for believing spouses in a mixed faith marriage. Now these believing spouses no longer have to wrestle with the reality that they affiliate with or agree with their non-member or no longer believing spouse who may hold viewpoints that the corporation would view as apostate or whose lifestyle a.k.a. practices that might conflict with those taught by the church. I see this change as a good thing and acknowledgement by the church that their traditional 100% hold on families is changing and that they needed to catch up with this reality.