Undeserved Temple Recommends

[_sock puppet]

No doubt each bishop and stake president applies the CHI and temple recommend interviews differently than other bishops and state president.

A bishop or stake president that is on the stricter side of the scale might think a person in another stake should not be allowed in, but that person holds a temple recommend.

Has the COB, to anyone's knowledge, re-calibrated a particular bishop or stake president after having learned of rather lax standards being used by that particular bishop or stake president (perhaps through a once holder of a recommend being referred to the COB for perhaps a sealing cancellation and in the course of the COB interview the history related reveals that the member should not have had a recommend in the first place, with which to be sealed)?

[_sock puppet]

And a related question, does anyone know of the COB having declared any endowments or sealings null and void ab initio? If so, what were those circumstances?

[_Jonah]

I received a letter from the Bishop stating that my ex was seeking a cancelation of sealing and asking if there were any circumstances where she should be denied a cancelation. I wrote him back saying I didn't divorce her with the intention of there being any strings attached. I could care less what she did with her life.

I did question him though in my letter about how she could qualify for a temple recommend. I cited several of the questions asked in the recommend interview, and then provided him with information that if those questions were still asked, there was no way possible she could answer in the affirmative. I also mentioned that if he had any questions, I would be available with any documentation. I never heard from him again. Four weeks later she was re-married in the temple. None of the points I brought up in my letter were addressed.

About a month later my teenage daughter was interviewed by the Bishop to be allowed to be baptized for the dead. She was aware of the things her mother had done (draining my daughter's savings account of $2500 was one of the things), and was also aware of the letter I had sent questioning my ex's worthiness. She asked the Bishop how, in light of the information I had provided for him, how her mother would be able to obtain a temple recommend without, amongst other things, restitution? The Bishop responded that since I was no longer an active member, my words (letter) carried no credibility.

I don't think my letter made it to the COB. I guess my ex and her new hubby being full tithe payers has it's perks. It's all good though, I have been "blessed" in other ways. Besides my ex-mo testimony being strengthened, this Bishop was able to accomplish something I could not. He was able to get my daughter to question the truthfulness of the church and it's leaders. He "planted the seed". That was about 10 years ago and ever since she has been going down a path that will one day take her out of the cult. For that I am eternally grateful to that Bishop.

[_sock puppet]

I received a letter from the Bishop stating that my ex was seeking a cancelation of sealing and asking if there were any circumstances where she should be denied a cancelation. I wrote him back saying I didn't divorce her with the intention of there being any strings attached. I could care less what she did with her life.

I did question him though in my letter about how she could qualify for a temple recommend. I cited several of the questions asked in the recommend interview, and then provided him with information that if those questions were still asked, there was no way possible she could answer in the affirmative. I also mentioned that if he had any questions, I would be available with any documentation. I never heard from him again. Four weeks later she was re-married in the temple. None of the points I brought up in my letter were addressed.

About a month later my teenage daughter was interviewed by the Bishop to be allowed to be baptized for the dead. She was aware of the things her mother had done (draining my daughter's savings account of $2500 was one of the things), and was also aware of the letter I had sent questioning my ex's worthiness. She asked the Bishop how, in light of the information I had provided for him, how her mother would be able to obtain a temple recommend without, amongst other things, restitution? The Bishop responded that since I was no longer an active member, my words (letter) carried no credibility.

I don't think my letter made it to the COB. I guess my ex and her new hubby being full tithe payers has it's perks. It's all good though, I have been "blessed" in other ways. Besides my ex-mo testimony being strengthened, this Bishop was able to accomplish something I could not. He was able to get my daughter to question the truthfulness of the church and it's leaders. He "planted the seed". That was about 10 years ago and ever since she has been going down a path that will one day take her out of the cult. For that I am eternally grateful to that Bishop.

That, Jonah, it one of it not the best personal experience with Mormonism posts of the year.

I have a hypothesis that the reason Mormons eschew the notion that the Articles of Faith, the CHI, the temple recommend questions, or anything else as creedal is because they recognize just how ad hoc their religion actually is. Successfully being a Mormon means succesfully playing the politics with the leadership. Your ex-wife seems to be doing that quite well.

[_sock puppet]

Jonah,

If find the bishop's equation,

apostate = untrustworthy source of information

to be an interesting dynamic of Mormonism. It serves as a firewall for the leadership and faithful against anything (true or not) that an apostate might say about the Church or any of its members.

Just rejecting what an apostate might say, out of hand and without any forensic evaluation, encourages the remaining flock to stay right where they are.

And this man, this bishop, is going to be a judge in Israel. Well, there will certainly be miscarriages of justice for those in the geographical bounds of his ward.

[_just me]

One has to wonder why the hell they send a letter to the ex at all.

sock, I am aware of a ward/stake (can't recall) being told to stop denying recommends to caffienated pop drinkers.
I have never been made aware of a ward or stake to be more restrictive.

[_sock puppet]

One has to wonder why the hell they send a letter to the ex at all.

sock, I am aware of a ward/stake (can't recall) being told to stop denying recommends to caffienated pop drinkers.
I have never been made aware of a ward or stake to be more restrictive.

I wonder if the letter was stained brown from a spill of TSM's Pepsi?

[_just me]

One has to wonder why the hell they send a letter to the ex at all.

sock, I am aware of a ward/stake (can't recall) being told to stop denying recommends to caffienated pop drinkers.
I have never been made aware of a ward or stake to be more restrictive.

I wonder if the letter was stained brown from a spill of TSM's Pepsi?

The story is way better. Supposedly the area Seventy, or whatever, dealt with it in person....with a soda.

[_sock puppet]

One has to wonder why the hell they send a letter to the ex at all.

sock, I am aware of a ward/stake (can't recall) being told to stop denying recommends to caffienated pop drinkers.
I have never been made aware of a ward or stake to be more restrictive.

I wonder if the letter was stained brown from a spill of TSM's Pepsi?

The story is way better. Supposedly the area Seventy, or whatever, dealt with it in person....with a soda.

I have to say, I like the moxie of that Seventy, or whatever. Great object lesson.

[_harmony]

Given the authority, Dan would jerk my temple recommend in a heartbeat.