Undeserved Temple Recommends

[_why me]

Wait a second ... aren't these the same posers that claim to talk to God daily? Why can't they dispute what they say.

For example, Thomas Monson could pose the question to Jesus something like this (during one of their weekly brunches in the Salt Lake temple):
.

Yes, he could spend his life posing questions to Jesus to sort out who is lying etc other mundane things etc. But I don't think that it works that way. As I have said, people are allowed to lie to their god, if they chose to do so. Why would the church interfere with someone's free agency to lie? And even now with Jonah we need to assume that the exwife has her own story to tell. Such is a spat between exes. Different stories are the name of the game.

[_sock puppet]

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 that it had much to do with you being active or inactive. But it is between your ex and god. Many bishops will not get involved in a domestic spat. If your exwife was dishonest in her temple interview, there was nothing for her bishop to do. He must accept her answers. And I don't think that any good bishop would answer your daughter with: since your dad is inactive, what he says doesn't matter. But that is only my take on it.

The bishop must take her at face value when he has information that contradicts her answers? Really? Another f***ed Mormon practice to reward lying, if they do not question the answers in the face value of contrary information.

[_sock puppet]

The local leaders do not want to get involved in domestic spats between exes.

But many of them frequently do, to "counsel" them.

[_sock puppet]

These guys are only human. Or your daughter or you are remembering it wrong in context. I can see a bishop telling a daughter that it is difficult because her dad is no longer active and all such things can not be verified. But even then, it becomes whose word is believeable. And this is what a bishop would want to avoid in a ex-spouse spat.

If I recall, you seem to use the "These guys are only human" excuse quite often. Haaa haaa...what a cop-out.

No, there was no "mis-remembering" by me or my daughter. I was sent a letter from the Bishop asking for my response. I raised a question, provided truth, and offered documentation to back up my truths. There was no "ex-spouse" spat. Just simple facts that any "human guy" would easily be able to digest. He didn't want to confront the full-tithe paying members. It was easier to throw me under the bus. He just did so with the wrong person who knew the facts as well...my daughter.

PAY LAY ALE!! Oh god, hear the words of my mouth...thank you, thank you, thank you for having this Bishop speak to my daughter in such a way.

Love it.

Pay lay ale. Oh god, beer is good for my mouth.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm in the Yahoo Bot camp with this one... There are more than a few Mormons who ought not be in possession of a temple recommend. They're lying scoundrels & cowards. If you don't sustain and support the prophets, both past and present, then you shouldn't be a Mormon... Too bad if you're doing it to simply "keep the peace" or you enjoy the "built-in community". Have some balls, and tap out. Have a goddamn conscience.

V/R
Doctor Cameron, North Carolina for me

[_sock puppet]

I'm in the Yahoo Bot camp with this one... There are more than a few Mormons who ought not be in possession of a temple recommend. They're lying scoundrels & cowards. If you don't sustain and support the prophets, both past and present, then you shouldn't be a Mormon... Too bad if you're doing it to simply "keep the peace" or you enjoy the "built-in community". Have some balls, and tap out. Have a goddamn conscience.

V/R
Doctor Cameron, North Carolina for me

Hey, Dr Cam, I think you have a purist viewpoint, that I can appreciate. While you do not believe, you do not see the party of someone unworthy crashing the believer's temple party. That is respectful of those believers.

I also appreciate the viewpoint that there are people who once were sure that LDS Church's truth claims were true, have matured a bit, taken a new look with a mind open to both possibilities, are unsure and are yet involved with Mormonism hoping that old surety will return. I doubt any bishop/SP (except bcspace) would deny them a recommend.

Their lament might go something like this:

I've lost that believin' feeling,
Whoa, that believin' feeling,
I've lost that believin' feeling,
Now it's gone...gone...gone...wooooooh.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hey, Dr Cam, I think you have a purist viewpoint, that I can appreciate.

I have to admit I'm a purist when it comes to religion. You're either in or you're out. You either believe it or you don't. One way or the other. The Middle Way when it comes to religion is stupid, and selfish. I think there's something biblical with being... You know.. Lukewarm and all that crap.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Some Schmo]

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 can't get past the "stealing your kid's savings" thing. Really?

Holy “F”, what a cunt.

[_Fence Sitter]

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.

The bishop and stake president are supposed to carefully interview anyone that has been divorced to see if they are temple worthy. I imagine that a letter to the ex is part of that investigation. I would expect that an active member's words would carry a lot more weight with the bishop and stake president than one who is inactive or in another area.

As Whyme as pointed out bishops and stake presidents are just people.

[Guest]

As Whyme as pointed out bishops and stake presidents are just people.

And so too, just people that is, are the LDS prophets, including JSJr, Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. That's the point, they're just people. LDS and other religious leaders should drop the pretense about talking with god, and drop the pretense that the bishop and stake president are inspired by god. Its all just run by a committee of old corporate farts at the COB. That's the big truth no one in Zion dares utter out loud.

It's like Charlton Heston's discovery about future food at the end of Soylent Green.