Before conducting my first baptismal interview on my mission, I sought the advice of my mission president. I knew what the right answers to the questions were but felt there must be something more to the interview – something ineffable that I was nonetheless supposed to detect in determining worthiness. The substance of his advice was this:
An interview is an opportunity for the new convert to share testimony. You might prepare them by asking about their conversion before beginning the interview. Then, during the questions, listen for the Spirit that will accompany the bearing of testimony.
His advice was excellent and transformed a bureaucratic experience into one of my favorite mission responsibilities.
The same perspective applied well to other interviews. I vividly remember my first temple recommend renewal interview – conducted with that same mission president – when I felt how a simple ‘yes’ can come loaded with testimony, when it is given in response to a question like “Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?” When I laters served in a bishopric, I was similarly delighted to hear the power behind the ‘yes’ when interviewing ward members.
Though interviews have become, for me, a wonderful opportunity to declare testimony and commitment and to hear the same from others, that’s far from the universal experience. Often, for reasons completely unrelated to sinfulness, these can be harrowing experiences for members of the Church. Mostly, I suspect, this has to do with uncertain power dynamics and Church leaders who are too willing to interject their own additional requirements into the process.
As far as I know, the temple recommend questions have not come to us by way of revelation. Instead (as with many of the regulations of Judaism), they are a mortal attempt to protect something we hold to be sacred. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to reconsider how they might best reflect our understanding of the sacred and of the Savior’s universal invitation to come unto Him.
In this spirit and with my mission president’s advice echoing in my mind, here are my suggestions for the questions as I wish they were asked. I would love this to be the beginning of a wider conversation.
- Keep the opening questions about faith/testimony. As explained above, these to me are the heart of the process. (Though, couldn’t we add Heavenly Mother alongside Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?)
- Instead of asking about particular behaviors (chastity, health code, tithing, honesty), could we ask about repentance and forgiveness? Something like “Do you actively and regularly seek repentance and forgiveness?” seems to me must more important than weighing particular sins. The questions about specific standards are so open to interpretation anyway. I know plenty of people who said “yes” to keeping the Word of Wisdom but who don’t eat meat sparingly while others are kept from the temple for an occasional cup of coffee. Don’t even get me started on “honest in your dealings with your fellowmen” – even the dishonest will say yes and what’s with the gendered language?
- The wording of “Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?” is a poor invitation to full repentance. Instead, it can come off as accusatory and reinforces the awkward power dynamic of too many interviews. How about this instead, following right after the general repentance question: “As part of the repentance process, is there anything you feel the need to confess or share at this time?”
- Speaking of interpretation, how many ways can we parse “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?” If what we’re really worried about is polygamy, we should just ask that. If we also mean “Do you march in gay pride parades?” then ask that. But right now I know bishops who suspect you should answer ‘yes’ if you belong to the Democratic Party and others who think a ‘yes’ answer is reserved for groups intentionally dedicated to tearing the Church down. How about this for a clearer alternative: “Do you seek to damage or tear down The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints individually or as part of an organized effort?”
- I assume that, in part, the questions about “conduct relating to members of your family” and financial support to family members are there to protect the Church from criticism that we aren’t watching out for abuse or are shielding our tithe-paying members from child support. Promoting appropriate behavior and responsibilities to family seem like worthy goals, so I have no problem with keeping these questions.
- Which brings us to the closing question: “Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?” Ugh. If, like me, you have high self-esteem and a reasonable confidence about Church matters, this is an easy question to answer “yes” to, with a bright smile. If, like many others I’ve interviewed, you struggle with a sense of your individual worth or your worth within the Church, this question to lead to additional anxiety. And it’s difficulty may have NOTHING to do with sinfulness and everything to do with Church culture, gender, sexual orientation, time as a member, race, ethnicity, political views, etc. Rather than introducing further uncertainty, why not – on the basis of the earlier questions – close the interview by assuring the interviewee of her/his worthiness. Celebrate rather than adding another layer of doubt.
What are your thoughts? What would you discard, add, keep, or change to the interview questions?
The main problem I have with the TR interview is the fact someone else is deciding your worthiness. Sure you get to as well, but in the end my relationship to God is between myself and God, the bishop can help if I think he’s helpful, beyond that he shouldn’t be involved as a mandate to achieve spirituality.
I have gave up my reccomend for this reason. I decided (due to my own personal issues) I need to be responsible for my spirituality and deciding my worth, not some guy who has his own issues and is hardly able to look at any item dispassionately.
If the reccomend process was just putting the questions in front of you, and asking one to read them and sign the reccomend with no other signature, I would be on board.
I understand that. But for me, my worry is that it’s too easy (on my own) to build a God of my own imaginings. Better to have some accountability – to look across the desk at another imperfect person and reaffirm my beliefs and worthiness. So, my preference is for reform. But I get where the “scrap it” approach is coming from. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
“conduct relating to members of your family” can also be viewed as an abuse question, Phil
I agree. That’s what I thought I said but perhaps didn’t make clear enough.
I question the necessity of answering the exact same questions with your SP that you did with your bishop. Maybe 1 time out of 100, the SP will somehow uncover something that the bishop didn’t catch. But the other 99 times it’s just adding an additional requirement of bureaucracy and time spent. I’ve got my TR halfway validated but it will probably be another month before I can get in front of a member of the Stake Presidency, just because they’re so busy. And if you wait TOO long, the SP will bounce you back to your bishop to repeat the interview and have another TR (half) issued and then you have to start the annoying process all over again.
Sorry to hear about the lag time. From the wards I’ve been in, this has been a relatively easy process. But we’ve also had to get last-minute recommend renewals, where it helped that I was in a position to know the stake presidency members well. That’s at least one indication that the bureaucracy is uneven in privileging some members over others.
Perhaps a good way to do this would have the bishop ask temporally related questions. And the Stake President as spiritually related questions.
The question “Do you support, affiliate with …” was absolely done either by Kirkland McConkie or at least by the lawyers in the Q12/1stPres.
I remember more than one time giving a TR interview and have a really faithful member that had English as a second language respond with a smile, “YES!” It is way to complicated and like you say – what are you really getting at? Are you working FOR the church or working AGAINST the church and it’s teachings?
That particular question was designed to root out certain polygamous groups who still wanted access to temples. It’s ridiculously worded and has taken on a much different tone recently.
I’ve had a similar experience interviewing young men who didn’t really understand/weren’t listening well. Better to be direct. And I believe Daniel is right. It was meant for weeding out polygamists and has taken on a broader tone that’s unfortunate.
“Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?”
I always answer this the same way: “Of course not. I am forced to rely on the merits of Christ and his worthiness, not my own”.
This alleviates the inevitable hypocrisy I felt when answering yes and it has always been acceptable to the interviewer.
I like this response. And I worry that the temple recommend questions right now steer us away from that recognition by focusing on specific standards (Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, etc), thus suggesting that our works translate to worthiness.
Thanks for posting this. The temple recommend questions, despite not being scripture, define what it means to be Mormon more than any scripture does. I too wish they were focused more on the weightier matters of the law.
When was the “do you affiliate” question added? While I believe that fishing out polygamists was *a* purpose of the question, its wording makes me doubt that it was *the* purpose of the question. My whole life, I’ve heard about a lot more excommunications of intellectuals and reformers than polygamists. It’s hard not to see suppression of dissent as a feature of the question, rather than an unintended consequence.
I agree about how much these questions define us. I don’t actually know the history of the “do you affiliate” question. I think I remember it changing a bit over my experience – I think it’s become broader. I think it’s initial ambiguity has made it a useful tool for those other folks, which I regard as a bad trend.
My Bishop’s wife has not attended Church in four years. Holds no callings, and will not even agree to Visiting Teachers checking in. This woman ALWAYS has a current Temple Recommend. How can this be?
I have massive anxiety issues, and being in large groups is one of the biggest. As a result, I seldom am able to attend church meetings, as the very thought of a sizeable congregation (and often loud, as there are always a lot of children) for sacrament meeting leaves me nearly paralyzed with panic attacks. My explanation is apparently unacceptable, and so I have gone for years without a recommend. I can do small groups in quiet environments, so could actually go to the temple, which is why I would like to have a recommend. Why is it that regular attendance is so vital that people like me are refused access to the temple?