After all, the backwoods, parochial, patriarchal Mormon Church is always changing, as larger society forces it to evolve--kicking and screaming--against its baser, anti-progressive, uninspired, primitively-concocted instincts.

"Temple Recommend Questions?"
"Mormon Matters," http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/16/temple-recommend-questions-by-guest-aaron-reeves/
16 February 2009

"This morning I was listening to one of the 'Mormon Stories' podcast and there was a brief comment in it about some of the old Temple Recommend questions. This led to me to think about the Temple Recommend Interview and what its purposes are or were and what may change in the future: but first some preliminary comments.

"Temple-recommend interviews were not formalized until the 1880s. In the 1856-57 Mormon Reformation when ‘home teachers’ were asked to visit the Saints and recommitt them to live the gospel, they would also ask a series of questions (much like the Catholic Cathecism) about worthiness or behavior. This was the beginning of such a practice.

"Some of the early questions were:

--'Have you murdered anyone in cold-blood?'

--'Have you knowingly branded another person/s cattle or livestock?'

--'Have you plowed or harvested grain from a field that was not your own?'

--'Do you, and your family, wash or bathe as regularly as you are able?'

"Before this time, people going to the temple were recommend by the Bishop and one other (usually the Prophet; Wilford Woodruff changed this when he had to do 3,000 in one year).

"Tithing was made a requirement in the 1880s.

"The Word of Wisdom was made a strong recommendation around the 1890s, and in the 1930 as a requirement.

"Sometime after polygamy was stopped, the question about affiliating with groups that are against the Church’s teachings was added and the question about the living Prophet.

"The 1970s brought the question about being honest in our dealings with our fellow man (there was some serious fraud scams happening in Utah at the time).

"The '80s brought sexual abuse questions and also the caring for dependent children question. The requirements have been changed as well, i.e. the wording of what is expected and how strictly.

"I note all this because I want to think about what are the core parts of temple worthiness or the temple recommend questions? What are the questions that might change in the future (new one’s or drop one’s)?

"For example, new bar-coded temple recommends are being brought in to protect the sanctity of the temple I know this has been in the States for a time but it is new in the UK. What other changes might come? (The image is a copy of old recommend from 1879).

"What are the ones that might change in the future (new ones or drop ones)? For example, new bar coded temple recommends are being brought in to protect the sanctity of the temple.

"What other changes might come? (The image [provided in this link] is a copy of old recommend from 1879, at: http://mormonmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/temple-recommend.bmp )"



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2013 07:43PM by steve benson.

Trajectory seems to be greater weighting towards reliability; and gauging how much embarrassment potential to the institution.

In other words: how much a defection and adverse publicity risk is this applicant.

TSCC follows what is happening instead of leading because they receive zero revelation from their god. Protection, security, all those things come into play after a breach has happened. You would think a god would know before hand.

My bishop has become "antsy" lately, calling me in repeatedly to "meet" with him regarding me faithfulness. (I hold a temple recommend, have seven kids, temple marriage, near-life-long member.) He claims I am "heading toward apostasy" now because I read (and recommending to others) "A Cultural History of the Book of Mormon", by Daymon Smith, as well as several books (and the blog) by Denver Snuffer. I also read and recommend "Pure Mormonism", by Rock Waterman, and "Mormonism Uncorrelated", also by Daymon Smith. I agree with much of what they write and am very excited about my latest discoveries. I've strongly encouraged our bishop to get "informed". Like almost everyone else in my ward, however, he says he has "no interest" in reading these things.

Long story short, yesterday at church he implied that I was potentially "unworthy" to hold a temple recommend because I now "affiliate or agree with" apostate individuals or groups. I was taken aback. I didn't remember hearing "agree with" among the temple recommend questions before. I looked it up. MormonThink.com says the question (in question) is "Do you affiliate 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, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?" That's what I recalled. So I challenged him on it.

Because I don't "affiliate" with Denver Snuffer, Daymon Smith, et. al, I didn't consider my Church standing to be in jeopardy.

But my bishop read the question differently, as follows: "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?"

Who is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? Aren't WE part of that group? Do only Church hierarchy get to define (and change) church doctrine, "accepted" Church history, facts, etc.? Does believing or espousing ANY kind of facts NOT "accepted" by said leadership now grounds for Church discipline?

I happen to believe Denver Snuffer, Daymon Smith, et al. Denver Snuffer does NOT oppose the Church. He simply disagrees with the Church's "official position" regarding Church history. (And they excommunicated him anyway.) One must now have a "testimony" or embrace a catechism of "official" Church history or risk being branded an "apostate"??

>I happen to believe Denver Snuffer, Daymon Smith, et al. Denver Snuffer does NOT oppose the Church. He simply disagrees with the Church's "official position" regarding Church history. (And they excommunicated him anyway.) One must now have a "testimony" or embrace a catechism of "official" Church history or risk being branded an "apostate"??


GW, Mormonism is a cult. Cults do not let people question the cult's official position on the cult's history.

Catholic/Lutheran/Episcopalian fortyninethousandninehundredninetyninetynine other Christian churches aren't?

I hate to single out Mormons just because they are more successful on coercing & brainwashing business.

It's as simple as saying "No" to end tyranny.
If they have courage to come back bothering you next time, they give you permission to say "Why don't you go F**k yourself instead of bothering me?"

It's not complicated.

I brought this up once in a comment on-line. It confused DW because she believed that her living with me would constitute affiliating with an anti-Mormon. A guy responded that this (question no. 6) was no longer one the temple recommend interview, and sent a link to the latest interview questions. His link did not contain the question about affiliation with anti-Mormons. I just tried to find that link with blind Google searches, but was unable to.

I recently got a recommend. It is a question and the "agree with" part has been added. I lied. I do agree with such groups and in fact I'm a full on apostate wolf. I'm no sheep, I follow no one. But I'll do my best to lead as many sheep out as possible. Starting with freeing my family.

I think he's got you on that part of the question. One can straddle the fence so long before your get a rupture.

...that most Mormon bishops would characterize your act of posting on a BB called Recovery from Mormonism to be "affiliating with apostate groups."

Was adultery covered under plowing a field that is not your own?

yes. in the old days they were scared that members might accidentally start plowing from the joseph's or brigham's field

Dead Cat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was adultery covered under plowing a field that is
> not your own?

The internet is truly awesome! Respect.

the regular bathing question should be brought back. It'd go over well ; )

It'll be interesting to see in which directions things evolve.

If they're going for retrenchment of the hard-core members in Utah and the inter-mountain west, I'd expect more commitment & doctrinal questions. This is, as I see it, the only way to keep a population in the church -- by offering exclusivity and elite status to those that are willing to sacrifice for it. In doing so, the church retains these people and their kids.

If they want to appeal to more moderates and converts, maybe there'll be a loosening up of the questions. Especially as they're losing even devout members in the information age.

If they're after tithing, well... it'll be services or tithing rendered.

I think it largely depends on what the key metric the 15 and 70 set: whether it be the absolute growth of the church, the retention percentage of both BIC and converts, or total gross receipts.

The church did its survey in the 80's with the temple practices at the time, and modified the temple ceremony because of it; I'm sure they're scrambling now to identify how best to market the church moving forward, and more critically to them, how to preserve or grow it.

Q: have you cleaned the church building at least 2x this year?

Q: do you go on splits with the missionaries at least 1x quarter?

Q: has anyone in your immediate family left the church and have you regularly borne your testimony to them of the truthfulness of the gospel?

1) Have you fulfilled your hometeaching duties every month?
2) Have you invited someone to hear hear the missionary discussions this year?
3) Have you done work for the dead this year?
4) If you currently have a temple recommend, do you attend the temple at least once a month?
5) Do you attend all your auxiliary meetings?
6) Do you regularly pester less active members with plates of cookies?
7) If you are a woman do you wear a dress to church instead of pants? If you are a man do you wear a white shirt and tie to church?

+1. I totally see this happening!

...seen a grown man nekkid? :-)

Yes, and I like movies about gladiators.

How about that big gift card you got for your birthday?

Since BPs like to condemn people based on rumors and tattling before they hear the members side of things the celestial bar code TR is an inspired GOD SEND!!!

Now all the BP has to do is get on the computer, type a key or two and woalla! He has stopped someone from attending the temple by black listing his TR!
And without an interview too!


Oh? Was the TR holder out of town on his way to a relatives temple wedding? Oh, gee, so sad, too bad....well if you were really as good as you're supposed to be no one would be telling tales on you..Thought I'd get to see you soon about your worthiness before I told you I'd stopped your TR......etc. excused by a power freak BP!


It is an even more effective tool against the poor single women/widows who might need something from the TSCC. Abusing them through cutting off without notice their TR based on some RS members gossip or the BPs bias will get rid of the undesireables!!!!

It's a win/win for the TSCC!

Question 37 (new) "Have you, or are you ever likely to take out a criminal prosecution against the Church?" (respondent must answer No)

Question 38 (new) "Do you sustain the new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage as the only form of marriage acceptable to God? (respondent must answer Yes and if of marital age must be questioned about taking one of the single sisters from the ward as a new wife)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2014 05:52AM by Stumbling.

Question #69

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?

Being from Connecticut, when the Bish would come to the question of belonging to a group.... I would confess that as a registered Republican, I belonged to such a group and the bish would always say that was not included. I didn't feel I needed to confess when I became a Democrat (for a time only).

Question 104: Are you capable of thinking for yourself? (Respondent must answer: "Yes, unless the right answer is 'no'".

Pop Quiz Question: When you looked out the window, what did you see?

Monson's response: Prison bars.

Haha! This made me laugh. I do miss the primary songs!

The way the questions have changed makes it seem less like they're measuring your sacredness against a canonized doctrinal gold standard and more like they're trying to decide if they'll let you in their little club.

"Hmmmmm, about this Jones guy. Is he our kind of people?

Oh, I forgot, that's exactly what it's about.

When enough shopping malls have been built throughout mormondon, there will be one more question..."Do you shop exclusively at church owned venues?."

When will they start asking if the member eats meat sparingly except in winter and times of cold and famine?

They totally ignore this part of the Word of Wisdom just like they ignore the real lardbutts who certainly don't live the WofW.

Thanks for posting the historical interview questions. Mormons have been effing strange from the beginning.

I vote that we reduce all current temple-worthiness questions to just this one historically accurate, and important, question:

--'Do you, and your family, wash or bathe as regularly as you are able?'

Q. Do you wash your penis in the shower? If so, how fast do you wash it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2014 04:10PM by misterzelph.

Maybe the only two questions that should be asked are..."Are you effing mad? If not why do you want a temple recommend?"

Q: Do you pay full tithe?

A: I pay in whole numbers, so yes.

Q: Are you chaste?

A: All over town by my ex wife's lawyer.

Q: Do you attend all meetings?

A: I have attendance deficit syndrome, ADS.

Q: Why should I give you a recommend?

A: There's a widow in my ward, and I want some of that.

Q: You pass. I battle Satan, not Cupid.

You get to decide nothing when it comes to the church. Your only decision, and the most important one, is are you going to be associated with them or not.