An aquaintance just asked in a forum about his friend being asked recently in his temple recommend inverview if he was struggling with homosexuality or had participated in a homosexual relationship before, wanting to know if that was a church-wide change in interview questions or just something that was a one off or because it's a university student ward. Have any of you heard anything about that? Are changes in the recommend interview questions announced to the church?

When I was on my mission it was one of the baptisimal interview questions...

Yeah, they talked about how it is one of those, but of course, it hasn't been a temple recommend question before.

Back in the 90'w I was asked this in a TR interview for baptisms for the dead. ("Are there any relationships with young men that you should tell me about? Are there any relationships with YOUNG LADIES you should tell me about?") I was all of fourteen and had no clue what the stake presidency counselor was talking about. Many years later I learned that my sister had been involved in a lesbian relationship with the stake president's counselor's neighbor. Since my sister was a lesbian, I must have been as well, apparently. We compared notes, and I was the only girl from my ward who was asked anything along those lines. I still despise the man.

Youth are not interviewed by members of the Stake Presidency before attending the temple.

I was in the 1990s for that very purpose. I'm not lying, nor am I delusional.

idleswell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Youth are not interviewed by members of the Stake
> Presidency before attending the temple.

I would tell you the stake and the counselor except that I really need to be anonymous for this situation especially in regard to my sister.

idleswell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Youth are not interviewed by members of the Stake
> Presidency before attending the temple.

Seriously... cause when I was in YW I had stake presidency interviews and that was in the 1990s too...

From wikipedia -

The standard Temple Recommend authorizes a member who has been baptized at least one year prior to take part in all temple ordinances and is good for two years.[10] A Recommend for Living Ordinances is given to individuals who are receiving their endowments for the first time, being sealed to a spouse, and anyone being married in the temple for time only. It may only be used in conjunction with a standard Temple Recommend.[10] A Limited-use Recommend is available to members who have not yet received their endowment and who have not been a member for one year. These may also be issued to a group for a single visit to the temple.[10] These can be issued to youth 12 and older who will take part in specific temple ordinances, to single members age 8-20 who are preparing to be sealed to their parents, or for individuals of the same age who want to observe specific ordinances. The church member must meet the same worthiness standards as a standard temple recommend in an interview with the member's bishop. Unlike the temple recommend, a limited-use recommend does not require a year's membership nor an interview with a stake president. A limited-use recommend is only valid for proxy baptisms and confirmation ordinances.

A limited-use recommend (that we are talking about for youth) does not require a an interview with a stake president (or counselor). Because youth are either Aaronic Priesthood or unendowed young women, their worthiness can be judged by the bishop alone (as president of the priests).

Full temple recommends (allowing a member to be endowed) requires a worthiness interview with the president of the high priests (their stake presidency).

Having said all this, that does not mean that a stake president could not interview youth, especially if he suspected they were from a home where gospel standards were not taught properly (in his mind).

Another point: I never lived in areas where a stake presidency member lived in the neighbourhood. A stake presidency member might be ~4 hours away so unless that signature was mandatory it would likely be eliminated for youth.

I was interviewed by a member of the stake presidency for a temple recommend interview. I wish it were not the truth in my case, but it is. I don't understand why anyone would think I would fabricate the story.

idleswell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From wikipedia -
>
> The standard Temple Recommend authorizes a member
> who has been baptized at least one year prior to
> take part in all temple ordinances and is good for
> two years.[10] A Recommend for Living Ordinances
> is given to individuals who are receiving their
> endowments for the first time, being sealed to a
> spouse, and anyone being married in the temple for
> time only. It may only be used in conjunction with
> a standard Temple Recommend.[10] A Limited-use
> Recommend is available to members who have not yet
> received their endowment and who have not been a
> member for one year. These may also be issued to a
> group for a single visit to the temple.[10] These
> can be issued to youth 12 and older who will take
> part in specific temple ordinances, to single
> members age 8-20 who are preparing to be sealed to
> their parents, or for individuals of the same age
> who want to observe specific ordinances. The
> church member must meet the same worthiness
> standards as a standard temple recommend in an
> interview with the member's bishop. Unlike the
> temple recommend, a limited-use recommend does not
> require a year's membership nor an interview with
> a stake president. A limited-use recommend is only
> valid for proxy baptisms and confirmation
> ordinances.
>
> A limited-use recommend (that we are talking about
> for youth) does not require a an interview with a
> stake president (or counselor). Because youth are
> either Aaronic Priesthood or unendowed young
> women, their worthiness can be judged by the
> bishop alone (as president of the priests).
>
> Full temple recommends (allowing a member to be
> endowed) requires a worthiness interview with the
> president of the high priests (their stake
> presidency).
>
> Having said all this, that does not mean that a
> stake president could not interview youth,
> especially if he suspected they were from a home
> where gospel standards were not taught properly
> (in his mind).
>
> Another point: I never lived in areas where a
> stake presidency member lived in the
> neighbourhood. A stake presidency member might be
> ~4 hours away so unless that signature was
> mandatory it would likely be eliminated for youth.

It was common at least in the 80's for youth to be interviewed by both bishop and member of the stake precidency in order to get the TR. I was done so annually after I turned to 12.

I was 14 when I went to the temple for the first time (for baptisms for the dead).

I was interviewd BOTH by the bishop AND the stake president.

This was in 1989.

I was in the youth program in the 1980s and it was standard practice to be interviewed by both the Bishop and the Stake President for temple trips (we lived VERY far from a temple, so it was more of an annual vacation)

Questions regarding worthiness are printed in the cover of temple recommend booklet. Interviewers are instructed to ask those specific questions. However, some bishopric or stake presidency members can go off script. Sometimes those questions may be justified based on the candidate's response(s). Other priesthood leaders simply "go rogue." Are they led by the Spirit?

should be already covered: Do you live the law of chastity?

'even if' someone is homosexual, 'just being' isn't any violation or infraction of LDS rules.

OF course local leaders can be "led by the spirit" NOT!

I distinctly remember being asked about it in my pre-mission interview with the stake prez. This is circa 1992 at YBU. I am a terrible liar and was sure he must have seen me tremble and look away as I said no, I had not engaged in any homosexual acts.

I had not so much as seen an R rated movie at that point. But I knew I was a lesbian.

It is one of the most horrible memories of my life, actually, because I fully and absolutely believed.

I also was in a student ward, so I'm not sure if this gets you any closer to an answer to your original question.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2012 11:10PM by abinadiburns.

Idleswell wrote, "Questions regarding worthiness are printed in the cover of temple recommend booklet. Interviewers are instructed to ask those specific questions."

Those booklets may be online now, but when I was a member, I didn't even know they existed. And this is the real problem with the church. Just giving the interviewers a list of questions does no good if the person being interviewed doesn't know what the questions should be.

I would love to see someone secretly record one of these interviews with a bishop asking a child sexual questions and then having it put on you tube. The practice will not stop until the church receives enough bad PR over it.

I would of replied "oh thanks for asking bishop?" "do you think i look like a lesbian or something?"

Refering back to the OP rather then the discussion that has followed ....

NO, specific questions into the "big m" are not, nor have they ever been, a part of the TR interview.
Questions into homosexual activity & pornography & chastity questions ARE a part of the Missionary questions, though I am do not believe masterbation is a specific question there either.

There have been time periods that members of the seventies have encouraged local leaders to "enquire" of masterbation & pornography "of all priesthood holders".
Ummmmmm, why is it assumed ony male members have those problems?

A Bishop or SP is permitted to enquire further if they feel "impressed" during the course of the TR interview. However, such enquiries are generally highly questionable as the bishop & SP can only "pass judgement" based on what you tell them & is generally left to the indiidual member to decide if & when they must confess to a priesthood authority or simply to the Lord thru earnest prayer.

If you do not feel or believe the "big m" is a problem of worthiness that must come before a priesthood authority, then there is or should be little concern.
-----
A mission prez put it this way once .... "It happens .... The Lord knows that it will happen. Almost evey Elder out here "slips up" from time to time".

He then stated that it is a matter that is generally "best handled between you & the Lord". It is "a practice you should try to avoid". If you feel that the practice is "of a such a nature that it distracts from your daily activities as a missionary and have sought the help of the Lord, then perhaps it is something that you need to bring to a priesthood authority not to confess but rather seek avenues to help you control..." this urge and practice.

From there that MP went on to explain that the most damaging part of "periodic" masterbation is the psychological damage of punishing ourselves, hating ourselves, telling ourselves that we are unworthy because of our "mistake".
That self-hatred rapidly begins to over-shadow every aspect of our lives even to the point of destroying every ounce of confidence that one has ever held.
.... essentially what he went on to say was that normally masturbation is not a serious concern unless it is or becomes something that interferes with the things we need to or should be doing & that would include being of such a nature that it over-shadows our self worth.

Controlling our physical urges are a part of why we are here upon this earth much the same as alcohol or drug use. Masterbation is simply one of those urges that we should strive to overcome as long as it does not invade or overshadow other parts our lives.
If does begin to overshadow or invade other parts of our lives, then by all means seek the direction of a priesthood authority or a physician or other professional qualified to assist with your concerns.

I wonder what would happen if a person said, "I want a lawyer before I answer any interrogating questions..."

And why should the question about homosexuality be included if the LDS church lets members of the LGBT community join, (sorta)?

(so long as they don't act on their same sex feelings - which is stupid of the church to insist on)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2012 04:34AM by partymxman.

On the questions for me - It was the one - "Do you live the law of chastity?" Which, before I was allowed to answer, was broken down into various examples of what that meant, in which homosexuality was included and were like sub questions my interviewer wanted me to "consider carefully" before I answered.

He seemed so relieved when I answered that I kept the law of chastity.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2012 04:36AM by partymxman.

GAH! I just threw up a little in my mouth!!! Can I sue for that?

I want to share that many years ago a young male friend of mine, who served a mission, returned home and within a year became very ill.

They tested him for all sorts of things and finally settled on Crone's disease. Yes, this was in Utah. As he deteriorated, I visited him frequently. It was clear he was dying.

One day, as I washed his hair (because he was too weak) he confided in me in a whispered voice that he had had a relationship with another man before he left for his mission and that that man had died. He knew he himself had AIDS.

He talked about how he could NOT tell anyone (church leaders) because of how he would be treated. After he died, his mother and I spent some time together. She told me that she knew. She always knew that her son was different than other boys (her only child) and that it did not matter to her one bit. Her love for him knew no boundaries or conditions. He was a wonderful talented man who made everyone around him smile.

So, as to not hijack this thread...I wonder two things:
First, if he had been asked by church leaders about homosexuality and had felt like he could talk about it, would anything have been different for my friend (ex-communication comes to mind which I know he feared)? And, second (and much more importantly), if he could have told his Mormon doctors, right away, about his relationship with a man could they have helped him medically in some way instead of the painful way in which I watched him die?

What a sad story. If your friend contracted AIDS back in the 80's, there was not much that could be done. I was working in a creative industry at the time and there were many, many deaths. It seemed like every week I was hearing about yet another death. I'm not sure when the lifesaving drugs came online, but it was some time after that.

And to answer your questions: if he died before +/-1990-1993 there was little that could have saved him except for his own physical system being able to combat what was going on inside him. During the mid-1990s more and better treatments became available that not only prolonged life but helped recover a sustainable quality of life for people with HIV/AIDS.

But in Utah and other cultural backwaters, those suffering from HIV/AIDS suffered from the social stigma just as much as they suffered from the ravages of the disease. Social conservatives, Mormons and other fundamentalists were and are the primary vectors of ignorance and hate in that as in everything else having to do with LGBT people.

"No Bishop, I'm not gay. But I think my boyfriend might be..."