There was an announcement once from over the pulpit. I can only sort of place it as perhaps during the 1980s, but can no longer pin down when it was. Can you? The announcement was that, from now on, a temple recommend would be required for all adults entrusted with a "calling." This was the beginning of official social marginalization of inactive or partially active LDS members. It also served to announce--as if by bullhorn--a very contradictory practice in Mormonism, and a complete failure of their own logic and reasoning. Out of one side of their collective mouth they say, "We love you and want you back!" From the other side of the collective mouth they remind you, "Non-recommend holders need not apply."

Let's say that you are a new arrival in a ward or branch. You are inevitably approached by the ward or branch clerk for your information--where do you come from?, how can we contact you?, etc.--followed by an invitation by the bishop or BP to meet you. Immediately afterward, they call you in again and "extend a calling." Why do they do this? Because, accoding to Mormon logic (we'll call it Mologic), a calling will help you feel wanted, will integrate you into the congregation, will hold your interest, and hedge against your possible slide into inactivity.

In the New Testament, a book of which Mormons have only limited knowledge and some degree of mistrust, Jesus speaks at some length using various models (some call them "parables") that illustrate the need to collect the sinners, the sick, and the poor about you, to love them and to help them up. (Later in that book, the whatchacallit--New Testament--Paul would insist that this is function of the church, the reason for its existence.) If, according to Mologic, a calling will serve to make an individual feel wanted, engaged, and more integrated, why would they consciously disregard a potentially similar need of the so-called "sinner" (the smoker, the drinker of coffee), and choose instead to marginalize him or her? Even by Mologic, this is idiocy.

With great spinning of wheels, and with wasting of resources and of members' time, Mormons now make a hugely visible effort to reach and rescue what they today euphemistically call the "less active." I think that if they just returned to the handshakes and the invitation across the board to serve in some capacity, they likely would win back a member or two with no appreciable expenditure of effort.


But I digress. Does anybody remember when this all went down?

I do not remember a general announcement....doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I think it may have been a more local event.

On the other hand, there are certain callings where a TR is required, and certain callings where a TR is NOT required.

Those of the non-TR required variety would include teachers of classes, librarians, specialists in family history, etc.

I was once the gospel doctrine teacher (lasted 3 years before being "promoted" to the high council). After a year or so, someone noticed that I was not a holder of a TR. The bishop called me aside, pointed this out, and asked what my intentions were. Well, my intentions were to continue teaching the class without applying for a TR. He said that he would "think" about that for awhile....he must have thought about it for 2 years.

In my interview for the high council, the SP made it mandatory that I get a TR, so I did.....he also asked me why I had not previously carry a TR, and I told him that I refused to home teach (among other things not brought up at that time, like tithing). He insisted that I do my home teaching....well, I ignored that and continue to do so. What was funny was that the high majority of the high council also did not home teach....one of the biggest waste of time in the morgdom.

I think it's the other way around: The requirement is there, but doubtless some bishops choose to ignore it. I mean, normally they are hurting for people to help, anyway.

Every time DW and I moved into a new ward, it was straight to primary with us. No more!

I've never lived in a ward in which callings were based on TR's. Heck that would disincentivize TR's, wouldn't it? (I'd never have to do anything I don't want to do if I just never have one?) Not too long ago, I staffed an entire 120 child primary with less active members.

I vaguely remember something about that. I didn't go to church in the 80's, so i'm thinking it was in the early 90's. I think they tried it in our ward, but didn't have enough people to run the ward, so ignored it.

Wards and Stakes generally only has about 20% temple recommend holders on the records in their geographic areas. Some might be a lot more, some less. That means there are never enough temple recommend holders to fill all the Callings in any Ward or Stake.

I can't imagine a time when there would be a requirement for all positions of service would require a temple recommend. Only a few Callings" require the recommend in my experience.
There may be a requirement to use temple recommend holders for the major Callings, and to use all of the rest of them in some other Calling. There is an expectation that a temple recommend holder will have a Calling.

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/callings-in-the-church?lang=eng



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2015 02:26PM by SusieQ#1.

maybe it was more to do with location.
it would be more difficult to do this in stakes/wards outside the USA, and would be totally counter-intuitive to pursue it in the missions/branches

I didn't have a TR after about 1988, but I had many callings after that, including being in the Primary Presidency and YW presidency.

However, when we lived in Alabama, I remember the bishop giving a talk about how inspired he was to call the new RS Pres (like there were a lot of people to draw from). She was probably in her 50s and had been a member for years, but was married to a non-member and had never been endowed. The bishop said that being endowed was a requirement for the RS Pres. Her husband had always said he didn't want her wearing the undies or giving more than a small donation to the church. But other than that was fine with her being a member, so she didn't push it.

So the bishop went over and talked to the hubby and the spirit touched him and changed his mind. I'm sure they came to a deal about the tithing since the ward was so desperate. And maybe as she aged, he didn't care so much about the undies.

But that's the only time I've heard of someone (other than bishopric, etc.) having to have a TR to hold a calling.

I don't know if it's official but where I live a temple recomend is required to hold a stake calling. A Non-Card Carrying (NCC) member can be an elders quorum teacher or executive secretary in the EQ but cannot be the president, counsler or secretary because those are stake callings.

Well, it could be I imagined it. I once thought I had been on an episode of "Happy Days," but it turned out that I was wrong. Hey, we've all been there, right?

cludgie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, we've all been
> there, right?

That was a long time ago.

I was very young.

I needed the money.

See? One who understands.

they should require temple recommends to clean the toilets.

I converted in the late 80s and I remember hearing a lot about temple recommend holders and temple trips and all this talk about how special they were. YW presidents were usually recently married in the temple women. It was a big deal to be called to anything because they would talk about holding a temple recommend

Go forward a few years, that great ward I was talking about was closed. The struggling wards were desperate for callings they almost didn't care who they called as long as they were responsible enough to show up.

And fast forward some more time. I had already been mentally deconverted but chose to say in my RS Prez calling because I actually enjoyed it. When my TR expired I didn't renew it. I stopped paying tithing too. One day the bishop was released, the new bishop asked about tithing, I said I'm behind because of financial difficulties. He chastised me and said that he could take away my TR. I said oh it's expired. He asked why and I said because I'm behind in tithing. He got mad, his face got read and said "Sister Deconverted, you are released as RS Prez", then some blah blah blah. I smiled and said thank you.

I guess the spirit never told him that I had decided that when I got released that would be it for me. =)

I remember the calling requiring recommend edict from that era too. It wasn't held too strongly though, especially in the mission field. There just weren't enough tbm recommend holders to fill all the positions.

So a "modification" came about, where those who were "sincerely and prayerfully working on their issues" wouldn't "be denied the opportunity and blessings to serve."

Misstep due to no revelation, requiring subsequent course correction!

I don't remember a letter read in church. But it seems to me that some kind of suggestion was used as a way to get more people to get a temple recommend and attend the temple. Members often let them expire and didn't renew.

I let mine expire about 2005. Just didn't see the need for it. Tithing was a real downer to someone not making a lot, and the single mormon scene just wasn't enjoyable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2015 08:10PM by poopstone.