I was there when this happened and it was of concern to *my* parents and the "apostate" groups who met in our living room. My parents were affiliated with several fundamentalist polygamy groups at the time and we were housing several wives of a plyg prophet in trailers on our farm.

This was in the early 1950's under Prophet Seer and Revelator David O. McKay's rule. There was a state wide law enforcement effort to curtail polygamist activity in an attempt to protect underaged girls and abused polygamist wives. The pr was terrible for the church. Everyone was buzzing about it and there were nation wide articles and news releases condemming Utah for allowing plural marriage.

The church reaction was to claim they'd cooperate and to prove it they added this apostate question to the list for bishop's to ask faithful members.

The net result was that polygamists who wanted to stay active in the mainstream church decided to lie because being true to the gospel trumped admitting the truth to these local rubes who in fundie minds were less than honorable although they were better than non-members.

The faithful members after being asked this question felt more obliged to shun outsiders. Almost none of them knew why this question had been added and assumed it meant they should give a wide birth to apostates, inactives, and antis, outcasts and other worldly riff-raff. I doubt that even most bishops knew fully why the top leaders had decided to include the new question. And after all this time, I would bet that not one in a thousand members or leaders know the history of this interview insertion.

I think it's like masturbation and oral sex. If a bishop grew up and experienced interviews where bishops interpreted "chasity" to mean the exclusion of these practices, then he would follow that example when he was in the interviewer role.

So now I think almost all members and bishops assume that mormons ought to take special precautions when they're forced to deal with non-mormons. In other words, mormons feel they should shun anyone who doesn't comply with mormon expectations.

When I was asked those questions, I took it to mean, "Stay away from people who don't agree with us."

I usually replied back something like this, "I'm drawn to many different types of people, and find value in the opinions of many types of people. Sometimes I go down to the conference center between sessions and talk with the sign protesters to see what they are about, and I've enjoyed some of those conversations. I've talked with some people from polygamist groups, and enjoyed those conversations. I find value in many types of people, not just other mormons."

I always got the recommend, though my interviews ended up being lengthier than other people's. I never had an interview with the last bishop, and he was a hard ass. I don't know if I would have gotten one from him.

On bishop specifically stated that he thought it meant being affiliated with polygamist groups; then decided that my type of contact was ok.

As stated, my interview were always long because I answered truthfully about my thoughts on JS etc. I'll bet 90% of people just answer yes or no, and don't seek for clarification on exactly what it means. I'm sure my family would assume that it means to stay away from people who are "anti-mormon".

"#7: 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?"

How some folks round these parts interpret it to mean something other than what is stated is beyond my capacity!

Even if you "read between the lines" it still says association with anyone or anything that isn't mormon = unworthy. The implication is that TBMs should not associate with anyone other than TBMs. That would be a directive to shun.

Sheesh!

Timothy

I'm out of date going back to when I was a kid and hearing it called "the apostate question." Yes, it does strongly suggest that members ought to shun.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm out of date going back to when I was a kid and
> hearing it called "the apostate question." Yes, it
> does strongly suggest that members ought to shun.


For me, it was also the apostate question. As I recall, the question was something like...

"do you have affiliation or sympathize with apostate groups". I am sure that is not the exact wording. (Late 1960's through 1978).

The word was in the question in my inteviews for a TR!

From about 1972-76, I lived directly across the street from polygamists. The 'new house' had 2 wives when they first built it. I always waved to the one wife, and she had kids about the same age as my oldest...and as 3-4 years olds, then did cross the road and mix it up now and then. One day, her little boy came to me and said his Mother needed help and told him to get me. I was the only friendly person, and she was very leary of me until that day. I found the Mother alone and bleeding to death on her floor from a late term miscarriage. I got help for her, but that was the only time I was in their home.

The next time I went in for a TR interview, I asked the bishop what exactly was meant by that question. He told me he KNEW I did not and I didn't need to worry. (like patting a little kid on the head, which felt most insulting).

I was a friend of plyg kids in high school, and good friends with one Allred boy. I had great aunts and grand-parents that were old enough to practice polygamy.

My understanding about the question was certainly polygamist leaning. I also understood Fawn M. Brodie writings to be in that category. I was told I could be excommunicated for reading that book in the early '70s when I was reading it.I figured that book was part of "The Apostate Question". I would love to know the wording from the 60's-70's. I wonder if it changed??

Re the incident wings related (above) - I have read experiences of neighbours who tried to develop friendly relations with the women in their proximity who were in polygamous households. Even just saying hi and showing that you're open and non-demanding can be a good basis for establishing some lines of communication. In the case I know of, one plural wife finally saw through the mind-bending message that her "husband" frequently recited, that "nobody out in the world cares about you". She said that she saw her friendly neighbour and knew she cared and that what her husband was saying wasn't true. That was the first chink of light to illuminate her brain and she went on from there to get out.

The neighbour turned out to be a heavy-duty proselytizer for a Christian church, but that's another story. At least the plural wife felt some love from outside her group and got out. I don't know what happened from there.

On another note, I haven't heard of being exxed for reading a book. That is insane. In my "TBM" days, when answering the TR questions, I took the emphasis there to be on the term "associate" - "do you associate with [apostate groups]?". To me, that is far more than merely reading a book and I took it as a given that if your family and friends were non-Mormon they were still OK to hang with as they are err...your family and friends? Maybe I read into the wording of the question more leeway than was meant to be there?

As with all too many things, it seems to depend on the local leadership, some of whom are more lenient or less fundy about things like that. The lack of consistency in this regard is one thing I really couldn't stand about the church. One thing on a very long list!

... it really burns the old fern when a mopologist attempts to insult my intelligence, particularly when the mopologist in question claims to be a recovered exmo!

Timothy

I know Timothy. It is maddening. It is so clear.... Affiliate with anyone whose practices are contrary to or oppose those of the LDS faith. And an 18 yr. old says...."Well, yes Bishop...I go to school and affiliate with students who go to churches that think we are a cult. They don't talk to me about it though. So must I stay away from them?" It is so ridiculous.

I encouraged my daughters to be friends with Mormon girls on our street even when I learned this interview crap took place. I thought talking to them about it would not be right. But I wanted to. Oh, and these girls parents would NOT talk to us- the mom and dad. But now both of these girls have kids of their own and now it is them who shun I am sure.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before. I was reading the Handbook on line-this was 4 or 5 months ago. In the section on T.R.'s it mentions that if a spouse has an exmo spouse they are to be very carefully interviewed. Don't want any exmo garbage rubbing off on the tbm's.

Timothy is right. If the church had meant "polygamous groups", they should have said that. Instead, they took advantage of a legal/PR issue, disassociation from polygamy, to canonize a retention policy: members should shun apostates.

There is no need to read between any lines here. Question #7 makes it official policy that anything smelling of apostacy or dissent is to be feared like the bogeyman.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2010 04:10PM by nanoron.

I guess the way it's stated,it pretty much covers everybody. If you 'affiliate' with somebody that's a member of another church or religion other than Christianity (and who doesn't) are their beliefs and practices considered to be in opposition?
Seems that virtually everyone would have to answer 'yes'.
What does 'affiliate with' mean here?
Are excoms considered to be in opposition?

or if it's just the years of arguing and she puts off calling, like I do, even though it's been about 3 years since the last argument.

She used to call me every other week or so, but now she goes 6, 8, 10 weeks. I called her a few weeks in a row thinking she might reciprocate, but no. And here I am on about the third week of thinking I should call her but not doing it.

It's just (usually) so exhausting, and there's a much higher chance that it'll start with weirdness if I call her. I have to be in a certain frame of mind.

Maybe I'll do it tonight. :-)

about having to be in the right frame of mind to make that call. I have that same phoning pattern with my mom.

I never knew that. Thanks for sharing. I always just assumed it was a control tactic to keep Mormons from avoiding "anti-Mormon" literature or anything else that mind open their minds. Unfortunately, I think that's what it turned into. STAY AWAY from anyone or anything that might make you THINK. I'm sure 99% of Mormons and those holding those interviews interpret it like that (and not for what the what the original intention was).

Heck, he LIVES with an apostate!!

I always thought that question referred to me. I'm a one man apostate group. That makes me wonder if any of my so called TBM friends admit to hanging out with me. Or is that so called friends who happen to be TBM?

YEP I had to get into the positive loving frame of mind.

I had been putting off talking for a couple of weeks.

He did "remind" me to stock up on food. To buy now before the prices go up and the dollar goes down. Hmmmmmmmmm
He didn't call it the year supply, at least.

OK good advice.......

I kinda changed the subject when I told him about buying food at Trader Joe's for my daughter. They don't have a TJs and I am stocking up for the them. I'm flying their way soon.

OK we do the best we can when we talk.....TBM Dad/Apostate Daughter (who has resigned without his knowledge).

K

This always allows leaders to use their so-called "inspiration." They may be "inspired" to tell you that hanging out with your ex-Mormon neighbors constitutes association with apostates, or they may not. The bishop is free to enforce whatever he wants to you, you all know that there is no recourse. If you go to the SP to get satisfaction, you will be told that the bishop is "inspired," and that he has to accept bishop's recommendation.

Or the bishop might be close friends with the same group of people and would think it crazy to define you or him as apostate by associating with them.

You can be labeled as associating with apostates by hanging out here, or by reading Post-Mormon, or any other combination of things. It's totally up to your local authorities and what they perceive as their "inspiration."

At one time the question was worded like this:

Do you belong to or sympathize with any apostate groups or groups that are hostile to gospel teachings?

Now it is:

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?

The question has basically the same meaning that has been expanded or clarified.

I have, in the past, when I was a member going through the temple recommend interviews, asked bishops and stake presidents about the meaning of the question.

One point that was made some years ago was that the question was to keep any polygamous groups from using the temple as they didn't have their own.

Every time I inquired about this question, the leader made the point that associating with family members and friends that had left the LDS Church wouldn't disallow a TR.

So, with that explanation, I was never concerned that my friendship and associations with friends and/or relatives that were apostates would not be of any concern regarding a TR.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> 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?
>

Yes I do, so does the rest of my science class.

Yes I do, I have Gay friends.

Yes I do, I have friends who aren't married, but are boinking.

Yes I do, I have coffee drinking, tea drinking, and alcohol drinking friends who don't think it's wrong, and neither do I.

Etc. Etc.

How many apostates did you associate with during your mormon years?


Several! Some in my own family and extended family as well as a few friends.

Why do you do that?

Timothy

Why can't some of you accept that the statement is ambiguous and open to interpretation and knock off the personal attacks? For the record, when I was active we all had non Mormon AND EX Mormon friends and it was never an issue. MAybe it was in other wards and with other bishops, but it wasn't an issue at all where I lived. Some of you are acting like immature children.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2010 09:49PM by bona dea.

The LDS Church TR interview questions allows for members to associate with apostate friends and relatives and attend the tmeple. NO, I did not lie. I never lied in the questioning.

I even asked those questioning me what the question meant, as I explained above, including their answer.
One stake president said that if they didn't allow people in the temple that had apostate friends and relatives, there would be no one there! :-)

weird and strange, that some folks will be convinced you are lying or... joking.:-)
But, that's Mormonism, folks! As an outsider, it's even more mind boggling! You did WHAT??? :-)