President Nelson introduced an updated set of temple recommend questions in Conference on Sunday. The change that stood out to me the most was the revision to the question about affiliation with apostate groups. Here’s the old version of the question:
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?
And here’s the new version:
Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
(I’ve taken the wording for both from WVS’s handy side-by-side comparison at BCC.)
The old version of this question has been the subject of lots of discussion on the Bloggernacle, particularly when a dissenting group (e.g., Ordain Women) has been in the news. It appears that the original version of this question was aimed at members of polygamous groups who wanted to have access to LDS temples, and much of the discussion has focused on whether the question is still about polygamous groups, or whether it includes all kinds of groups that might oppose Church teachings.
In a 1998 Journal of Mormon History article titled “The History of LDS Temple Admission Standards,” Edward L. Kimball provided support for the idea that this question was focused on people who wanted to continue to practice polygamy:
While “apostate groups” covers a wide spectrum of unorthodoxies, the primary focus since 1940 has been on groups that continue to promote and practice plural marriage while also trying to gain access to the temple.
However, he also noted that:
These strictures against polygamous apostate groups apply mainly to the Intermountain West, where most such groups are located; but elsewhere in the world, where LDS fundamentalism is unfamiliar, the questions still serve as warnings against organized dissent.
I originally thought that the reference to polygamous groups was really all the question was about, but I came around over time to believing that Church leaders intended for the question to be far broader than that. It does seem like they kind of stumbled on this usage rather than really planning it, but when the question was left in place for so long and while the Church expanded so far, it seemed more likely to me that the broader meaning was (or came to be) intentional.
It also seems to me that the vagueness and resulting broad potential scope of the question was helpful for GAs who were looking to police members’ involvement in all kinds of possible groups. Not having to actually come out and make a list of prohibited groups made their task simpler for a number of reasons:
- They were freed from the burden of having to maintain an up-to-date list.
- They didn’t have to risk a forbidden fruit effect where they accidentally kindled members’ interest in groups by naming them.
- They didn’t have to risk potentially drawing fire in the political arena for naming groups they don’t like. Just to pick a random example, NARAL. I doubt they would enjoy the publicity resulting from a story like “Mormon Church leaders ban members’ association with abortion rights group.”
- They could count on members in general and bishopric and stake presidency members in particular to build a hedge that would likely exceed in size any list they would have compiled. The “if you think you should ask, you should just not do it” line of thinking is strong in Mormonism. For example, this line of thinking has been encouraged for potential questions around sexual practices in the temple recommend interview. As Kimball reported in the same article quoted above,
The 1989 interview instructions tell the bishop that if an applicant “asks about the propriety of specific sexual conduct,” the bishop should “suggest that if the applicant has enough anxiety about the propriety of the conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it.”
This discussion is rendered moot, though, now that the question has been revised to drop any mention of apostate groups. It’s possible that GAs who were revising the list may have made this change just to streamline the question, figuring that bringing up groups or individuals that oppose Church teachings is superfluous when what really matters is a member’s support for the teachings. Why not cut out the middle man and just ask about the teachings? But like I said at the beginning, this feels like a big change to me.
In the old version of the question, if a member wants to decide whether they can reasonably answer in the expected way (i.e., “no”), they have only to consider groups or individuals they’re sympathetic to. This is probably a not insubstantial list, but at the same time not extremely long. How many organizations do we typically have opinions on? How many people? Dunbar’s number suggests not too many (about 150). Even if we also have opinions about some public figures, how many can we really keep track of? I’m guessing Dunbar’s number again might suggest an upper limit.
In the new version of the question, though, the thought process required to reach a conclusion is much more involved. Now it’s not a question of how many groups or people you can keep track of, but whether you believe in any “teaching, doctrine, or practice” that goes against the Church’s teachings, doctrines, or practices. The list of Church teachings, doctrines, and practices is quite long. I suspect it’s much longer than the list of groups or individuals we have opinions on. To answer this question well, a person then has to go through a much more involved process of considering each item on a long list of teachings, doctrines, and practices to decide if there are any that they might disagree with.
This question also suffers from the lack of clarity around what constitutes the body of Church teachings, doctrines, and practices. I think that, taken at face value, the question is pretty much meaningless, because not only is the list long, it’s full of internal contradictions, so the only possible answer is “yes.” Imagine GAs from the past giving each other temple recommend interviews using this question. Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie would each deny the other’s temple recommend over the Adam-God doctrine. Or we don’t even have to go to the past. Imagine Dallin H. Oaks and Dieter F. Uchtdorf interviewing each other. President Oaks would question whether Elder Uchtdorf really believes in the Family Proclamation, given that he hardly ever refers to it and spends essentially zero time lecturing LGBT people. And Elder Uchtdorf would question whether President Oaks really believes in the Atonement, given how little he has to say about grace. (For what it’s worth, I really like Lynnette’s framing of doctrine as being like grammar, where native speakers learn and also construct what’s grammatical and what’s not, in a continuously ongoing process. But I doubt that this method of identifying teachings, doctrines, and practices that are being referred to in this question would be satisfying to the GAs.)
Finally, the question is not only more arduous to answer and essentially impossible to answer in the expected way, it’s also far more invasive than the old question. With the old question, even if you disagreed with a particular teaching, doctrine, or practice, so long as you didn’t sympathize with a group or individual who also disagreed, you were in the clear. Do you wish the Church would treat Saturday as the Sabbath because the Fourth Commandment was never rescinded? As long as there’s no “Restore the True Sabbath” group that you sympathize with, you’re good. The question was about whether you joined with or sympathized with groups or people who are out there opposing the Church in some way. The new question, though, is concerned with your beliefs about every single thing that the Church teaches or does. If there’s anything you disagree with, you shouldn’t get a temple recommend. Don’t like the switch from three-hour to two-hour church? Want a re-ordered sacrament meeting with the sacrament at the end? No temple recommend for you! This is why I see this version of the question as being so dramatically different from the previous version.
I think it’s also worth considering the broader context, where Church leaders in recent years seem to be increasingly concerned with members’ loyalty to the Church and willingness to obey whatever we’re told to do. In this light, I wonder if the question wasn’t written as it was to be a question about loyalty to Church leaders. Given that there’s probably no way to agree with everything that could be considered a current Church teaching, it becomes not a question of do you disagree with any Church teachings, but rather a question of will you disagree with anything Church leaders teach. Or to flip it around, they’re asking in effect, do you agree to accept any teachings, doctrines, or practices that GAs introduce, regardless of what they are?
Ultimately, as with many other issues, it seems like the application of this question will depend on how local leaders interpret it. If they want to be hard nosed about it and pry a lot, they will probably be able to use this question to deny pretty much anyone a temple recommend. This is a sad thought if it means that overly zealous leaders end up denying access to the temple to members who are overly anxious about being complete in the disclosure of their thoughts in response to this question. On the other hand, though, local leaders may simply treat the question as meaning the same thing as the old version did, in which case it won’t change anything in people’s temple recommend interviews.
I go back to renew in a year. Upon being able to finally read the text, I immediately resolved upon my approach to this question. If the interviewers just ask the question straight up as written, I will answer “no” and get my TR renewal. If, however, there is some kind of preamble or extra statement made (like they used to do with garments) to the effect that this question is inclusive of support for gay marriage, then I will answer yes and forego the TR renewal. In that event, we will continue to pay tithing, but we will direct it to the Greater Chicago Food Depository. I will need to be released from my calling, which I believe requires a TR. I will not accept another calling. I will continue to attend Church and make it clear I’m happy to do one off type things (pray, speak in Church, substitute teach a lesson), but I will not accept an actual calling. If they think having me around on those terms is too disruptive, I will make it easy on everyone and cease to attend church.
In other words, if this turns out to be a sub rosa attack on gay marriage, my local unit at least will learn it comes not without consequences.
Your interpretation seems to align with most of the people in the BCC thread. However, I think that “support and promote” means active support with some kind of overt action such as membership in a group, signing a petition, or advocacy. I don’t think this question is intended to weed out people who merely silently believe something. On the other hand, it could be used against people who are vocally in favor of gay marriage, right to an abortion, or even evolution. We’ll have to see how it plays out in the game of leadership roulette.
Yes yes yes this.
I actually think it won’t trip up many people in the TR interview but many more leaders will feel obligated to pull a “you’re going to need to take your internet post down to keep your TR”
I’m going to miss the old question. I always answered, “No, because I’m not a Republican.” The bishopric member conducting the interview always thought I was just joking, but I was actually quite serious. If I were a Republican, I would be lending tacit support to grinding the face of the poor, befouling the earth with pollution, allowing anyone to own a military-style weapon, preventing millions of Americans from getting health insurance, and, now, nullifying the Constitution and destroying democratic institutions right and left by supporting a corrupt president. I could not in good conscience answer the question “no.” Now I don’t know what I’ll say, because Ziff is right—LDS doctrine is all over the board. The Church itself can’t agree on some doctrines, so it would probably not qualify for a recommend.
One interpretation of the question would mean that most SS teachers and presidents along with EQ and RS teachers and presidents would be ineligible, since promoting class discussion almost always leads to some comments that are contrary to church teachings. This is obviously not the actual meaning of the question.
I think Rockwell’s interpretation is probably what is meant.
Kevin,
I would push back against the specific preamble you mention. There is guidance from church leaders that members are fine advocating for gay marriage legalization, etc. Crossing the line would be something like teaching that it is the moral equivalent of temple marriage.
I am also concerned about this question. President Nelson said that standards to enter the temple have not changed. He also said these question changes are clarifications. Based on this, I infer that the intention has been, for some time now, to ascertain whether members disagree with or do not support church teachings, doctrines, and practices. It seems that this was the intent with the previous question, and now with revised wording, that intent is clearer.
I am like Ziff where I could answer “no” to the previous question because of the “group” aspect. Now, I cannot answer this question in a way where I could enter the temple, if the question is really about members supporting/agreeing with all church teachings, practices, and doctrines.
Given the redefinition of doctrines as practices and the continuing changes of practices, this question seems a little absurd and far reaching. It doesn’t seem right that 3 weeks ago someone could be denied a temple recommend for believing women should be witnesses. But now, that person wouldn’t have a problem, if that were the only church practice they disagreed with.
I hope that I am wrong in my understanding of leaders’ intent with this new question. On the one hand, additional statements read in conjunction with temple recommend questions can be problematic. On the other hand, if “support” and “promote” doesn’t have a standard definition, then it seems like a lot of good people could unfairly be denied temple recommends.
Pres. Oaks at GC quoted the First Presidency’s letter following the Supreme Court’s ruling: “We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully.” The Church has also recognized that gay marriage is the law of the land, a constitutional right. My support for gay marriage is not a “teaching, practice or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” My support for gay marriage as a lawful, constitutional right is not in opposition to the church, period. The Church and I both agree that same-sex couples are allowed to marry in the US. If I advocated for the church to perform those marriages, that would be contrary to the teachings, practices or doctrine accepted by the Church, but that isn’t my position. I don’t want the Church to perform gay marriages, in part because I don’t want to cringe at what is spoken in those ceremonies or cause beloved bishops to cringe while performing them. I don’t want them in that uncomfortable position until it becomes comfortable and loving. But my support for gay marriage in the US being performed by officiators other than bishops is not in opposition to any teaching, practice or doctrine of the Church.
I realize this is a US-centric resolution to a global issue, but I’m going to resist the imperialist tendency to tell people in other countries who should and should not marry.
Am I merely dancing on the head of a needle? This nuance feels right to me.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments.
Kevin, I admire your willingness to take a stand, but I really hope you don’t have to. I notice that I didn’t even get around to bringing up gay marriage in the post (it was long enough as it is!) but that was definitely my fear about what particular Church teaching people might be quizzed by their leaders about going against.
Rockwell and el oso, I hope you’re right and that what’s intended (and how it plays out) is that it isn’t the super low bar I fear that will be used to identify supporting or promoting things.
Kristine A, exactly. I fear that more people will have experiences like April Young Bennett at the Exponent did, where her SP (I think) required her to take her posts down to get a temple recommend.
Mary, thanks for pointing out that President Nelson said the standards haven’t changed and that these are only clarifications. It does seem like these comments suggest that a hopeful interpretation like Rockwell and el oso’s is more likely to be true. Either that or he’s subtly saying that he thinks the temple standards haven’t been stringent enough in the past! 🙂
Sam, thanks for teasing apart the issues of support for a secular law and support for forcing the Church to do something. Your framing makes a ton of sense to me. I appreciate you sharing it. As I think about it, it seems pretty broadly applicable. For example, if I support marijuana legalization, but the Church opposes it, I can campaign for legalization laws without having to, say, push for the Church to allow it in its buildings. I’m not sure if that’s exactly parallel, but that’s just off the top of my head.
Wally,
I have no clue who you are but I want to give you a high five. I wish you were in my ward.
I agree it’s unlikely I’ll have to fall on my sword over this question. If the interviewer goes there vis-a-vis gay marriage, my first line of defense is that the Church has accepted it as the law of the land (i.e., President Oaks has said we recognize Obergfell and in the recent women’s session I heard him say words to the effect of “we recognize gay marriages.”) If I can plausibly cite President Oaks for my position, it would be a rare Bishop or SP who would have the stomach to push it, and since I have been a winner at local leader roulette, it is very unlikely someone is going to push me on this in any event. But if it happens, I’m prepared to go to the mattresses over it.
What about working at a place where they make and serve alcohol? And sometimes I am the one that has to serve it and explain a little about the alcohol. Am I supporting or promoting something that goes against church doctrine, beliefs or practices? Even though I don’t drink alcohol myself and I clearly state that to customers when they ask me.
I’m sorry, Anonymous, that sounds like a tough one. Like with so many other things, it probably depends on your bishop and SP.
I’ve wondered if the purpose was to free members up to interact with (and maybe even support) others that have different beliefs/practices without worrying that it puts their temple recommend in jeopardy. Maybe it’ll help more parents feel like they can support their gay children, or like it’s okay to interact with and care about their Catholic neighbor. On the other hand, maybe that’s too generous an interpretation, and I certainly agree with the potential problems that may come up.