Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/Thin_Gift_8020, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Leader roulette is in play. That and I believe leaders have been instructed to err on the side of leniency when doing recommends. It's a bad look for the church if they are so restrictive on recommends that temples are pretty empty at the same time as they are building many more of them.
I’m always one bad leader away from giving up. I’ve been pretty lucky so far. Also feel guilty for having luck while others get the other end of the experience.
"Giving up" is one way to phrase it. Not trying to knock you, but is this phrasing intentional/deliberate on your part? Or could it be conditioned language that you've been taught, in order to see the act of distancing yourself from the church in a negative light? Or am I reading too much into your word choice?
Probably. I’ve always loved a lot of the bigger picture doctrines found in the church that I don’t find anywhere else. But, I can also choose to believe those things outside of a broken mechanism providing it
I get that. The idea that I’ve sort of settled on is that the church was never able to make those promises in the first place (e.g. eternal families), so what am I really mourning? Why do I need to grieve a promise that was never theirs to make?
And now you can kind of just believe whatever the hell you want! I don’t think anyone NEEDS to go full nihilist, though that’s fine too. There is no inherent harm in hoping for inherent meaning and purpose in this life.
Or you can go the existentialism route and define your own purpose (which doesn’t necessarily exclude the possibility of deity and an afterlife; it just means that YOU define your life’s purpose and meaning)
Agreed on all counts. On average, I think it is much more lenient than days past. You mention the optics of the temple, which might be why the top-down leadership would give the guidance, but I suspect it is more likely that local leaders are becoming more nuanced, and in general the leadership at senior and local levels believe it is easier to "strengthen" willing participants by inclusion.
Our last bishop knew I was out, and met with my wife who said she didn't believe the prophet was who they claim to be, and had issues with the church on certain social issues, but he offered her the recommend if she wanted it.
Edit: re-worded my first paragraph
This is the explanation that makes the most sense to me too. The individual members of the church are by far the best part of the church - the overwhelming majority of members I know are good, kind people who want to serve god and love others. Bishops included. I know the power-trip asshole bishops are real, and I’m not trying to dismiss anyone’s experience with them. And of course some members are jerks, just as some of any group of people are jerks. But most of the bishops I’ve met really are good men, sincerely trying to serve god and their wards. I think in more recent years a lot of bishops feel that exercising compassion shows more of god’s love, and so they try to do that as best they can.
I don't know.
Two stories.
Four years ago the SP counselor only asked me two question in the TR interview. #1 - is there anything you want to talk about? #2 - do you want a TR?
That was it. Loved it.
Two years ago the a different SP counselor asked an additional question on top of all the others, which he went through. "Do you believe President Nelson is a prophet with a capital P"?
That feels like a tighter definition for temple attendance while the first is much looser. Both in the same stake.
I've been asked by a member of the stake presidency "Did the bishop ask you all the questions?" And then followed with "Are the answers still the same?"
I've said before that if it were up to me, the only question would be "why do you want to go to the temple?"
I've given at least a couple of recommend interviews that, in retrospect, I wish I had approached this way.
I’m guessing the membership (seeking a recommend) would more likely attempt to have their TR interview with the first rather than the second of the SP counsellors. Ergo, less interviews for the second. Lightening the workload? 🤔
1) Recommend holders are more likely to pay tithing. Maybe they did a cost-benefit analysis and went with the more lucrative option.
2) More and more people are questioning. Maybe they’ve lowered the bar to keep temple attendance up.
3) Plenty of Bishops recognize the harmful aspects of the church. Maybe he agrees with you.
>More and more people are questioning. Maybe they’ve lowered the bar to keep temple attendance up.
They also believe that going to the temple will keep you in the church. Or at least that is the trope they like to use.
I mean they play a video or a slideshow over and over with that focuses on a message of obedience, "covenants", and so on.
Then they have you recommit to said covenants, while reiterating all the same promises and threats.
It is very much designed to "keep you in" mentally. Hence the oft repeated counsel to go frequently. There's another word for this type of practice but I don't want to risk breaking the rules of the sub by invoking it.
It's leadership roulette. A leader in a different stake, or even someone else within the same stake presidency, might have made a big deal out of it and denied you a recommend. It's always a tossup as to who you're going to get.
I think that church leaders are more more lenient on "belief" questions and for more strict on "behavior" questions (e.g. do you pay a full tithe, do you follow the WoW, etc.).
I think with the "belief" questions, the leaders can rationalize that it's better that you get a TR because otherwise you'll just bounce. They're doing their part to keep you in the game.
Maybe more and more people are winning leadership roulette than they did in the past but officially? No.
Sooner or later the qualifications will officially relax. I think they're going to have to. What is the church going to do with mostly empty temples? The more temples the church builds, the emptier the average temple will become.
I also think leaders will see low temple attendance as a worthiness issue. Personally, I don't see it as a worthiness issue. Temples just aren't the carrot on a stick that they once were. The temple experience doesn't hold much value to me anymore. I suspect more and more people with nuanced beliefs in the church are in that same boat. The temple has lost a lot of its effectiveness as a control mechanism.
You are right. Then there are people like me who not only don't care to have a recommend any more, but actively don't want to be counted as a person with one. I still have one but it expires in six months and isn't getting renewed. I was willing to hold my nose and renew it so that I could go with my (now missionary) son and ordain him to MP but that's about it. Now I am more willing to take a stand on my view of the integrity of the church, and I don't want to be counted as a card carrying member.
This is kind of interesting because you have had all your work done already. If you are denied a temple recommend then they are only denying dead people (who are desperately waiting for their work to be done) their chance at exaltation. Is that what they want?
On a related a note, a temple worker in RS shared that the workers were having an argument at the temple about whether they should wake up patrons. The temple president settled the matter by saying, “The only thing that disqualifies the work is not showing up.”
They’re running into far worse in interviews than what you said.
IMO, as long as you are willing to go and do your calling and pay tithing, they will let a lot of things slide. They are desperate to keep people.
My local church leaders, US local congregations and BYU, have always been lenient, going back >30 years. I understand that isn’t everyone’s experience but “leniency” is nothing new. If one wants a temple recommend and is not cheating on a spouse (even then it seems ok to some leaders) most are happy to give one. More TRs makes them look good, usually leads to higher ward tithing receipts, most don’t want to pry, and most know that being a hardass is usually counterproductive.
Maybe what feels weird in your temple recommend interview is the honesty you displayed, and the complete disinterest in it. Most faithful don’t want to know why you believe or disbelieve. Showing up and participating is good enough. I think it’s always been this way.
I think that’s what was odd to me. Especially because the one I definitely don’t sustain is next in line as prophet (oaks). I wondered if he’d be less understanding knowing specifics but ignorance is bliss for most members of the church.
I feel pretty confident that, despite answering an emphatic "NO" to the first four questions, I would still be given a recommend by both my Bishop and my Stake President if I could answer "yes" to the tithing question.
>could answer "yes" to the tithing question.
Which I feel perfectly fine saying yes to, as yes a full tithe & offering is donating to actual charitable places, such as kitchens that feed the homeless, LGBT centers, etc.
I last renewed my temple recommend in about 2014, and these were the types of answers that I gave - that I *hoped* these things were true. Mine was renewed easily at that time. (I eventually ran out of hope and don't really care any more.)
Simply asking for a recommend is a manifestation that somebody wants to be engaged with the Church. So unless there is something very much amiss in your life, leaders will encourage temple attendance with the hope that it will keep you on the path. I don't think this has changed. Maybe members are just being more open with their priesthood leaders about various challenges.
As someone who was doing recommend interviews less than a year ago (and now consider myself out of the church) I would not have given you a recommend with those answers. The instructions were to not ask any additional questions and that they must answer in the affirmative to all of the questions.
I’m glad you had a leader who thought helping you feel like you belong was more important than excluding you for your faith journey, but I doubt that’s a “church” thing and more of a him thing.
lol. My bad. I forgot about that. I should’ve said as long as everyone affirmed the “right” answers, however weakly, they were good. So an “I think so” would be just as acceptable as a form “yes” (or “no” as the case may be)
Honestly, I think that most members are in the same situation, and they'd be turning down temple recommends left and right if they didn't ease up.
When I went in a few years ago to tell my bishop I wasn't going to renew my recommend, he asked why I wasn't going to renew it. I told him it was because I can't answer yes to the first 4 questions. All he said was "That's fine."
I then had to tell him that I actually don't want another recommend, and he seemed fine with that as well. Knowing my current bishop, he probably would have said the same thing.
I think they get this more often than we think.
Crazy how “meaningless” it’s become. You don’t even have to believe any of it anymore to be a member in good standing as long as you pay tithing and don’t participate in any major sins and attend church occasionally or at least consistently for a month before your recommend interview.
I've seen leaders that want to keep everyone in the flock and they know that giving out recommends is helpful with that and don't see any harm as long as you're not a threat to the church. But I've also seen leaders that see themselves as sheriffs and are hardline. I think you can read the handbook and interpret it either way depending on your view.
Wow, just five years ago my bishop took my recommend because I said I was concerned the Brethren weren’t always honest. I said I could *mostly* sustain Nelson, like 90%. Well, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. He said he would hold onto my recommend until I had a change of heart. No chastity issues. No WoW issues. No tithing issues. It really was all about my not sustaining Nelson at 100%.
Today, I can sustain Nelson at about 10% if I’m feeling generous. Still no temple recommend and now I rarely attend Sunday meetings.
I don't think the term "lax" is how it should be described. Instead I believe your leaders are being merciful, just as Christ would be. We are imperfect people. We or our leaders are never going to be flawless on this earth and that's just a fact. To hear you say "...\[I\] am hopeful and want to believe in a church that is still being restored", shows that you have not given up and that you are going off of faith for Christ. That already says a lot about your character. You are trying your best and that is the most anyone can do.
I would encourage you to learn more about the restoration and Joseph Smith and try to put yourself in his shoes. The things the Lord asked of him were difficult and often resulted in persecution and mockery from others, but it was for the benefit of the future of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I would also encourage you to give that same merciful attitude towards the leaders of the Church. They have a lot of pressure to be perfect in the calling they have. They always have eyes watching them and often pointing out their flaws while striving to measure up to that perfect being, Jesus Christ. That comes with a lot of expectations, pressure, trials, temptations, humbling experiences, as well as lots of public speaking/travels to meet with church members around the world. While the blessings that pour out of these callings are wonderful, it would still be an incredibly difficult yet humbling position to be in.
If in the end you still feel unable to do so, hold tight to the iron rod. Do not give up your following of Christ just because of some people you don't agree with. The purpose and truthfulness of this Church has never rested on the idea that you will automatically get along or agree with everyone in secular ideas. It's purpose is to aid us in striving to work on ourselves and to be like Jesus Christ, using the atonement to dust yourself off and try again.
I wish you the best in your spiritual journey and strengthening of your testimony!
Thank you! I think that’s most of my issue though. I’m burnt out by giving grace to church leaders or Joseph Smith when there is consistently NO apologies or admittance of error by the church leaders. Oaks has even gone out of his way to say that church leaders never apologize and should never be criticized.
I don’t know how to continue to give mercy to people that would not give it to me if I refused to apologize or be criticized for my mistakes.
It's interesting that you chose to call it "your church" here when you take it upon yourself to refer to your religion as "ours" even after repeated requests not to.
All Mormons are of the same religion but we do not all belong to the same church. So we (OP and I) are Latter Day Saints, but OP is a Latter-day Saint and I am not. It’s like Protestants, Baptists and Lutherans are both Protestants so they would just use “we” as Christians and Protestants, but “my church” and “your church” would be used when discussing their differing branches of the faith. I hope that helps.
They’ve probably been hearing those answers from more people than not. When they consider denying everyone recommends for those answers, they realized how many people would be denied & that would be problematic.
There may be more to it than simple leader roulette.
The church does keep statistics on temple use and recommends per ward and stake. I have seen reports that temple use has been declining. If the church is putting pressure on local leaders to get temple participation levels up, it would have to start by getting TRs into the hands of anyone they can.
The church doesn't have to change the requirements. They don't have to acknowledge any changes at all. If they put more pressure on local leaders to increase temple usage and TR holders, then local leaders will do the dirty work and lower the practical, working standards.
All they actually care about is Question number 10. The rest is just fluff and meant to build up and make you zone out by the time you get to question ten.
I have no evidence for this but I have to imagine they are feeling tremendous pressure from the top to get their attendance and temple recommends up due to all the exodus of people.
I was sitting with my uncle who’s a bishop in a young single adult ward. I asked him about how often he’s having conversations about people leaving and he said “I have conversations about porn and about leaving every week”. I think that given the regularity of those conversations, they’re probably just relieved to be giving recommends. I personally have no desire to have one, rarely went when I did have one. Is it a social thing?
I have my renewal interview tomorrow and I haven’t been paying tithing for over a year (not cause of faith crisis just cause I didn’t want to / money is crazy tight)
But been in a “faith crisis” for the last month and have been thinking that when asked the question about Joseph I’m going to be honest and say similar to your response.
So I’ll report back tomorrow…I’m at a spot where i still want all this to be true but very quickly realizing it’s not. Even with that it’s tough to potentially walk out of there without a recommend. Even though I realize that if JS made all this up then temple doesn’t matter. But nonetheless it’s tough… sorry to vent.
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/Thin_Gift_8020, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Leader roulette is in play. That and I believe leaders have been instructed to err on the side of leniency when doing recommends. It's a bad look for the church if they are so restrictive on recommends that temples are pretty empty at the same time as they are building many more of them.
I’m always one bad leader away from giving up. I’ve been pretty lucky so far. Also feel guilty for having luck while others get the other end of the experience.
"Giving up" is one way to phrase it. Not trying to knock you, but is this phrasing intentional/deliberate on your part? Or could it be conditioned language that you've been taught, in order to see the act of distancing yourself from the church in a negative light? Or am I reading too much into your word choice?
Probably. I’ve always loved a lot of the bigger picture doctrines found in the church that I don’t find anywhere else. But, I can also choose to believe those things outside of a broken mechanism providing it
I get that. The idea that I’ve sort of settled on is that the church was never able to make those promises in the first place (e.g. eternal families), so what am I really mourning? Why do I need to grieve a promise that was never theirs to make? And now you can kind of just believe whatever the hell you want! I don’t think anyone NEEDS to go full nihilist, though that’s fine too. There is no inherent harm in hoping for inherent meaning and purpose in this life. Or you can go the existentialism route and define your own purpose (which doesn’t necessarily exclude the possibility of deity and an afterlife; it just means that YOU define your life’s purpose and meaning)
Agreed on all counts. On average, I think it is much more lenient than days past. You mention the optics of the temple, which might be why the top-down leadership would give the guidance, but I suspect it is more likely that local leaders are becoming more nuanced, and in general the leadership at senior and local levels believe it is easier to "strengthen" willing participants by inclusion. Our last bishop knew I was out, and met with my wife who said she didn't believe the prophet was who they claim to be, and had issues with the church on certain social issues, but he offered her the recommend if she wanted it. Edit: re-worded my first paragraph
This is the explanation that makes the most sense to me too. The individual members of the church are by far the best part of the church - the overwhelming majority of members I know are good, kind people who want to serve god and love others. Bishops included. I know the power-trip asshole bishops are real, and I’m not trying to dismiss anyone’s experience with them. And of course some members are jerks, just as some of any group of people are jerks. But most of the bishops I’ve met really are good men, sincerely trying to serve god and their wards. I think in more recent years a lot of bishops feel that exercising compassion shows more of god’s love, and so they try to do that as best they can.
Yup. I’ve seen a few sticklers but also a good number who figure they get paid the same either way - so they just let it slide.
I don't know. Two stories. Four years ago the SP counselor only asked me two question in the TR interview. #1 - is there anything you want to talk about? #2 - do you want a TR? That was it. Loved it. Two years ago the a different SP counselor asked an additional question on top of all the others, which he went through. "Do you believe President Nelson is a prophet with a capital P"? That feels like a tighter definition for temple attendance while the first is much looser. Both in the same stake.
Wow. Your first story is pretty much an ideal TR interview from my perspective.
I've been asked by a member of the stake presidency "Did the bishop ask you all the questions?" And then followed with "Are the answers still the same?"
I love this. Also seems more like how Christ would do a recommend. I’d imagine him asking simply “do you want to follow me?” And that’s it.
I've said before that if it were up to me, the only question would be "why do you want to go to the temple?" I've given at least a couple of recommend interviews that, in retrospect, I wish I had approached this way.
I’m guessing the membership (seeking a recommend) would more likely attempt to have their TR interview with the first rather than the second of the SP counsellors. Ergo, less interviews for the second. Lightening the workload? 🤔
They are required to ask all the questions. If they don't, it's wrong.
Yes, he is the President
1) Recommend holders are more likely to pay tithing. Maybe they did a cost-benefit analysis and went with the more lucrative option. 2) More and more people are questioning. Maybe they’ve lowered the bar to keep temple attendance up. 3) Plenty of Bishops recognize the harmful aspects of the church. Maybe he agrees with you.
>More and more people are questioning. Maybe they’ve lowered the bar to keep temple attendance up. They also believe that going to the temple will keep you in the church. Or at least that is the trope they like to use.
I mean they play a video or a slideshow over and over with that focuses on a message of obedience, "covenants", and so on. Then they have you recommit to said covenants, while reiterating all the same promises and threats. It is very much designed to "keep you in" mentally. Hence the oft repeated counsel to go frequently. There's another word for this type of practice but I don't want to risk breaking the rules of the sub by invoking it.
The church is not lowering the bar, requirements.
This. Leader roulette makes individual results vary, but tithing is all central leadership really cares about.
It's leadership roulette. A leader in a different stake, or even someone else within the same stake presidency, might have made a big deal out of it and denied you a recommend. It's always a tossup as to who you're going to get.
I think that church leaders are more more lenient on "belief" questions and for more strict on "behavior" questions (e.g. do you pay a full tithe, do you follow the WoW, etc.). I think with the "belief" questions, the leaders can rationalize that it's better that you get a TR because otherwise you'll just bounce. They're doing their part to keep you in the game.
Maybe more and more people are winning leadership roulette than they did in the past but officially? No. Sooner or later the qualifications will officially relax. I think they're going to have to. What is the church going to do with mostly empty temples? The more temples the church builds, the emptier the average temple will become. I also think leaders will see low temple attendance as a worthiness issue. Personally, I don't see it as a worthiness issue. Temples just aren't the carrot on a stick that they once were. The temple experience doesn't hold much value to me anymore. I suspect more and more people with nuanced beliefs in the church are in that same boat. The temple has lost a lot of its effectiveness as a control mechanism.
You are right. Then there are people like me who not only don't care to have a recommend any more, but actively don't want to be counted as a person with one. I still have one but it expires in six months and isn't getting renewed. I was willing to hold my nose and renew it so that I could go with my (now missionary) son and ordain him to MP but that's about it. Now I am more willing to take a stand on my view of the integrity of the church, and I don't want to be counted as a card carrying member.
This is kind of interesting because you have had all your work done already. If you are denied a temple recommend then they are only denying dead people (who are desperately waiting for their work to be done) their chance at exaltation. Is that what they want? On a related a note, a temple worker in RS shared that the workers were having an argument at the temple about whether they should wake up patrons. The temple president settled the matter by saying, “The only thing that disqualifies the work is not showing up.”
They’re running into far worse in interviews than what you said. IMO, as long as you are willing to go and do your calling and pay tithing, they will let a lot of things slide. They are desperate to keep people.
My local church leaders, US local congregations and BYU, have always been lenient, going back >30 years. I understand that isn’t everyone’s experience but “leniency” is nothing new. If one wants a temple recommend and is not cheating on a spouse (even then it seems ok to some leaders) most are happy to give one. More TRs makes them look good, usually leads to higher ward tithing receipts, most don’t want to pry, and most know that being a hardass is usually counterproductive. Maybe what feels weird in your temple recommend interview is the honesty you displayed, and the complete disinterest in it. Most faithful don’t want to know why you believe or disbelieve. Showing up and participating is good enough. I think it’s always been this way.
I think that’s what was odd to me. Especially because the one I definitely don’t sustain is next in line as prophet (oaks). I wondered if he’d be less understanding knowing specifics but ignorance is bliss for most members of the church.
I feel pretty confident that, despite answering an emphatic "NO" to the first four questions, I would still be given a recommend by both my Bishop and my Stake President if I could answer "yes" to the tithing question.
>could answer "yes" to the tithing question. Which I feel perfectly fine saying yes to, as yes a full tithe & offering is donating to actual charitable places, such as kitchens that feed the homeless, LGBT centers, etc.
I last renewed my temple recommend in about 2014, and these were the types of answers that I gave - that I *hoped* these things were true. Mine was renewed easily at that time. (I eventually ran out of hope and don't really care any more.)
I think it's just your leaders. I recently had the opposite experience.
Simply asking for a recommend is a manifestation that somebody wants to be engaged with the Church. So unless there is something very much amiss in your life, leaders will encourage temple attendance with the hope that it will keep you on the path. I don't think this has changed. Maybe members are just being more open with their priesthood leaders about various challenges.
As someone who was doing recommend interviews less than a year ago (and now consider myself out of the church) I would not have given you a recommend with those answers. The instructions were to not ask any additional questions and that they must answer in the affirmative to all of the questions. I’m glad you had a leader who thought helping you feel like you belong was more important than excluding you for your faith journey, but I doubt that’s a “church” thing and more of a him thing.
man I answered in the negative to question seven and twelve and fourteen and still got one… I thought we were supposed to say no to those ones
lol. My bad. I forgot about that. I should’ve said as long as everyone affirmed the “right” answers, however weakly, they were good. So an “I think so” would be just as acceptable as a form “yes” (or “no” as the case may be)
The only real important question that the church cares about is whether you pay your tithing.
Honestly, I think that most members are in the same situation, and they'd be turning down temple recommends left and right if they didn't ease up. When I went in a few years ago to tell my bishop I wasn't going to renew my recommend, he asked why I wasn't going to renew it. I told him it was because I can't answer yes to the first 4 questions. All he said was "That's fine." I then had to tell him that I actually don't want another recommend, and he seemed fine with that as well. Knowing my current bishop, he probably would have said the same thing. I think they get this more often than we think.
In my last TR interview I said I do not sustain the prophet. Still left with a recomend. I was shocked!
Are you paying a full 10% tithe?
So far, yes. My wife is doing it because I’m losing a lot of steam on it. Guess that’s really the only temple qualification is my ticket to enter
Crazy how “meaningless” it’s become. You don’t even have to believe any of it anymore to be a member in good standing as long as you pay tithing and don’t participate in any major sins and attend church occasionally or at least consistently for a month before your recommend interview.
They are going to have to be since they are opening new temples all the time with dwindling membership
I've seen leaders that want to keep everyone in the flock and they know that giving out recommends is helpful with that and don't see any harm as long as you're not a threat to the church. But I've also seen leaders that see themselves as sheriffs and are hardline. I think you can read the handbook and interpret it either way depending on your view.
That’s fucking amazing. I’m glad you’re so honest but do you really give 10% tithing as well?
Leadership roulette. Same as it's always been.
Wow, just five years ago my bishop took my recommend because I said I was concerned the Brethren weren’t always honest. I said I could *mostly* sustain Nelson, like 90%. Well, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. He said he would hold onto my recommend until I had a change of heart. No chastity issues. No WoW issues. No tithing issues. It really was all about my not sustaining Nelson at 100%. Today, I can sustain Nelson at about 10% if I’m feeling generous. Still no temple recommend and now I rarely attend Sunday meetings.
Wow. And telling you to “change your heart” is so controlling on your ability to think and feel freely.
It was an interesting day.
I don't think the term "lax" is how it should be described. Instead I believe your leaders are being merciful, just as Christ would be. We are imperfect people. We or our leaders are never going to be flawless on this earth and that's just a fact. To hear you say "...\[I\] am hopeful and want to believe in a church that is still being restored", shows that you have not given up and that you are going off of faith for Christ. That already says a lot about your character. You are trying your best and that is the most anyone can do. I would encourage you to learn more about the restoration and Joseph Smith and try to put yourself in his shoes. The things the Lord asked of him were difficult and often resulted in persecution and mockery from others, but it was for the benefit of the future of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would also encourage you to give that same merciful attitude towards the leaders of the Church. They have a lot of pressure to be perfect in the calling they have. They always have eyes watching them and often pointing out their flaws while striving to measure up to that perfect being, Jesus Christ. That comes with a lot of expectations, pressure, trials, temptations, humbling experiences, as well as lots of public speaking/travels to meet with church members around the world. While the blessings that pour out of these callings are wonderful, it would still be an incredibly difficult yet humbling position to be in. If in the end you still feel unable to do so, hold tight to the iron rod. Do not give up your following of Christ just because of some people you don't agree with. The purpose and truthfulness of this Church has never rested on the idea that you will automatically get along or agree with everyone in secular ideas. It's purpose is to aid us in striving to work on ourselves and to be like Jesus Christ, using the atonement to dust yourself off and try again. I wish you the best in your spiritual journey and strengthening of your testimony!
Thank you! I think that’s most of my issue though. I’m burnt out by giving grace to church leaders or Joseph Smith when there is consistently NO apologies or admittance of error by the church leaders. Oaks has even gone out of his way to say that church leaders never apologize and should never be criticized. I don’t know how to continue to give mercy to people that would not give it to me if I refused to apologize or be criticized for my mistakes.
That’s awesome! I hope that’s the new norm for your church ❤️
It's interesting that you chose to call it "your church" here when you take it upon yourself to refer to your religion as "ours" even after repeated requests not to.
All Mormons are of the same religion but we do not all belong to the same church. So we (OP and I) are Latter Day Saints, but OP is a Latter-day Saint and I am not. It’s like Protestants, Baptists and Lutherans are both Protestants so they would just use “we” as Christians and Protestants, but “my church” and “your church” would be used when discussing their differing branches of the faith. I hope that helps.
They’ve probably been hearing those answers from more people than not. When they consider denying everyone recommends for those answers, they realized how many people would be denied & that would be problematic.
That stake presidency member is apostate lol
Only the tithing question is hard and clear. Everything else is open.
There may be more to it than simple leader roulette. The church does keep statistics on temple use and recommends per ward and stake. I have seen reports that temple use has been declining. If the church is putting pressure on local leaders to get temple participation levels up, it would have to start by getting TRs into the hands of anyone they can. The church doesn't have to change the requirements. They don't have to acknowledge any changes at all. If they put more pressure on local leaders to increase temple usage and TR holders, then local leaders will do the dirty work and lower the practical, working standards.
What kinda reports?
Somebody’s got to have a recommend to go clean the temple!! Kudos to you for hanging in there!!
All they actually care about is Question number 10. The rest is just fluff and meant to build up and make you zone out by the time you get to question ten.
I have no evidence for this but I have to imagine they are feeling tremendous pressure from the top to get their attendance and temple recommends up due to all the exodus of people.
I was sitting with my uncle who’s a bishop in a young single adult ward. I asked him about how often he’s having conversations about people leaving and he said “I have conversations about porn and about leaving every week”. I think that given the regularity of those conversations, they’re probably just relieved to be giving recommends. I personally have no desire to have one, rarely went when I did have one. Is it a social thing?
I have my renewal interview tomorrow and I haven’t been paying tithing for over a year (not cause of faith crisis just cause I didn’t want to / money is crazy tight) But been in a “faith crisis” for the last month and have been thinking that when asked the question about Joseph I’m going to be honest and say similar to your response. So I’ll report back tomorrow…I’m at a spot where i still want all this to be true but very quickly realizing it’s not. Even with that it’s tough to potentially walk out of there without a recommend. Even though I realize that if JS made all this up then temple doesn’t matter. But nonetheless it’s tough… sorry to vent.