The Church has announced a revision in the temple recommend questions. These are the questions that priesthood leaders are instructed to be ask members seeking recommends to participate in Temple ordinances. Of the fifteen questions, eleven have been modified. Here are the questions from the announcement:
- Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?
- Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?
- Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
- Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?
- The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41). Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior? Do you obey the law of chastity?
- Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?
- Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
- Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament; and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
- Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?
- Are you a full-tithe payer?
- Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?
- Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children?If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
- Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?
- Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?
- Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?
Church leaders will begin using these questions immediately.
I like the changes. For example, instead of simply asking, “Do you live the law of chastity?,” the revised question invites members to consider their thoughts and behavior in terms of the principle of moral cleanliness. The question on honesty is also clarified with the phrase “in all that you do,” which is helpful in reminding us of its importance.
These questions are not calling for perfection, but ask us to prepare carefully to be able to enter the Lord’s house in good faith.
The Temple has been a significant blessing in my life. It is the powerhouse of the Lord’s kingdom, giving purpose and meaning to many aspects of our lives and of the Gospel. To understand its purpose, its beauty, its ancient roots and its covenant nature centered on Jesus Christ can help make our Temple experiences be more meaningful and can give us strength in many of the challenges we face in mortality.
Interesting. Mormons on this website insist there is nothing in their temple covenants that is not already in the baptismal / sacrament covenants. But in the list above there is something about covenanting to wear garments, so it appears they have violated number 9, being honest.
Also, how can a person covenant to wear garments if they don't know there is a covenant to wear garments until after they have gone through the ceremony? Also, isn't a covenant a one way street, where someone gets nothing in return. Why would any sane parent teach their children it is a good idea to covenant?
The recommend questions aren't meant to be cover every detail, but some general principles to ensure that the person is ready. But there is a section on the printed question sheet for the local leader to read that reviews the temple garment as part of the Temple. Further, those going to the Temple should have been given adequate instruction to understand the temple garment and the basic covenant approach of the temple. For example, members planning on going to the Temple will generally go over the booklet, Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, which discusses garments.
People striving to be honest in all things they do do not discussed covenants until after the ceremony, the way your Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple link advocates. The link does NOT discuss what the covenants are.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MormonDoctrine/comments/82g8cv/is_the_wearing_of_the_temple_garment_a_covenant/
There is no point in the temple ceremony where you vocally or mentally agree to wearing the garment. Rather, you are instructed to wear it
And your last questions, "isn't a covenant a one way street, where someone gets nothing in return."
No, it is not. A covenant is an agreement between two people or parties. God requires certain behavior and in fulfillment of that behavior, God bestows blessings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(Latter_Day_Saints)
Steve
Steve 10:36 – that is nice, but unfortunately you have not linked to an LDS webpage or unofficial LDS webpage. Furthermore, the table in the link you provided has zero references. The removal of this comment indicates there is some sort of slieght of hand occuring. Other websites contradict your assertions that there exists a quid pro quo and what the quid pro quo might be. You may have a personal opinion of the his covenant means for yourself, but that is all
Exactly Steve. Jermeny runnells has done all those things so he will receive the promised benefits.
His stake president has not though, and it is not looking like his stake president is showing contrition so far, so it unlikely he will be forgiven, but that is between God and his stake president.
With all this clarified it looks like most every Christian can pass those questions honestly
I don't think these questions are an improvement. No one is worthy to enter the "Lord's House." That is the whole point of Christianity. We aren't worthy. Jesus is. Mormons declare their own worthiness, and thus kick the Lamb of God off the altar.
And now, you can be denied a temple recommend for supporting any teaching, practice, or doctrine contrary to the LDS Church. It is really not quite clear what the doctrines of the church actually are. And this means that those who support same-sex marriage can be denied a temple recommend, even if they aren't practicing it.
Not an improvement.
Here would be my temple recommend interview:
Bishop: "Are you worthy to enter the House of the Lord?"
Individual: "Only through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ."
Bishop: "Great…enjoy your visit."
EBU
Unfortunately, Mister Runnells fails almost every one of those questions.
If his Stake President did anything wrong, with regard to Mister Runnells, it was only in tolerating him far too long.
Kiwi – explain, unless you are just making stuff up, I then don't bother
Kiwi – I see, no explanations. Your attacks on Mister Runnells were pure badgering and harassment for rhetorical effect. If you had anything specific to accuse Mister Runnells of you would have done so with relish. You appear to be proud of your unChristlike attitude.
Not being familiar with Runnels’ story previously, nor any debate surrounding it, I read his account of events last night. First impression is that it is extremely repetitive. He says he had questions and was honestly seeking answers. I believe this may have been true initially—those of us who have had a faith crisis with the church can identify with his stated thought process and feelings. What I think is disingenuous is his statement that he desires to retain his membership in the church. First, his reasons seem pretty flimsy to me. He knew where this was all leading, otherwise why secretly record his conversations with the stake president? It seems he was playing it all out for effect and to be able to document it on his website. The stake president made some errors in his handling of the situation, but was extremely patient and always offered help, though many times those offers seemed a bit hollow.
Anon 8:28 – if the prez was "extremely patient and always offered help" there have never been a court and the prez would have gone to runnells house first to engage in dialogue and would have never requested secrecy. The recording clearly clearly shows it the prez's insincerity and kangaroo court.
I'm not sure what Jeremy Runnells has to do with temple questions but superficially he appears to not accept questions 3, 4, 6, and possibly 7 so I would guess that he does not pass all the questions.
In the end, it is Jesus who is our advocate before the Father.
Steve
Steve 8:30 – not sure how you came to your orbital assessment on 6 and 7. If runnells fails 6 and 7 then everyone does. With 3 if runnells fails then so does Jeff with his description of the terribly incomplete restoration and fantastic characterization of long long standing dearly dearly held utterly errant beliefs.
That only leaves 4. The question its self acknowledges many others have priesthood, but obviously God is a God of order and each congregation of the body Christ has a principal leader, for the lds congregation that is the lds prez, and runnells is no different than Jeff in declaring the prez's decrees as being purely administrative and fallible.
But like you say Steve it is not your place and only Jesus will judge in the end . For now we all have strong strong evidence of the falliabilty of the stake prez and out of love for the prez we can only pray he will humble himself to seek redemption from the savior which will require the prez to seek runnells forgiveness in this life or the next
3. Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Jeremy Runnells' dialog with his stake president demonstrated that he did not.
4. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
Jeremy Runnells' publication and subsequent dialog with his stake president demonstrated that he did not.
6. Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?
I guess this one is pretty broad but part of the teachings is that the President of the Church is the only one authorized to exercise all currently revealed priesthood keys. Part of the teachings of the Church is sustaining local authorities as well as believing in the divine nature of the Book of Mormon. We all fall short of perfection but there is a broad gray area and then past that broad gray area it is clear that one does not "follow the teachings of the Church…" I believe that Jeremy Runnells demonstrated that he is beyond that broad gray area.
7. Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
I guess Jeremy's CES letter was a letter full of questions and not teachings that is why I said maybe to this question.
But educate me why Jeremy passes these questions. "Orbital assessment…" I have no idea what you mean by this phrase.
Steve
3 and 4 – If that is true, then Jeff's dialog here demonstrates that he does not have a testimony.
6 – "I believe". What you believe says more about you and your unChristlike attitudes than Jeremy.
7 – If CES letter is contrary then so is Jeff's site here.
I did educate you. Most all Christians pass these questions. You the great accuser here and the burden is on you to educate others.
Orbital assessment, not grounded in assertions of solid evidence that does not also apply to others who you claim pass these questions
I'm just glad we're talking about Jeremy Runnells. The more the name Jeremy Runnells gets out the more people will go looking to see what the deal is with this Jeremy Runnells. That will lead them to Jeremy Runnells' work, which is very compelling. Sure, some Mormon apologists, including our dear Jeff here on this very blog, will dismiss Jeremy Runnells' work as a "big list fallacy," which is an incorrect use of the term. It's certainly a big list, but it's not a "big list fallacy." They aren't the same thing, as Jeremy Runnells and many others know.
I dunno, I didn't find Runnells's work very compelling. And no, it's not because I'm already LDS, or stuck in cognitive dissonance, or any other buzzwords antis like to throw around. It's because I prefer to research issues before making conclusions. My research indicated that Jeremy's work is very biased towards critical sources, poorly researched, ridiculously and pointlessly repetitive, and perhaps even deliberately deceptive; and at times he seems to display low reading comprehension almost on the level of fellow commenter Mormography. Add to that the constant condescending barbs and jabs sprinkled throughout his works, and I just cannot take any of it seriously, much less find it compelling.
Jeremy's work is really only compelling to people who are only willing to see one side of the story, or are just looking to confirm their biases or suspicions. Those who approach with a more analytical eye will be more capable of seeing the problems in his work.
I am not sure what the "work" or "conclusions" of Jeremy is. If we are going to call an unoriginal compendium of items "a work", then yes, Ramer's miscomprehension is the source of his vitriol. As Steve comprehends, Jeremy didn't have conclusions, but questions. Anon 9:25 correctly comprehends, that despite Jeff's deceptive denials, Jeff's recycling of "big list" commentary is a direct attack on Jeremy. Unlike Ramer, the LDS church found the movement around Jeremy's compendium of questions so impacting, undeniable, and strong, they were compelled to produce an unprecedented series of essays to address it. Rejecting this reality with never defined buzzwords like "anti" only displays how afraid Jeremy's haters are.
Guys like John Dehlin take an air of credit for the work of others, but humble folks like Jeremy were people who never asked for credit and bravely stood up to an onslaught of arrows. Those with maturity and comprehension challenges confuse Jeremy's valiance to attacks of ridiculously, repetitive arrows barbed with condescending jabs as Jeremy being one-sided, biased, and lacking analytical capacity. Their comprehension challenges are the source of their delusions but are not a problem for them, just as most alcoholics are functional.
More like the delusions cause the comprehension challenges.
Ramer you're too indoctrinated to understand the meat the CES letter contains. Stick with your milk, I guess, and keep dividing the world into members and antis. That kind of closed minded thinking doesn't lead to happiness, in spite of what you've been raised to believe.
you're too indoctrinated
Ah, THAT'S the buzzword I couldn't remember!
Buzzword is my favorite of Ramer's buzzwords.
Ramer –
Thank you for your powerful 10:29 testimony. It demonstrates how the LDS gospel can take many people, such as yourself, further from Christ, bringing into question its "truthfulness". Thank you for acknowledging that humble folks such as Jeremy, who read, researched, ponder in their hearts, prayed, and diligently did everything the LDS Church asked, such as go on a mission for fear of going to LDS hell, will not find the happiness and conclusions the LDS church falsely promised.
Your 10:29 generalities offered no specifics, so we are all curious, on what are they based? Unofficial responses to Jeremy, after much misdirection, usually conclude agreeing with him. For example, the CES Letter's first item was the italicized portions of the KJV in the BoM. After responding with persistent misdirection, Fairmormon eventually concedes "we cannot answer this question". This persistent hand-waving and (Catholic-esque) its-just-faith are recurring themes in the anonymous Fairmormon's responses. Extending on this, 2 Nephi 19:1 incorrectly uses Red Sea instead of sea. Again, Jeff agrees. Jeff blames Oliver Cowder for the imperfection. Jeff thereby agrees that fallible prophets, seers, and revelators such as Joseph Smith and his successors have never seen fit to address what Jeff considers most certainly an error. The big list of agreement goes on and on …
Jeremy has proven when he receives more research and analysis he is capable of modifying beyond the one-sided, its-just-faith position. In fact, he has a historical record of dramatically moving from one side to another. Fairmormon and Jeff Lindsay do not appear to have such a clear history of dramatic position modification but have a record of extreme one-sidedness, emphasized in their frequent denial of prior positions.
So please, share your claimed analytical eye with us and what your generalities are based on.
I have two brothers who live on opposite sides of this great country of ours. My brother on the west coast emailed his bishop and asked how question number 7 will be applied when dealing with people who are in support of gay marriage. This was over a week ago. And even after seeing each other face-to-face in church yesterday, the Bishop still has failed to respond. No acknowledgment at all.
My east coast brother emailed and asked the same question of his Stake President, with whom he has shared many email conversations. The Stake President responded, completely avoided the question, spent a few lines talking excitedly about all the great changes in the church and the new Youth Sunday School curriculum, and then invited my brother to lunch. My brother responded saying he would like to take him up on that offer. That was days ago. So far…crickets.
I am not at all confident that "all is well in Zion." I think that church is in major crisis mode.
EBU
Extending on this, 2 Nephi 19:1 incorrectly uses Red Sea instead of sea.
Upon what criteria is 2 Nephi 19:1 pronounced "incorrect"?
You will have to ask jeff
Jared – I see your silly quible of "possibly" incorrect which of course, if you were a sincere person you would simply clarified being you already know exactly what is being referred to. Someone such as Jeremy is suggesting it couldn't "possibly" be incorrect, because true prophets seer revelators would have corrected it. So apologist who suggest or quote other apologist that suggest it is possibly incorrect are agreeing with Jeremy, ergo you will have to ask Jeff why suggests there are uncorrected dictation errors in the current bom. The continuation of such possible errors is a question that appears only to be answered by declaring such divine leadership to be indistquishable from englightened but uninspired leadership, something Jeff has repeatedly agreed with.
Upon what grounds do you know 2 Nephi 19:1 should have said "sea" instead of "Red Sea?"
We can ask that question – upon what grounds do you know – for each of the alleged "errors" said to be in the Book of Mormon. Whether or not any "apologist" has agreed the Book of Mormon to be in error on any or even all of these items is irrelevant – after all, to only accept the opinions of apologists when they are agreed with is not to accept their opinions at all, but is instead to simply use them as a rhetorical hammer against one's real target.
It would be helpful to make your assumptions both explicit and to state them plainly.
Jared – it would be helpfully to display sincerity and to not only seek to invent things you disagree with and seek out false division.
I didn't invent the claim that 2 Nephi 19:1 should have said "sea" instead of "Red Sea."
I haven't said whether I agree or disagree with the claim.
I have simply asked "upon what criteria is 2 Nephi 19:1 pronounced 'incorrect'?". Equivalently, I have asked "upon what grounds do you know 2 Nephi 19:1 should have said 'sea' instead of 'Red Sea?'".
If making the truth known is the purpose of making the claim that 2 Nephi 19:1 is in error, then I do not understand why my asking these basic questions should be met with accusations, scorn, ire, or mockery. If someone can explain the criteria upon which 2 Nephi 19:1 is pronounced "incorrect," wouldn't it be better to plainly state them?
You didn't sincerely ask a question you didn't already know the answer to. As you already knew the apologist claim should have been "possibly" incorrect. Why so much insincerity?
But nice to see that was the only minor thing bg you could quible with
Anon,
You are inconsistent in your arguments and it sounds like you just want to bait.
Steve
Steve – I will take your bait, What inconsistency?
Steve – it appears your bait surrounds my observation that the official and unofficial conversations regarding covenants lack consistency and given your demonstration that you just want to bait, you appear to be deliberately mis-attributing the lack of consistency to myself, validating my argument that you are merely attempting to manipulate others by imposing your highly private and personal (sacred?) interpretations on others.
If anyone HONESTLY wants to know why I said what I did about Jeremy's CES Letter, or if there are people reading this who are confused or wary about what it says, other people have already said more than I could about the issues in the letter.
This is my personal favorite of the many responses I've seen to his letter, It goes in depth for answers, rebuttals, and sources, and points out instances of what I said earlier:
"…Jeremy's work is very biased towards critical sources, poorly researched, ridiculously and pointlessly repetitive, and perhaps even deliberately deceptive; and at times he seems to display low reading comprehension… Add to that the constant condescending barbs and jabs sprinkled throughout his works…"
The author of this document also tries (although admitting he still might fail) to avoid attacking Jeremy personally, instead addressing the arguments he makes. He also adds some humorous bits here and there to liven it up a bit.
I heavily suggest that anyone who reads it does so with an open mind. And don't just immediately believe or disregard what it says, either – research the answers for yourself to confirm or contradict it.
(My bet's that Mormography's not actually going to read the whole thing, and will instead just parrot/insult something back to me… but oh well, I've tried.)
Ramer –
Almost no one would bet that someone you openly hate and insult pathologically would read 372 pages simply because you demand it. Your bet was a safe bet nearing the useless 1:1 odds. I mean, why even bet if all you are going to win is your bet back? Had you bet the other way you probably would have hit the jackpot.
I wish I could say "Faithful" responses that take 300+ pages are a wry comedy, but St. Augustine's The City of God proves me wrong. Bennett's foreword opens with ad hominem, for only one example, Bennett declares Jeremy is lying about not even making minimum wage, which btw would be much less than many apologists make on their book sales and much less than a $120,000 stipend. Then immediately after attacking him, Bennett swears he is not attacking him. At least St. Augustine had the intellectual honesty to admit he was not actually chaste, he only desired to be.
Regarding 1769 KJV and the BoM, Bennett ONLY quibbled about the word "error" vice "variation" and then Bennett deliberately lied, stating "it's quite a different case". In the end, Bennett did not disagree that the same variations unique to the 1769 KJV exist in the BoM, the essence of the actual question asked. Bennetts admits this is odd, but invents a complexity to dismiss the oddity, and then finally comes to the same faithful answer as the anonymous Fairmormon, it's just faith. If the translation is the same as the 1769 KJV, then that is the best possible translation. Why? Because Bennett said so, that's why.
Bennett concludes that destroying others' faith, just like Mormons do, is a bad thing. If any money is made at it, like the apologist book sales or CES / general authority stipends, it is diabolical. Thank goodness Jeremy does not agree with Bennett.
Bennett goes on and on this way, quibbling, parsing, playing word games on and on and on. Bennett's fantastically hypocritical rambling and Jeremy's "work" have been proven not to be what anything that Ramer claims them to be.
What the heck are you trying to say in that first paragraph??
…Bennett's foreword opens with ad hominem, for only one example, Bennett declares Jeremy is lying about not even making minimum wage…
Bennett said nothing about minimum wage, but even if he had it would only be ad hominem if he was using it as an excuse to dismiss what Jeremy was saying. If you think anything Bennett said in his foreword is ad hominem, I'd hate to know what you, Mormography, would call Jesus repeatedly calling the scribes and Pharisees "hypocrites," and rebuking Peter by calling him "Satan."
Regarding 1769 KJV and the BoM, Bennett ONLY quibbled about the word "error" vice "variation" and then Bennett deliberately lied, stating "it's quite a different case…"
Error vs. variation and "quite a different case" are referring to two different things under one umbrella topic. I'm not sure if you, Mormography, actually didn't read Bennett's response, or if your reading comprehension is actually this poor. Either way I feel sorry for you.
…but invents a complexity to dismiss the oddity…
How do you know he "invents" it? Did you, Mormography, actually research it yourself? Or did you, Mormography, just decide this because you, Mormography, have already made up your mind about him being wrong?
If the translation is the same as the 1769 KJV, then that is the best possible translation. Why? Because Bennett said so, that's why.
I'm going to betray my apparent desperate need of therapy and counseling and ask for a citation for this. When did Bennett use the "because I said so" logic for this question?
…just like Mormons do…
Once again, when did Bennett conclude that Latter-day Saints destroy others' faith? Are you sure you, Mormography, are not just reading your own prejudices into the response? Have you, Mormography, EVER considered the possibility that you, Mormography, might be wrong about this?
Bennett's fantastically hypocritical rambling and Jeremy's "work" have been proven not to be what anything that Ramer claims them to be.
Nothing of the sort has been "proven." Saying that it has been proven does not make it so.
You know, with a response like yours, I can see why you, Mormography, seem to look up to Jeremy. You, Mormography, do so many of the same things he does, only more so. I'm not going to pretend I can change your view of the Church, but I do hope that one day you, Mormography, can adopt a more humble, teachable approach to your discussions. I've seen it happen on this blog before, so I know it can happen again.
There it is. Now Jeremy is "Satan", you skipped right over Hitler and went straight for Satan. Oh, and I am pretty sure Bennett is not Jesus.
Bennett was clearly claiming he has secret inside information that Jeremy was making a comfortable living off donations. Apparently, you demand people read your stuff, but you bother not to read Jeremy, who claims he has not even made minimum wage. It is Bennett's opening and closing conclusion. You are wrong to suggest that if Bennett includes one thoughtful retort, then his ad hominems ceases to be ad hominem. It is Bennett's opening and closing, clearly he is using it to dismiss Jeremy.
If Mormons are not out to destroy then neither is Jeremy. I did not describe destroying faith, not my style. My style is to use the descriptions consistently, I only used it consistently as it was described. If you feel Bennett's prejudices are wrong that is fine.
The things that Mormography does were clearly based on Ramer, not Jeremy. Jeremy is much classy to stoop to Ramer or the Mormography that imitates Ramer. Not liking Mormography's views speaks volumes about how you feel about yourself. If feeling sorry for others is what you need to do to feel better about yourself, knock yourself out.
Okay, quick question for everyone who isn't Mormography:
Y'all can tell what I'm actually trying to say here, can't you? Jeff, OK, Steve, Jared, anyone else who happens to be reading this? Can the rest of you tell that I'm not saying what Mormography is trying to claim I am?
I think you are saying you do not like Jeremy for various reasons and the other guy is saying he finds your reasons insincere.
Ramer – Amazing! You really are obviously to the fact that you only humiliate yourself more when you beg for help after being whooped at a fight you started.
Ramer asks, Can the rest of you tell that I'm not saying what Mormography is trying to claim I am?
I can’t really do that, Ramer, because I stopped reading Mormography’s comments long ago. I still read yours, though.
— OK