What procedure is used to determine temple recommend questions?

[Guest mormonmusic]

Just wondering if anyone knows what process is used to decide which questions are asked in a temple recommend interview? What criteria is used to decide which commandments figure in the questions, and which ones do not?

I know the questions are standard throughout the Church, but I'm curious as to why certain commandments figure there, while others don't.

[Hemidakota]

Based on reading comprehension here, I wasn't aware where it is up to any Branch President, Ward Bishop, or Stake President in asking anything less than what is provided. Now, there are times when we ask more than what is provided by the interview process [notable is the priesthood interview secession].

Further references..

1] Worthy to Enter

"Once you have some feeling for the value of temple blessings and for the sacredness of the ordinances performed in the temple, you would be hesitant to question the high standards set by the Lord for entrance into the holy temple.

You must possess a current recommend to be admitted to the temple. This recommend must be signed by the proper officers of the Church. Only those who are worthy should go to the temple. Your local bishop or branch president has the responsibility of making inquiries into your personal worthiness. This interview is of great importance, for it is an occasion to explore with an ordained servant of the Lord the pattern of your life. If anything is amiss in your life, the bishop will be able to help you resolve it. Through this procedure, as you counsel with the common judge in Israel, you can declare or can be helped to establish your worthiness to enter the temple with the Lord’s approval.

The interview for a temple recommend is conducted privately between the bishop and the Church member concerned. Here the member is asked searching questions about his personal conduct and worthiness and about his loyalty to the Church and its officers. The person must certify that he is morally clean and is keeping the Word of Wisdom, paying a full tithe, living in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and not maintaining any affiliation or sympathy with apostate groups. The bishop is instructed that confidentiality in handling these matters with each interviewee is of the utmost importance.

Acceptable answers to the bishop’s questions will ordinarily establish the worthiness of an individual to receive a temple recommend. If an applicant is not keeping the commandments or there is something unsettled about his life that needs putting in order, it will be necessary for him to demonstrate true repentance before a temple recommend is issued.

After the bishop has conducted such an interview, a member of the stake presidency likewise interviews each of us before we go to the temple." LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Holy Temple

2] Council on how to interview by President N. Eldon Tanner; LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Blessing of Church Interviews

Edited June 3, 2010 by Hemidakota

[applepansy]

I think you would need to direct this question to the First Presidency or one of the Apostles. Anyone else would be speculating. Maybe a letter or email to the Church Offices would get an answer from the right person.

[Suzie]

I know the questions are standard throughout the Church, but I'm curious as to why certain commandments figure there, while others don't.

Sorry I am a little confused, are you asking who decided the standard questions for a temple recommend? Basically how it started?

[HiJolly]

100 years ago one of the questions was, "Do you bathe before attending Sunday meetings, where possible?" LoL

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

[Guest mormonmusic]

I know the questions have undergone revision, but I wondered if anyone had any insights behind the thinking that leads to changes in the questions, ....someone once said that the question about honesty was borne out of mass dishonesty related to the Savings and Loans crisis years and years and years ago, however, there was no authoritative source quoted.

If no one knows, that's fine, I realized we might struggle with this one -- someone who has been around long enough to have experienced various changes to the questions might be able to provide some history. There was probably discussion at that time about the changes so people didn't walk into the interviews unprepared and blind-sided....

I like the bathing question; now, that's a commandment I think I keep without too much hassle!

[HiJolly]

My previous comment was not made-up, yet it is true I got it a bit wrong:

Temple Recommend Questions? By Guest Aaron Reeves at Mormon Matters

Temple Recommend Interviews were not formalised until the 1880’s. In the 1856-7 Mormon Reformation when ‘Home Teachers’ were asked to visit the saints and recommit them to live the gospel they would also ask a series of questions (much like the Catholic Cathecism) about worthiness or behaviour. This was the beginning of such a practice.

Some of the early questions were: Have you Murdered anyone in Cold-Blood? Have you knowingly branded another persons cattle or livestock? Have you plowed or harvested grain from a field that was not your own? Do you, and your family, wash or bathe as regularly as you are able?

Before this time people going to the temple were recommend by the Bishop and one other (usually the Prophet – Wilford Woodruff changed this when he had to do 3,000 in one year). Tithing was made a requirement in the 1880’s. The Word of Wisdom was made a strong recommendation, around the 1890’s and in the 1930’s a requirement. Sometime after Polygamy was stopped the question about affiliating with groups that are against the Church’s teachings was added and the question about the living Prophet. The 1970’s brought the question about being honest in our dealings with our fellow man (there was some serious fraud scams happening in Utah at the time). The 80’s brought sexual abuse questions and also the caring for dependent children question. The requirements have been changed as well, i.e. the wording of what is expected and how strictly.

I think this is important too:

(December 14th 1845, Brigham Young giving instructions on temple ordinances)…"He then introduced the subject of the brethren making objections to any person being permitted to receive the ordinances, and added that when objections were made he should feel bound to determine whether the person making the objections was a responsible person...

To make a man a responsible man he must have the power and ability not only to save himself but to save others, but there are those who are not capable of saving themselves and will have to be saved if they are saved at all by those who are capable of doing it. An objection from such would have no weight on his mind.

When a man objects to another receiving the ordinances, he becomes responsible to answer to God for that mans salvation. And who knows but if he received the ordinances he would be saved, but if we refuse to give him the means he cannot be saved and we are responsible for it.

There is no law to prevent any man from obtaining all the blessings of the priesthood if he will walk according to the commandments, pay his tithes and seek after salvation, but he may deprive himself of them."

(George D. Smith, “An Intimate Chronicle; The Journals of William Clayton”, p.214)

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

I am sure one of the scholars done some research into this area. Based on what I have seen over the years from three block Sundays to modifications done inside the temple, usually it comes from both ends of the church; the brethren and the members. In my last calling, we even made changes to the temple garment for the military. Through a great efforts of a retired Chaplin who works at military department, church headquarter, it was finally approved by the First Presidency. It was very helpful for the Marines in PT and hot climates. Now, LDS sport professionals can wear them.

We even needed to permission to have the military Aaronic priesthood members [west coast hyrbrid branch] receive the same priesthood interview form [except one line was changed]. This was very helpful to bring more meaning to the sacredness of the priesthood.

However, I could point out which apostle wrote the CHoI but I know I would be contacted over posting it since the brethren frequent the board.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

My previous comment was not made-up, yet it is true I got it a bit wrong:

Temple Recommend Questions? By Guest Aaron Reeves at Mormon Matters

Temple Recommend Interviews were not formalised until the 1880’s. In the 1856-7 Mormon Reformation when ‘Home Teachers’ were asked to visit the saints and recommit them to live the gospel they would also ask a series of questions (much like the Catholic Cathecism) about worthiness or behaviour. This was the beginning of such a practice.

Some of the early questions were: Have you Murdered anyone in Cold-Blood? Have you knowingly branded another persons cattle or livestock? Have you plowed or harvested grain from a field that was not your own? Do you, and your family, wash or bathe as regularly as you are able?

Before this time people going to the temple were recommend by the Bishop and one other (usually the Prophet – Wilford Woodruff changed this when he had to do 3,000 in one year). Tithing was made a requirement in the 1880’s. The Word of Wisdom was made a strong recommendation, around the 1890’s and in the 1930’s a requirement. Sometime after Polygamy was stopped the question about affiliating with groups that are against the Church’s teachings was added and the question about the living Prophet. The 1970’s brought the question about being honest in our dealings with our fellow man (there was some serious fraud scams happening in Utah at the time). The 80’s brought sexual abuse questions and also the caring for dependent children question. The requirements have been changed as well, i.e. the wording of what is expected and how strictly.

I think this is important too:

HiJolly

Anything from the early days of the Kirtland Temple era?

[HiJolly]

Anything from the early days of the Kirtland Temple era?

Nope. The function of the Kirtland temple was completely (well, almost) different from all subsequent temples.

Recommends were vastly different then, mostly just verbal if that. I think it was a moot point since even non-members were allowed inside occasionally (after the dedication).

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

Nope. The function of the Kirtland temple was completely (well, almost) different from all subsequent temples.

Recommends were vastly different then, mostly just verbal if that. I think it was a moot point since even non-members were allowed inside occasionally (after the dedication).

HiJolly

I can understand, in reading, there were four events of the Godhead being presence in the Kirtland Temple, and eight events of just the Savior only. Not counting others who made their presence known. Having a temple recommend or not, it would be cautionary for any member to step inside.

[Wingnut]

Anything from the early days of the Kirtland Temple era?

Kirtland was pretty much a meetinghouse, when compared to temple functionality today.

[Hemidakota]

It will be interesting to see what will prevail with the 24-temples built in the New Jerusalem [functional temples].

[Just_A_Guy]

100 years ago one of the questions was, "Do you bathe before attending Sunday meetings, where possible?" LoL

HiJolly

How long before?

When a man objects to another receiving the ordinances, he becomes responsible to answer to God for that mans salvation. And who knows but if he received the ordinances he would be saved, but if we refuse to give him the means he cannot be saved and we are responsible for it.

Considering that Brigham Young was apparently the originator of the prohibition on blacks receiving priesthood ordinations, I think this opens up some really interesting lines of thought.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Hemidakota]

Not to sidetrack to far, regarding Blacks receiving Priesthood ordinations, I thought, it stopped when Joseph learned this for himself and not President Young. Even thought, it was not recorded officially, he simply stopped this practice [including temple ordinations]. I believe, there were still members within the church, well into the 1860s, baptizing and giving the priesthood to the blacks until President Young finally stopped it. Right?

[Saguaro]

Not to sidetrack to far, regarding Blacks receiving Priesthood ordinations, I thought, it stopped when Joseph learned this for himself and not President Young. Even thought, it was not recorded officially, he simply stopped this practice [including temple ordinations]. I believe, there were still members within the church, well into the 1860s, baptizing and giving the priesthood to the blacks until President Young finally stopped it. Right?

What's your source that states it stopped with Joseph Smith? Oh right, you said you don't have one! It's generally accepted that the ban was initiated by Brigham Young, his views on the subject as well documented.

... any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it ...

Brigham Young, 1852

[Hemidakota]

Did you see the word 'RIGHT' after the last sentence? It was asking to see if the postulation was correct or not.

Now, did Joseph baptize any black members after the translating the Book of Abraham? Where did President Young learned this? Was it from the Lord or Joseph Smith?

[Elgama]

Did you see the word 'RIGHT' after the last sentence? It was asking to see if the postulation was correct or not.

Now, did Joseph baptize any black members after the translating the Book of Abraham? Where did President Young learned this? Was it from the Lord or Joseph Smith?

my understanding was it was Enoch Abel's own great faith that broke the curse for himself AND his descendants?

[Saguaro]

Did you see the word 'RIGHT' after the last sentence? It was asking to see if the postulation was correct or not.

Now, did Joseph baptize any black members after the translating the Book of Abraham? Where did President Young learned this? Was it from the Lord or Joseph Smith?

My apologies, I didn't see your question at the end.

Regarding whether or not it was from the Lord or Joseph Smith, I don't think we'll ever know unless BY is on record having said so. Personally, in my opinion (which isn't worth much), I don't think it came from either. David O McKay prayed about lifting the ban but felt the time wasn't right, he called the ban a "policy", not doctrine, but still felt it required a revelation to discontinue it because it had been in place for so long (see "David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism" by Greg Prince).

I did find this, it's very interesting.

Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview

(Apoloiges for threadjacking, this has nothing to do with the original post.)

[Hemidakota]

Eligma, Elijah Abel?

[Hemidakota]

My apologies, I didn't see your question at the end.

Regarding whether or not it was from the Lord or Joseph Smith, I don't think we'll ever know unless BY is on record having said so. Personally, in my opinion (which isn't worth much), I don't think it came from either. David O McKay prayed about lifting the ban but felt the time wasn't right, he called the ban a "policy", not doctrine, but still felt it required a revelation to discontinue it because it had been in place for so long (see "David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism" by Greg Prince).

I did find this, it's very interesting.

Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview

(Apoloiges for threadjacking, this has nothing to do with the original post.)

No problem...thanks for the correction. I also copied it to read it tonight.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

Reference 24 on the link;

24. The parenthetical reference, to "Negroes-descendants of Ham," is found in the Manuscript History 19 June 1831. The remark made in 1841 was rather arresting:

"I referred to the curse of Ham for laughing at Noah, while in his wine, but doing no harm.... [W]hen he was accused by Canaan, he cursed him by the priesthood which he held, and the Lord had respect to his word, and the priesthood which he held, notwithstanding he was drunk, and the curse remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day"; (History of the Church, 4:445-46).

The prophet also modified the account in Genesis to read that Canaan had "a veil of darkness ... cover him, that he shall be known among all men" (Gen. 9:50, The Holy Scriptures, Independence, Mo.: Herald House, 1944); the implications of the "Inspired Version" of Genesis may not be as evident as some have suggested, for Joseph Smith characterized the non-Negro Lamanites in very similar terms (2 Ne. 5:21; Jacob 3:5, 8-9; Alma 3:6-9; 3 Ne. 2:14-15; Morm. 5:15). This was my thought after translating and publishing the manuscript.

[Elgama]

Eligma, Elijah Abel?

thats him lol sorry i was distracted I came across the Elijah Abel society many years ago haven't read their website in a long time:) My understanding is other black men did receive the priesthood if they were not of Ham before 1978

[Hemidakota]

Thanks Elgama.

Returning back to OP before Pam brings her broom stick and beats me over my head [side tracking a thread], you can find the temple recommend questions if you google it.