Groups or individuals whose practices are contrary to the church

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

As part of the temple recommend interview, we're asked:

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?

Is it just me, or is this extremely vague? Seeing as none of us are perfect, we all affiliate with people and groups whose practices are contrary to those accepted by the church. So what is it refering to? Just the worst kinds of groups like anti-Mormons? What exactly does it mean?

I figure it's left so open for interpretation because it depends on the individual themselves rather than any set rules for, this organization is okay but this one isn't. So how to do you judge it?

Thanks in advance for your input.

[annewandering]

I always thought of it as kinda of a secret organization, ie gadianton robber kind of question.

[applepansy]

The question used to be more specific and referred directly to polygamists. I have an aunt and uncle who were excommunicated for sympathizing with polygamy. They were associating and teaching their 11 children they needed to be in polygamist relationships. If aunt's husband could have taken a second wife he would have. Very very long story short.....Just a couple of years ago they were rebaptized.

I asked a bishop if associating with my aunt was associating with polygamists. He said no. The type of relationship this question is referring to are ones where you are involved and participating. The question is vague on purpose.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

The question used to be more specific and referred directly to polygamists. I have an aunt and uncle who were excommunicated for sympathizing with polygamy. They were associating and teaching their 11 children they needed to be in polygamist relationships. If aunt's husband could have taken a second wife he would have. Very very long story short.....Just a couple of years ago they were rebaptized.

I asked a bishop if associating with my aunt was associating with polygamists. He said no. The type of relationship this question is referring to are ones where you are involved and participating. The question is vague on purpose.

So wait, why is it vague on purpose, if it's always refering only to when you're involved and participating? Why not specify that?

[applepansy]

So wait, why is it vague on purpose, if it's always refering only to when you're involved and participating? Why not specify that?

I believe that its vague to fit many situations and groups. We are no longer asked is we associate with polygamists. That was too specific and left out a lot of groups we shouldn't be sympathizing with or embracing.

additionally:

So what is it refering to? Just the worst kinds of groups like anti-Mormons? What exactly does it mean?

It is referring to exactly what the question says: 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. That is a broad and diverse description but if you sit down and really think about it you will know who the question refers to in your life if there is someone/group you need to be concerned about. If you have a question about specifics then the appropriate person(s) to ask are the person doing the temple recommend interview. If that is a counselor you might be referred to the Bishop/Stake President for an answer to your question.

Edited October 22, 2011 by applepansy
addition

[HEthePrimate]

As part of the temple recommend interview, we're asked:

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?

Everybody sins, even you and I. Sin is a practice contrary to what the CoJCoLDS teaches. Since each of us here at LDS.net is a sinner, you should not affiliate with us, nor should we with you.

Adios!

[Just_A_Guy]

I believe that its vague to fit many situations and groups. We are no longer asked is we associate with polygamists. That was too specific and left out a lot of groups we shouldn't be sympathizing with or embracing.

additionally:

It is referring to exactly what the question says: 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. That is a broad and diverse description but if you sit down and really think about it you will know who the question refers to in your life if there is someone/group you need to be concerned about. If you have a question about specifics then the appropriate person(s) to ask are the person doing the temple recommend interview. If that is a counselor you might be referred to the Bishop/Stake President for an answer to your question.

This may be more in the realm of urban legend, but my understanding is that some of the offshoot groups believe (or used to believe) that the priesthood remains with the pioneer-era temples (St. George, Manti, and Logan) even if the entity that controls them is now in "apostasy". So they would try to get standard LDS recommends in order to solemnize their relationships inside those specific temples.

[applepansy]

This may be more in the realm of urban legend, but my understanding is that some of the offshoot groups believe (or used to believe) that the priesthood remains with the pioneer-era temples (St. George, Manti, and Logan) even if the entity that controls them is now in "apostasy". So they would try to get standard LDS recommends in order to solemnize their relationships inside those specific temples.

I've never heard that.

[sister_in_faith]

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?

I had a problem with this too at my first temple recommend interview. I love, support, affiliate with and agree with my boyfriend, who is a non-member, and who had actually given me anti-mormon lit when I was investigating. The bishop told me that it refers to things such as poligamy (spelling?) and abortions. My mother has had an abortion in the past, and I still affiliate with her, so I wondered about that, but he said that didn't count either, so really I'm not sure what EXACTLY the guidelines are. I just answer the question no. But I wonder, could you work for an abortion clinic? Can you be a waitress that serves coffee and tea to customers, or a clerk who sells cigarettes? Where is the line drawn? It may be an issue that the spirit just has to deal with on a situational basis.

Hummmmm.

[annewandering]

I had a problem with this too at my first temple recommend interview. I love, support, affiliate with and agree with my boyfriend, who is a non-member, and who had actually given me anti-mormon lit when I was investigating. The bishop told me that it refers to things such as poligamy (spelling?) and abortions. My mother has had an abortion in the past, and I still affiliate with her, so I wondered about that, but he said that didn't count either, so really I'm not sure what EXACTLY the guidelines are. I just answer the question no. But I wonder, could you work for an abortion clinic? Can you be a waitress that serves coffee and tea to customers, or a clerk who sells cigarettes? Where is the line drawn? It may be an issue that the spirit just has to deal with on a situational basis.

Hummmmm.

I think that support, affiliate and agree are talking about the practice, in regards to individuals, more than anything.

[bytor2112]

I think it has more to do with consorting or belonging to subversive organizations....KKK, Skin Heads, Nazi's, Democrats ( :) j/k) etc.

[pam]

I don't think it has to be groups that are even that obvious.

[annewandering]

One time in gospel doctrine class we were discussing secret societies. A member of the class raised his hand and said he did not think all secret societies were bad. I have to admit I have always wondered what secret society he belonged to and felt defensive about.

[bytor2112]

I don't think it has to be groups that are even that obvious.

You mean like Trekies or those awful Twilight nuts?

[pooter1]

What about being a democrat,they believe in abortion.

[annewandering]

What about being a democrat,they believe in abortion.

I do not believe in abortion.

[pam]

What about being a democrat,they believe in abortion.

Let's not even take this thread in that direction.

[Dravin]

What about being a democrat,they believe in abortion.

The Church's opinion is that good principles can be found in various political parties. While there are probably limits to how far one could extend that (various hypothetical parties) I feel safe in saying that extends to the two major political parties in the US.

Linky: First Presidency Letter on Utah Precinct Caucus Meetings - LDS Newsroom Blog

Edit: And with Pam's caution in mind, that's as much as I'm gonna say about that.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

Alright, thanks everyone. I guess the conclusion is that if you support or affiliate with any group that's "bad enough" to concern you, it might be something to look into.

But I'll leave this open for anyone who wants to contribute more, name types of groups that are generally best avoided, or whatever else.

[pam]

My thought if it someone can't tell that they belong to a group that is against the principles of the gospel..there is more going on here than just a lack of understanding.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

My thought if it someone can't tell that they belong to a group that is against the principles of the gospel..there is more going on here than just a lack of understanding.

It kind of depends... like, if the group's purpose is actively against something the gospel teaches, then that's probably obvious. But since groups are made up of imperfect people, then naturally there are going to be groups who do wrong things. For example, there might be a group whose purpose is just fine but afterwards they go out to drink. Or maybe they don't drink together, but the members themselves drink. So I don't think it's all that black-and-white.

[john doe]

My thought if it someone can't tell that they belong to a group that is against the principles of the gospel..there is more going on here than just a lack of understanding.

I don't know. For instance, I think that there are people and groups who think that it is perfectly fine to work against the church and its policies 'from the inside'. They think they can effect their politically correct agendas and change the church 'for the better' by working to make those who speak frankly and forthright about right, wrong and sin look foolish or uncaring or unloving of their fellow man. I submit that there are factions of those groups making the rounds both within the church and on the internet. And they think that they are the standard-bearers and are the more righteous part of the church for trying to effect change from within. They believe that they are being Christ-like for not speaking out against sin, hiding behind the shield of not being judgemental of those who participate in sin.

[pam]

It kind of depends... like, if the group's purpose is actively against something the gospel teaches, then that's probably obvious. But since groups are made up of imperfect people, then naturally there are going to be groups who do wrong things. For example, there might be a group whose purpose is just fine but afterwards they go out to drink. Or maybe they don't drink together, but the members themselves drink. So I don't think it's all that black-and-white.

What I'm talking about is whatever the agenda is of the group, what they fight for, what they advocate.

[Guest gopecon]

The questions is not referring to groups with imperfect people who have a drink, its about groups whose purpose for being is directly in contradiction to the Church. Most political parties have a range of opinions about various issues, and they are not specificly founded to advocate for X issue. I think that someone who participated with a group devoted to calling for gay marriage or unfettered abortion would probably be crossing the line.

It does seem clear to me why the question is as vague as it is. Issues change and groups come and go. Trying to list every group in the world that would be inappropriate for a good saint to be a part of would be near impossible - and it would need to be updated almost daily!

I do think that our leaders are doing a great job of not abusing this recommend question. I can't say that I've ever heard of a recommend being denied over this. I'm sure some that some are, but if there were some who took it too far (e.g. withholding recommends for political party membership) there would be stories floating around about it. I would be surprised if they (bishops, etc.) are not counseled to tread carefully in this area.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

The questions is not referring to groups with imperfect people who have a drink, its about groups whose purpose for being is directly in contradiction to the Church. Most political parties have a range of opinions about various issues, and they are not specificly founded to advocate for X issue. I think that someone who participated with a group devoted to calling for gay marriage or unfettered abortion would probably be crossing the line.

It does seem clear to me why the question is as vague as it is. Issues change and groups come and go. Trying to list every group in the world that would be inappropriate for a good saint to be a part of would be near impossible - and it would need to be updated almost daily!

I do think that our leaders are doing a great job of not abusing this recommend question. I can't say that I've ever heard of a recommend being denied over this. I'm sure some that some are, but if there were some who took it too far (e.g. withholding recommends for political party membership) there would be stories floating around about it. I would be surprised if they (bishops, etc.) are not counseled to tread carefully in this area.

Well, I never said that the question should list every single group. What I personally believe is that it should specify that it is against groups whose purpose is against or contrary to the church's principles and teachings.

On another note, and being careful of Pam's warning (the mods are welcome to delete this part if they find doing so is necessary), I believe there's a difference between groups who are for gay marriage or abortion, and groups that are only for its legalization but believe it is still wrong, similar to how alcoholic beverages are legal to consume but against the church's teachings.