Can you lose your temple recommend if. . .

[Guest gopecon]

Disagreeing with Prop 8 will probably not cost you a temple recommend, although making a public display of your disagreement with the Brethren could have even more severe consequences. My wife and I have both on a few occasions jokingly told temple recommend interviewers that we are not members of a certain political party (unnamed so I don't break the rules here) that has in its platform support for gay marriage and abortion rights. We've always been told that membership in that party would not disqualify someone from a recommend. There have been Apostles in both of the major American political parties. That being the case, I don't think a quiet disagreement about tactics (the OP said he believes in traditional marriage) would affect one's standing in the Church.

As far as free agency goes, the law did not affect anyone's free agency (as Vort correctly points out, this would not necessarily make it a bad thing - most criminal law limits behavior). Gay people in CA can live together and do whatever they want behind closed doors. That did not change. The people of the state voted to limit marriage to what it has been recognized as for millenia - between men and women.

[Guest gopecon]

So if you advocate or support groups or movements such as Nazism, you can still get a retain a Temple recommend?

At some point supporting groups becomes contrary enough to the teachings of the Church to warrant action. I'd say that advocacy of communism and nazism qualify (they have been denounced in General Conferences, being a Republican or Democrat has not been). I think the focus of the question is meant to focus on LDS specific issues - groups that claim to know more than the prophet and openly question the Brethren, fundamentalist groups that call for a return of polygamy (or practice it), etc.

[skippy740]

Okay, we need to simplify this discussion so we know exactly what we are discussing.

The original question was: If I did not agree with a church stance on a social issue, can my leaders take away my recommend... such as the stance the church took with Prop 8?

1. Proposition 8 was to defend the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman (and yes, this is in accordance with our Judeo-Christian social belief system).

2. Certain religious freedoms could be curtailed should the definition of marriage be changed. (I won't get into the debates on that issue, but it was a concern for the church.)

Here is my own take on everything:

1. I support the traditional definition of marriage... because I believe that God gave the original definition of marriage. So, yes, I believe in voting in accordance with my religious principles.

2. I don't believe that homosexual couples (via civil unions) should be denied any rights that are afforded to any married couples. If there are ANY rights given to married couples that are denied to civil union couples, then that is a problem that should be fixed. I simply don't believe in changing the definition of marriage to fit anything than what I believe was the way God intended.

Now, as I understand the OP, they have a contrary position to what I posted. They said that they supported gay marriage as a social measure instead of choosing to impose their belief system on society.

That's okay, but how would that affect your temple recommend, if it would at all?

Well, as Vort has said, one of the temple recommend questions is (I'm paraphrasing): Do you affiliate or support groups that are contrary to the gospel?

To me, that question asks if we go to groups/meetings and/or send financial support to groups that are contrary to the gospel? If so, that may be a problem. If not, no problem.

You ARE allowed to have a different viewpoint on such matters and vote your conscious. But supporting groups with time & financial resources may be a problem.

There is NO temple recommend question that says "Did you vote X during the _____ election?"

[Guest]

There is but one answer:

Harry Reid holds a current temple recommend.

[skippy740]

There is but one answer:

Harry Reid holds a current temple recommend.

Yes, but Harry Reid is not a California resident and I can't remember if Nevada had to vote on such a measure.

I don't think we're talking about being a member of a certain political party, but on particular social measures.

BTW, it's also not like someone's temple recommend status is public. I hope Harry Reid holds a TR for his own sake.

[Backroads]

Have I given any financial support or other energy to supporting Proposition 8? No, for a couple of reasons, those being that I have mixed personal feelings on the issue and rarely do anything politically besides vote and discuss my views. Frankly, if my bishop or stake president told me it would cost me my temple recommend, I would mention that to a higher authority because it is NOT a temple recommend issue.

[Guest]

Yes, but Harry Reid is not a California resident and I can't remember if Nevada had to vote on such a measure.

I don't think we're talking about being a member of a certain political party, but on particular social measures.

BTW, it's also not like someone's temple recommend status is public. I hope Harry Reid holds a TR for his own sake.

Harry Reid's temple recommend status IS public - only because he made it so.

And, regardless of whether Reid is Californian, he did speak out, very publicly as a matter of fact, on what he thinks about the Church's involvement in Prop 8.

[skippy740]

Oh... I don't remember that. Go figure.

[Guest gopecon]

Speaking out publicly is the type of thing that could get one in trouble on an issue like this, although it would be handled on a case by case basis. The First Presidency officially called on members to support the ballot measure. Some like Sen. Reid speaking out against the First Presidency's action creates a challenging situation. I'd say that public opposition to the Prophet clearly falls under the affiliating with groups opposed to the Church or the sustaining your leaders question. The challenge for church leaders is that if they were to discipline a high profile person like Sen. Reid the PR backlash could be more trouble than it's worth. Standing for a principle (supporting Prop 8) is one thing (that many respected), enforcing that stand with members who disagree would look worse - especially to those outside of the faith who do not understand the idea of sustaining leaders. The damage that this could do to efforts to share the gospel might not be worth the benefit.

[john doe]

That's just it john, I DO support my leaders. I sustain my Bishop and the General Authorities and other leaders in their callings. That's never been a question. Ever.

Vort, all the illegal things you mentioned are not specific to religious beliefs. I believe living a homosexual lifestyle is a sin because of my religious beliefs not for any secular reason.

Then I don't think it should be a problem. Like I say, if you have doubts on that issue you should bring it up with your bishop.

[Vort]

Speaking out publicly is the type of thing that could get one in trouble on an issue like this, although it would be handled on a case by case basis. The First Presidency officially called on members to support the ballot measure. Some like Sen. Reid speaking out against the First Presidency's action creates a challenging situation. I'd say that public opposition to the Prophet clearly falls under the affiliating with groups opposed to the Church or the sustaining your leaders question. The challenge for church leaders is that if they were to discipline a high profile person like Sen. Reid the PR backlash could be more trouble than it's worth. Standing for a principle (supporting Prop 8) is one thing (that many respected), enforcing that stand with members who disagree would look worse - especially to those outside of the faith who do not understand the idea of sustaining leaders. The damage that this could do to efforts to share the gospel might not be worth the benefit.

In actual practice, even speaking out against a position taken by the First Presidency is unlikely to result in Church discipline of any real sort, even at the level of having your temple recommend taken away. Well-known cases of Church dissenters having discipline imposed are always of people who take an active and public stand against the Church's teachings or its leaders and then refuse to modify their public stance, even after direct requests by their leaders -- in other words, open apostasy. When such people mourn their loss of activity or membership in the Church, I see only crocodile tears as they seek to further their agenda.

I doubt such policies have much or any relevance to anyone on this list. Putting aside snark and sarcasm (but only for a brief moment), I would observe that, in my experience and understanding:

• You are allowed to believe whatever you want without threat to your Church membership (though of course holding temple recommend presupposes certain beliefs on your part, such as belief in God and in his modern prophets, without which you cannot get a temple recommend, assuming you are honest enough to answer the questions truthfully).
• You are allowed to vote however and for whomever you wish, without consequence or even examination by Church authorities on your vote.
• You can hold a political or social position contrary to the Church's expressed desires and even work for that position without loss of Church privilege.

In actual practice, unless you directly come out openly and publicly against the Church's teachings in some area and refuse to move from your position -- in other words, you are in open rebellion against the Church -- you need not worry about your social or political beliefs affecting your Church membership or temple recommend status. That is not to say that such beliefs will have no effect on your spiritual status. On the contrary, they most certainly will; you cannot hold and act on beliefs without those beliefs affecting and changing you. But your membership status is unlikely to be affected.

[Guest gopecon]

Vort I agree with your post. I do think that an underlying reason (not necessarily the only one) for not aggresively pursuing discipline against people who publicly speak out is public relations. The Church does not want to become the thought police. A single issue here or there does not mean one is apostacizing, but apostacy does have to start somewhere. The phrase "giving them enough rope to hang themselves" comes to mind. Some disagreement is tolerated, but if we cross with the Church enough, apostacy will rear its ugly head.

[sister_in_faith]

The temple recommend question is something like:

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

And for me, the answer to the question is "yes". And I say that every time I go into an interview. My boyfriend is not a member, in fact, he tried to pursuade me not to join the church by giving me anti mormon literature to read. I think that deep down he is not a supporter, but he keeps that to himself because he respects me.

I recently watched the show 'sister wives', and I personally like those people and hope they have a happy family forever.

I mean, we ALL have friends who are not members, that would be affiliating with someone who does not agree with our faith. So for all of us the answer to the question is yes.

I think that the question is very vauge. But intentionally so. After I answer the question 'yes' they always ask me to explain, and when I explain what I mean, they always tell me that I am okay, and move on to the next question.

I do not think that not supporting prop8 would be something they would object to, but you would have to ask for clarification.

[Guest gopecon]

The question is vague, but it is worded the way it is for a reason. Support (generally involves time or money), affiliate (means have membership or close contact), or agree (with positions that are opposed to the Church) with any group...practices are contrary (contrasting, opposing - not just different interpretations). The group thing is easier to pin down than the individuals.

We can avoid groups that fall into this category. Individuals are another story. Most of us have family members who are hostile, but if we don't support them in their negativity we are okay. I'm sure this is not asking us to disown or stop loving wayward family.

[spamlds]

The question in question basically asks if a member supports or agrees with any individual, group or organization whose teachings are contrary to or oppose the teachings of the Church.

Why would anyone want to be a member of any religion he didn't agree with? Before I became a latter-day saint 33 years ago, I asked question, studied, and researched all sorts of religions. I didn't join a religion I didn't agree with. My family was Presbyterian but that didn't hinder me from looking elsewhere.

With all the different "brands" of religion out there, why would anyone remain in one with whose precepts he fundamentally disagrees? It's not like going through the motions is going to save anyone.

When I converted to the gospel, I wanted to obtain what 1 Corinthians 2:16 calls "the mind of Christ." I was not interested in obtaining the mind of Luther, or Calvin, or even the mind of Joseph Smith. I wanted to obtain the "mind of Christ." I have found that in the Church's teachings. In living the gospel, I have obtained a witness that the teachings of the Church are the mind of God on those issues. Whether it's marriage (same-sex or traditional), or abortion, or immigration, or war, or whatever, we can be confident that the revelations we have been given are the mind of God insofar as it has been given today. Will there be future revelations? Yes.

Inasmuch as my own personal opinions ever came into conflict with the teachings of the restored gospel, I have discovered that the way to resolve the conflict was to accept and practice the teachings of the Church first, while praying for insights about the conflict. In every situation, over the course of time, I found that the Lord's opinion became clear to me as I obeyed his will. Like John 7:17 says, if we do his will, we will learn if the doctrine is of God or not.

The Lord is content to leave us with false opinions and the conflicts they cause because he respects our agency. Nevertheless, if we seek his opinion, he does give it in his own way if we are faithful and obedient. The Lord doesn't compel, but he wants us to yield to him. Helaman 3:35 says:

"Nevertheless they did fast and pray oft, and did wax stronger and stronger in their humility, and firmer and firmer in the faith of Christ, unto the filling their souls with joy and consolation, yea, even to the purifying and the sanctification of their hearts, which sanctification cometh because of their yielding their hearts unto God."

Those who will not yield their hearts unto God don't get sanctified. If they don't get sanctified, they don't end up in the celestial kingdom. Essentially, we will go where our hearts and minds point us. If anyone feels in conflict with the Church and its leaders, it is natural to have to do some soul-searching. Nevertheless, my experience of over three decades is that a person who will yield his heart to the Lord will experience greater peace and happiness than those who continue to kick against the pricks of man's misguided philosophies and politics.

[Traveler]

No. Not at all. If I denounced the church I wouldn't care about my recommend. . .

I question the method employed by the church regarding gay marriage. I believe that making it a law that homosexuals can not marry is forcing them to follow our belief system which is not conducive to missionary work. I do NOT question that marriage is ordained of God.

All laws passed by human legislature are nothing more or less than one segment of the population forcing other segments of the population to conform to their belief system. We will not change the universal gravitational constant or the value of pi by passing a law. The only reason to have laws is because we of diverse belief systems that are in conflict - or thought to be in conflict. Think about it. The only reason to pass any law is because somebody has adopted a different belief system contrary to what a society believes is justifiable. The reason rape and murder are against the law is because one segment is forcing their morals (about murder and rape) on that segment that has a different opinion.

In the debates over homosexual marriage I have asked for at least one benefit for society provided by homosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage (relationships) is necessary and beneficial to insure that human society endure beyond the current generation. In fact - using simple rhetorical logic, we can establish that even heterosexual rape is more beneficial than homosexuality. That is really sad when we consider that so many want to publicly force everyone to accept homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality. The true reality is that it is not the same nor is the social benefit even close to the same.

I personally believe what is done in private and secret is the business of those (if adults) that keep what-ever private and secret and that all involved agree that it is private and secret. But if we insist in making activities public and demand that by the force of law all society accept our public declaration of what is being done - Should there not be some demonstrable benefit. At least one???

The Traveler

Edited November 23, 2011 by Traveler

[sister_in_faith]

In fact - using simple rhetorical logic, we can establish that even heterosexual rape is more beneficial than homosexuality.

The Traveler

Sorry, I have to say that I cannot think of ANY conditions where one could argue that rape of ANY kind is beneficial in any way. period.

[Suzie]

I was wondering, do you think you can lose your temple recommend if you do not support prop 8 or anything like it? I believe that missionary work is the only right course of action not forcing people to adhere to our belief system. However, the question on whether or not you are sympathetic to groups that are contrary to the gospel leaves me wondering that if I were too open about this opinion I may run the risk of losing my recommend. I have noticed that other liberal Mormons also tend to use a pseudonym as well which makes me wonder if this is something I need to be concerned with. I can't ask my Bishop either because the last thing I want to hear is, Sister please return your recommend.

A few months ago I was in the same situation. The difference is that I wasn't afraid or concern to tell my Bishop. I told him my thoughts about it and he just said "ok" and gave me my recommend.

[Dravin]

Sorry, I have to say that I cannot think of ANY conditions where one could argue that rape of ANY kind is beneficial in any way. period.

It can result in life.

Thing is that's kinda like looking at the Titanic hit an iceberg and thinking, "Hey, now I've got ice for my soda!" If I had to choose between a world without rape or a world without any sanctioned homosexual marriage I'd pick the former in a heartbeat.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Dravin

[annewandering]

The fact that heterosexual rape can result in a new life is one very good reason that it is even worse than homosexual rape but no way is any rape at all good in anyway at all. This is a case of horrible bad and horribly horribly bad. It is like asking if a person prefers death by axe or chainsaw.

[sister_in_faith]

If I had to choose between two acts occuring, a homosexual sexual encounter or a heterosexual rape, I would pick homosexual sex any day.

[annewandering]

My husband told me that the idea that heterosexual rape is better than homosexuality is ludicrous. In fact he had more to say to me that but this is an LDS site and I better leave it at that.

[sister_in_faith]

Yeah, my honey had the same reaction... he was like, this is your CHURCH forum and people are saying stuff like that? I said, yep. Ugh.

[annewandering]

Tell him he needs to join the church to teach. :)

[Vort]

In the debates over homosexual marriage I have asked for at least one benefit for society provided by homosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage (relationships) is necessary and beneficial to insure that human society endure beyond the current generation. In fact - using simple rhetorical logic, we can establish that even heterosexual rape is more beneficial than homosexuality. That is really sad when we consider that so many want to publicly force everyone to accept homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality. The true reality is that it is not the same nor is the social benefit even close to the same.

Sorry, I have to say that I cannot think of ANY conditions where one could argue that rape of ANY kind is beneficial in any way. period.

The fact that heterosexual rape can result in a new life is one very good reason that it is even worse than homosexual rape but no way is any rape at all good in anyway at all. This is a case of horrible bad and horribly horribly bad. It is like asking if a person prefers death by axe or chainsaw.

If I had to choose between two acts occuring, a homosexual sexual encounter or a heterosexual rape, I would pick homosexual sex any day.

My husband told me that the idea that heterosexual rape is better than homosexuality is ludicrous. In fact he had more to say to me that but this is an LDS site and I better leave it at that.

Yeah, my honey had the same reaction... he was like, this is your CHURCH forum and people are saying stuff like that? I said, yep. Ugh.

s_i_f, anne: Do you both truly fail to understand the point Traveler was trying to establish, or are you just being obstinate in picking apart his point because you don't like the wording? Traveler was not saying that rape, heterosexual or otherwise, is morally superior to homosexual relations. Surely you understand this.

Don't you?

If so, why the hue and cry?

Even if you don't like how Traveler expressed himself (and I think his choice of hyperbole unfortunate), isn't his point rather obviously true?