What should a bishop deny a temple recommend for?

[Backroads]

Just finished chatting with a volunteer who was complaining about his ward's very odd way of handling Scouting (this happens a lot in my job) and this volunteer said his bishop refused to sign his temple recommend because he had criticized how the bishop handled the program--forcing the bishop to go through other channels to get the temple recommend.

Granted, all I heard is this volunteer's briefly described version of the story, but my question is, for what can a bishop legitimately deny a temple recommend for that higher authority can't question?

[Vort]

One of the temple recommend questions is whether you sustain your leaders. Perhaps this bishop felt that openly criticizing one's bishop (who just happened to be him) is a refusal to sustain said bishop, and prima facie evidence of an unwillingness to sustain one's leaders. Not sure I disagree.

[szorgalmasan]

The Church Handbook of Instructions vol. 1 2010 states in section 3.3.3 that "interviewers should not add any requirements to those that are outlined in the temple recommend book."

The only thing that the Bishop might have been basing the denial on is the "Do you sustain your church leaders" question. I have never heard of someone being able to go through "other channels" to get a recommend, as it needs both the Bishop's signature in addition to the Stake Presidents. (Or their counselors) That particular bishop, love him or not, is his assigned "judge," so it's odd to me that the volunteer still ended up with a recommend somehow.

So to answer your question, a "higher authority" shouldn't really ever question a bishop's decision to withhold a recommend as long as he doesn't deviate from the standard interview questions. The Stake Presidents duties enumerated in the Handbook also include "common judge," but a recommend needs two signatures and if the bishop wont sign, then I don't know where they are getting the other signature from.

Edited September 25, 2012 by szorgalmasan

[Backroads]

The Church Handbook of Instructions vol. 1 2010 states in section 3.3.3 that "interviewers should not add any requirements to those that are outlined in the temple recommend book."

The only thing that the Bishop might have been basing the denial on is the "Do you sustain your church leaders" question. I have never heard of someone being able to go through "other channels" to get a recommend, as it needs both the Bishop's signature in addition to the Stake Presidents. (Or their counselors) That particular bishop, love him or not, is his assigned "judge," so it's odd to me that the volunteer still ended up with a recommend somehow.

He didn't go into much detail on that, but it seemed he went to the stake president, explained the situation, and somehow that took care of it in one way or another. I imagine the stake president checked with the bishop on the matter? Is Brother so-n-so really not sustaining you or are you just throwing a hissy fit because he made a mean comment on how you run Scouting? (though I don't know if even a stake president could make such an executive decision to override bishop's signature.) Again, I just heard the one side of the story and just some details at that.

Though I do suppose if extra questions were being added, the stake president might correct the bishop on that matter and the bishop might change his mind about his signature. Is that allowed?

[Vort]

The stake president is the holder of keys in the stake. He is virtually the prophet for his stake. He can instruct the bishop to sign Brother So-and-so's recommend. And if the bishop has refused to sign Brother So-and-so's recommend because of failure to sustain him, it would be quite ironic for that bishop to then refuse his stake president's instruction.

[Backroads]

The stake president is the holder of keys in the stake. He is virtually the prophet for his stake. He can instruct the bishop to sign Brother So-and-so's recommend. And if the bishop has refused to sign Brother So-and-so's recommend because of failure to sustain him, it would be quite ironic for that bishop to then refuse his stake president's instruction.

I think there's a parable on that somewhere...

Though I can't imagine Stake President telling Bishop to sign the recommend if Brother truly wasn't sustaining Bishop.

[Vort]

I think there's a parable on that somewhere...

Though I can't imagine Stake President telling Bishop to sign the recommend if Brother truly wasn't sustaining Bishop.

You might be right. I don't know. I have never been a stake president, and you can safely stake large sums of money on the wager that I will never be one.

[Backroads]

You might be right. I don't know. I have never been a stake president, and you can safely stake large sums of money on the wager that I will never be one.

Oh, I will laugh when you one day reveal your new calling...

[MarginOfError]

The stake president does have some tricks he can pull if he thinks the bishop is out of line. For instance (all of these assume the stake president has listened to the bishop's side of the story before taking action)

• Have a discussion with the bishop to clarify the terms on which the bishop can rightfully refuse the recommend and persuade the bishop that this is not one of those cases
• If that fails, inform the bishop he is not applying the standards of the temple recommend questions appropriate and instruct him to desist.
• If that fails, the stake president is within his jurisdiction to authorize the temple recommend anyway
• The stake president could recommend the release of the bishop

I don't think these matters often go beyond the first option, although I do know of one case where option 4 may have been threatened.

For the most part, the temple recommend interview consists of the member reporting on his or her own adherence to those standards, though the person conducting the interview shouldn't, in my opinion, be afraid to ask questions like, "how do you interpret the word of wisdom in your life?" or "what do you think it means to sustain your leaders?" Only in cases where there is obvious and/or egregious disregard for the standards of temple worship should the bishop deny a recommend when a person as given the appropriate answers to the questions. In such circumstances, I think it is fair to expect the bishop to justify his decision so that the member can gauge what (or if) self correction they need to pursue.

[mdfxdb]

One of the temple recommend questions is whether you sustain your leaders. Perhaps this bishop felt that openly criticizing one's bishop (who just happened to be him) is a refusal to sustain said bishop, and prima facie evidence of an unwillingness to sustain one's leaders. Not sure I disagree.

criticizing ones bishop is not prima facie evidence of unwillingness to sustain ones leaders. Bishops are people just like the rest of us, and they screw things up just like the rest of us. from what I can glean from the OP it sounds like the bishop was out of line. Just because you sustain a leader doesn't mean he's always right, nor does it mean you have to do what they say every time.

and to answer the OP there is no other requirement/additional question other than those which are standard for a temple recommend. It has been handled above through specific reference that the leadership may not add additional requirements. It is entirely possible the bishop screwed up the scouting deal and now can't handle the criticism.

[NeuroTypical]

for what can a bishop legitimately deny a temple recommend for that higher authority can't question?

I once heard an apostle speak to a group of Bishops and Stake Presidents on 'iffy' situations. He said follow the spirit. If the spirit isn't saying anything, and you can't point to a clear direct unambiguous violation of any of the questions, but you still figure something is very wrong - you should sign the recommend. Temple attendence is an opportunity for the member to give an accounting to God.

There is an account about a bitter former mormon lady lying to get a temple recommend in order to record the ceremony and post it for the world to see. She had enough of a change of heart to go tell the bishop what she had been planning. The bishop thought and listened for a moment, and let her know that he appreciated her honesty, agreed she was not worthy to attend the temple, but the spirit did not want him to take her recommend at that time. She should keep it and think about things and come back for another meeting later. The lady telling the story years later had come fully back into the fold.

[MarginOfError]

Anecdote:

About this time last year I was asked by my stake to serve as the stake scouting specialist. I made it clear that I thought the Church's scouting program was flawed and I didn't support the Church's model. My disapproval of the Church's scouting model is public knowledge around here--I'm have no qualms about voicing my opinions.

I renewed my temple recommend a few months ago and no one took issue with my declaration that I sustain my leaders.

[skippy740]

I'm going to propose a question for the thread. Keep in mind that I have never served in such a leadership capacity, but here it is:

"Is it the Bishop's hurt feelings/ego or is it a true sense that the brother isn't sustaining his leaders?"

In my opinion, if the Bishop is harboring some kind of resentment, then the sin is with the Bishop.

If he is more concerned about the brother's path and how well he fulfills his calling under the leadership - and side-stepping his own feelings and ego - then he may have a reason to deny to sign a temple recommend.

Just my opinion.

[Martain]

Have you ever had to discipline a child and wished it wasn't necessary and wish that you could shirk from doing so?

One of the prophets told a story of how as a young child they had been repeatedly told not to do a certain something or they would be switched. He stated that the anguish and tears he saw on his mothers face as she followed through on her word and switched him had far greater power than the pain from the switch to where he promised himself he would never cause her such anguish again.

Rather than a bishop who denies a temple recommend out of pride or spite, I prefer to picture a bishop who happily received guidance from his priesthood leader that the causes for denial were either insufficient grounds, no longer valid, or (as written above) valid but he was to sign anyways.