TR Question Survey – Question 7: Affiliating with Apostates

[Old-Timer]

Quote:

In the context of a TR Interview, always go with the short answer.

Yes

[SamBee]

Mike wrote:

In the context of a TR Interview, always go with the short answer.

Don’t worry I do!

I think it’s inevitable we’ll run into “apostates” in work, our family and even amongst our friends. They may not agree with my church of choice, but that’s still their right, and as long as they’re not downright offensive to me about it, I can put up with that.

I think there’s also a difference between having genuine misgivings about some aspects of the church and people who are merely out to slimeball it.

[DarkJedi]

sue wrote:

I am curious though to ask a question….my mom is Catholic and few times i have went with to drive her and to keep her company…does that mean i’m associating with apostates?

No.

[hawkgrrrl]

Mike wrote:

In the context of a TR Interview, always go with the short answer.

Like I have often told employees “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

[Old-Timer]

Quote:

my mom is Catholic and few times i have went with to drive her and to keep her company…does that mean i’m associating with apostates?

Absolutely not. Not even close. I know of nobody (not one person) in the Church who would define it that way. Seriously, defining “apostate” as “someone who isn’t LDS” is something I think not one person in any position of authority would do – and I don’t know any regular member who would do so, either.

[Orson]

In a recent interview Elder Christofferson defined this question as supporting organized efforts that oppose the church, and I feel comfortable in extending his answer to say being friendly to people from these organizations (loose “affiliation”) is not the same as joining the effort.

He also said expressing personal opinions that do not agree with the position of the church is not grounds to withhold a TR based on this question — if it is not accompanied by joining an organized effort.

[Old-Timer]

It also is important to note that disagreement over belief and support of a general issue or movement is totally different than active opposition to a specific organization.

In other words, someone can support gay marriage, actively, for example, and not oppose the LDS Church itself. That isn’t splitting hairs; it is a really important distinction that Elder Christofferson articulated. Many won’t be able to comprehend the distinction, since black-and-white thinkers struggle with nuance, but it is what he meant, I am positive.

[LookingHard]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Mike wrote:

In the context of a TR Interview, always go with the short answer.

Like I have often told employees “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

Is it a game? Dang, I never thought about it that way. Is the “prize” a TR?

[Minyan Man]

To me it is not a game.

My goal is to make it through the interview process with no complications.

I don’t lie. If I have issues that I need clarified, I don’t do it during the TR interview.

I always answer yes or no & move on.

[Rob4Hope]

Just saw this long thread and read a fair amount of it.

The imprecision of language in these types of questions is VERY irritating. Back when I answered them, I had to do mental gymnastics to make it work. And, I never felt like my bishop or SP was qualified to really articulate what those questions meant in the first place.

[hawkgrrrl]

Well, work is a game, and that’s why I tell people “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.” The TR interview isn’t a game, but it’s also not a Barbara Walters special. People need to learn to just answer the questions. We’re Mormons. We should be comfortable with silences. We’ve sat through enough F&T meetings.

[Rob4Hope]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

We should be comfortable with silences. We’ve sat through enough F&T meetings.

I’m laughing. I love the silence, because I like to look around with a smile and see who is freaking out.

[Heber13]

Rob4Hope wrote:

I never felt like my bishop or SP was qualified to really articulate what those questions meant in the first place.

If we can accept this, without dismissing the important role their calling has and how we can sustain them in it, I think it really helps us to approach the questions correctly without putting undue burden on our souls.

[Roy]

I saw a youtube video from an LDS church apologist that listed this question in the context of supporting LGBTQ efforts:

Quote:

Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine are contrary to those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

So if a person thinks that gay sexual behavior is morally legitimate or that gender can be changed through a social transition then an honest person will admit that to their bishop and the bishop gets to make the judgment if such belief disqualify them from temple attendance.

Emphasis in the original. I share it here because I couldn’t disagree more. Setting aside the LGBTQ aspects, I am fundamentally opposed to just vomiting a laundry list of anything and everything upon the bishop and then having him judge you worthy or … not.

I heartily recommend that everyone review the TR questions and go to the bishop for the TR interview when they are prepared to answer the questions with simple yes or no answers.

[Author]

Posts