My Temple Recommend

(Thummim wrote this after having a meeting with his Stake President about being "re-fellowshipped" into the church in which the Stake President denied the re-fellowshipment stating that the church's temple recommend questions couldn't be answered "correctly" by Thummim)

My Temple Recommend

Umwelt: German word meaning “The world as it is experienced by a particular organism” - used to refer to the quality of a living organism’s experience of reality. A great podcast about “umwelt:” (https://after-on.com/episodes/022)

Example: How a bat “understands” reality via sonar and has never lived underwater vs. a mantis shrimp (https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/211178-rip-rainbow) that has a small brain but 16 color-receptive cones in its eyes and never lived on land vs. a human who has a relatively large brain, but no sonar and only 3 color-receptive cones and a life lived almost-entirely on land.

Much of my experience with society, and especially the church, has encouraged me to “adjust” my thoughts and beliefs to a “standard” mould. To think “convergently” (tending to come together) rather than “divergently” (different, deviating). Ideas that deviate from the mainstream generally (and understandably) cause church-goers (and people in-general) to feel uncomfortable and potentially threatened. I believe, though, that growth most-often occurs from such discomforting circumstances. I have tried to become more aware of my personal tendency to put up walls of “protection” and defensiveness when my beliefs are challenged or alternate points of view are offered. Ultimately, this is always an enriching, expanding experience (despite the discomfort).

The LDS temple recommend (or “worthiness” interview) process is a unique example of an implicit expectation for “convergent” thinking since there are “right” and “wrong” answers laid out in black and white (or so most interviewers and interviewees believe). I’ve been on both sides of the temple recommend table as interviewee and interviewer and been a part of discussions with other interviewers about their experience with administering temple recommend interviews. Anecdotally, it is rare for anyone to provide more than a few sentences for each question, and most of the time only single words (the “right” words) are offered.

There is often an “unspoken” understanding during a temple recommend interview that both people are operating within the same “umwelt” and that the interviewee’s definitions of the temple recommend words are the same as the interviewer’s, but more importantly, that they are both “in tune” with “God’s” definitions of these words (ie: “the truth”). I have found that most church members tend to have a strong belief in “absolute truth” (likely in no small part due to the talk given by Spencer W. Kimball titled “Absolute Truth” https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/absolute-truth/). There are other scriptures and talks that support this idea of “things as they really are” and the belief that, the closer you are to God, the closer you are to the one, true, “umwelt.”

I appreciate the ideal of seeking to approach “absolute truth,” but I believe most people (myself included), and regardless of calling in the church, overestimate their proximity to this truth. The point is moot though because the irony is that, when I have high-confidence that I have “the answers” to the questions of life, I am less capable of learning and growth than someone who believes they don’t know or are lacking knowledge (see the Dunning-Krueger effect/bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect). The uncomfortable, labor-intensive, state of questioning is the foundation of humility and growth. When answers are embraced as definitive and absolute, learning ends.

In Buddhism this is called “Shoshin” the “Beginner Mind” and is encouraged when studying any subject, despite one’s expertise in the field. A beginner mind is curious, accepting, open-minded, comfortable with not knowing, questioning of assumptions, sees unlimited possibilities - its primary energy is expansive. It stands in contrast to the “Judging Mind” which is protective (focused on the negative and “what could go wrong?”), judgmental, cynical, uses “should” language, critical, close-minded, know-it-all, focused on “fixing,” blame-oriented, black-and-white, limits possibilities, views mistakes as "bad” instead of stepping stones to experience and knowledge - its primary energy is restrictive.

Truly understanding a person’s beliefs (epistemology - from the Greek - ἐπίστασθαι “To know, understand, or be acquainted with”) is an, unfortunately, impossible task that is limited on many levels (unique life experiences, genetics, birth order, sensory perceptions, health, socio-economics, thought processes, word definitions, education, etc.) No matter how good at listening and empathy a person is, a communication session will always end up with all parties capturing only a limited portion of the intent and content of the others’ beliefs. Both sides will take knowledge away only as filtered through their unique umwelt. There is no “perfect” communion. This, I believe, is an important thing to remember during a temple (or worthiness) interview.

Rarely does a temple recommend interviewer ask deeper questions to try to get into the “umwelt” of the interviewee. If they did, they would likely first encounter the “standard” agreed-upon, “convergent” umwelt that is communally-shared amongst church members. However, if the interviewer were to dig even deeper, and take on a much-more-serious responsibility, perhaps to form a friendship of deep trust with the interviewee, they would discover that underneath the first few layers of shared umwelt is an umwelt wholly unique to that individual - a perspective that diverges from everyone else. Wouldn’t it be nice if church leaders had the bandwidth to engage each and every person at this level? Usually, though, they don’t have the time/energy to assume the responsibility of deeply empathizing with an interviewee. This necessitates faith in a higher power and trust/confidence in the interviewee to be engaging productively with their personal umwelt.

Is the top-level “communal” umwelt valid? Probably, but it is not necessarily as “rigorously-honest,” on a personal level, as we like to tell ourselves. There is an implicit understanding that we’re discussing the tip of an iceberg and, yeah, there’s a lot of stuff under the surface, but most interviewers trust the interviewee to have solid reasoning beneath their simple “yes” or “no” answers. That trust has a kind beauty to it.

One issue (I’ve experienced personally on both sides) is when an interviewer picks up the responsibility to know the interviewee’s deeper umwelt (a daunting and impossible challenge even for the best of people) and discovers that it does not match their own, and by presumptive transference, is not in accord with the “absolute truth” or “umwelt of God.” When this happens, the interviewer can become a “Judging Mind” gatekeeper that builds a wall of exclusion rather than a larger table accommodating of a differing perspective. It becomes easy for the interviewer to forget that their own perspective on “truth” (including personal interpretation of “doctrine”) is as-limited as the interviewee and that both points-of-view are equally-valid (though both are wholly-incomplete). In an attempt to “steady the ark” the interviewer substitutes their own umwelt as the “one true” umwelt. 

The following is my attempt to express, with rigorous honesty, my current umwelt (which is, intentionally, in a constant state of flux as I continue to try to be open to new ideas) as it relates to the first four LDS temple-recommend questions. Why the first four? Because they are in the sticky arena of “epistemology” (belief rather than action) and are most-likely to cause conflicts between the interviewer’s and the interviewee’s umwelts. A big part of this will be spent “defining” terms, likely in a non-traditional (though, I believe valid) way. My sincere hope is that there is a fully-fellowshipped place at the table of LDS belief for me and my point of view: 

• 1) Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?

• Short Answer: Yes

• Detailed Answer: 
• Faith - My definition: a belief without proof. I interpret this as leaving possibilities open.

• Testimony - My definition: a religious conversion or experience. I believe “testimonies,” in a religious context, are largely emotion-based. I value emotions, but do not rely on them as indicators of absolute “truth,” but believe they can help point us toward people, experiences, and ideas that are useful/helpful/growing/healing to us and which may push us toward an expanded umwelt. I do not believe a person must believe such “testimony” experiences to indicate literal truth, but rather as pointers toward things that are beneficial/helpful to that person. I do not conflate “goodness” with literal truth. Example: reading about Levin in Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina is deeply inspiring to me and instructs me (provides me with a “testimony”) about what I value - however I do not believe Levin was a real person.

• God - My definition: the ideal version of myself. This idea is an internal drive for excellence and improvement. Is there the possibility of an organizing force behind reality? I don’t believe that possibility can be entirely ruled out (faith). God, to me, is a sense of amazement and wonder at the many things about reality, existence, consciousness, and beauty, that defy logical explanation. God is the sense that “there’s more out there I don’t understand.” I believe “Eternal Father” is one title that limited humankind has given to this force. I believe “Divine Feminine” is also an important piece of “God.” I believe there are other equally-valid titles for “God” (also limited by the foibles of limited human umwelts) such as “Allah,” “Vishnu,” “YHWH,” “Elohim,” “Adonai,” “Wisdom (Sofia)”, etc. Sometimes I like to call it “Big Good” (stolen from this awesome podcast: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/match-made-in-marrow)

• His Son Jesus Christ: I believe the “divine Jesus” (Christ = Messiah/anointed one/king) is a symbol for perfect empathy - an expression of mankind’s deep-seated need for understanding and being “seen,” loved, and accepted for one’s own, natural, intrinsic, identity. His story calls to humankind to leave behind bitterness, judgement, grudge-holding, and the idea that love must be earned and to reject our natural leaning to only bestow love/approval when a person fits a specific mould. I think there is significance to the narrative of his “son-ship” as an example that we, ourselves, are “offspring” of the “God Ideal” and that, as a son has the DNA of his parents, the potential for divinity, goodness, and value reside naturally within us.

• The Holy Ghost - My definition: There is a collective set of needs, drives, desires, and aspirations shared amongst all humankind. These are communicated in subtle ways, often non-verbally, between friends, associates, family-members, and society as a whole. One “name” for this communicative power can be “The Holy Ghost” - but there are other names, like instinct, ambition, empathy, kindness, intuition, duty, the gut, etc. Is it possible that there is a super-natural (read as “not yet understood”) component to this communication? Yes, I leave the possibility open. Is it ok to call it “The Holy Ghost?” Yes.

• So yes, I leave open the possibility (faith) for these things, and even embrace and value the ideals they represent, but leave quite a bit of room for others’ beliefs and don’t pretend to know any of these, largely-unprovable, things with a high-level of certainty.
   
• 2) Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?

• Short Answer: Yes

• Detailed Answer:
• See definition of “testimony” from answer 1.

• Atonement - My definition: This is a component of the Jesus narrative that I appreciate deeply. I believe every person has a deep need to feel absolution for mistakes they’ve made and damage they’ve done to others. To me, the Atonement is a belief-structure that aids individuals to psychically “let go” of the past and to undergo healing for giving/receiving mental trauma. This “permission” to forgive oneself is healing to societies. The belief that humans also should move on and forgive others, even for seemingly-impossible situations, is also beneficial. I believe that, for most people who have committed or endured especially difficult levels of trauma, it is necessary for them to have an “equal and opposite” epic or super-natural “narrative” that is perceived to be sufficiently powerful to overcome the mentally taxing burden they carry. Anything that can assist a person in this kind of healing is deeply valuable.

• My Savior/Redeemer: Both of these titles tie into the explanation of the Atonement given above. I believe that the injunction/ideal to forgive myself and to forgive others applies to me as well as to other productive, conscientious members of society. When I have sought to practice these ideals, my life has been enriched. I find the narrative beautiful, inspiring, and useful. I leave open the possibility that it is literally true (testimony/faith), but do not consider that “literality” important to my daily practice of living.
   
• 3) Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

• Short Answer: Yes

• Detailed Answer:
• See definition of testimony from question 1.

• Restoration - My Definition: I believe the LDS faith has pushed forward many helpful ideas that have contributed to human beings living good, productive, helpful, happy lives. Some of these ideas align well with concepts that were present in early versions of Christianity (the gospel/“good news” taught by Jesus). Calling that “restoration” makes sense to me. Many religions founded in early America were “restorationist” and focused on a close/careful reading of the Bible and questioning the status quo in favor of closer adherence to the text. I don’t believe the church is perfect, or that it’s even super close to how the “church” (small group of people) worked in the times of Jesus. Nor do I believe the church has a great track record of abandoning troublesome/wrong/bad ideas in a timely manner. These foibles, though, can be seen (and I choose to see them this way) as part of the beauty that goes along with participation in any organization (such as a family, a friendship, or a country). The blend of good and bad, the annoyances and frustrations, the fighting for change, the discussion of disparate ideas, the give and take of life, is constructive (this is demonstrated well in this amazing talk: https://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel) I don’t even really think the church is a whole lot better than other religions when you take the time to research the good other organizations do. I don’t believe there is a divine destiny that the church is building toward… other than a macro-level version of the “destiny” I believe in for each human individual, which is to learn, adapt, create and generally improve ourselves and contribute to “big good.” I appreciate the teaching of Paul in the New Testament about the “unity of the faith” which, I think, can be interpreted as a union of all religions/belief systems into a whole that abandons the things that divide (dogmatic doctrine) and embraces the ideals that unite.
   
• 4) Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
• Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?
• Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?

• Short Answer: Yes (I group these 3 questions into one because my perspective is similar regardless of the level of church leadership)

• Detailed Answer:
• Prophet/Seer/Revelator: I believe this is a mythic term for someone deeply concerned and devoted to the leadership of a religious group (similar to the Pope or the Dalai Lama). I believe this dedication and concern provides unique insights into life. This “see”-ing of “seers” from a unique perspective, and their association with like-minded/similarly focused leaders, allows them to “reveal” perspectives for their followers’ consideration that can potentially enrich their lives (though there have been some historically short-sighted members of this group). I do sustain him in this role, mostly because of his high-level of experience within church leadership - though I do not have high confidence that he is in literal communication with a higher power any more than any other responsible, meditative, concerned human. The question of “the only person authorized” seems paranoid to me, but I don’t have a problem with the church maintaining leadership restrictions according to its internal policy.

• Priesthood Keys: I believe “Priesthood” is a term for those who are tasked with the administrative functions of a religious organization. I don’t believe they are endowed with any extra “ability” or “power” that is not available to (again) any responsible, meditative, conscientious, concerned human. The “keys” in question, I define as the responsibility given to perform certain religious rights that have beneficial communal and personal ceremonial value which point us to “God” (as-defined above - our best, ideal, selves) and “Jesus” (as-defined above - the ideal of empathy, understanding, acceptance, and forgiveness).