To all temple recommend holders

[_Mercury]

I want to take this opportunity for you to think about your recommend interview. When your bishop and stake president interview you and ask if you associate with enemies of the church, you will have to answer yes.

I am an enemy of the church in their eyes. I neither declare nor believe I am an enemy of Mormons. I DO espouse the proclivity for tasks involving discussing the Mormon religion. Choose for yourself if I am an enemy of the church but remember that you do associate with me and others here on this board.

I say this to elicit discussion sparked my maclelan concerning his motives for visiting this forum.

I believe that the believing Mormons do so not out of any altruistic purpose but instead are seeking discussion of a topic they cannot consciously come out against. Instead we are treated to your punditry, defending the indefensible.

So remember...your fraternizing with the enemy and theres not a thing you can do for those who know the game better than you. We win, you loose until you pick up the evidence we give you and think critically.

[_Gazelam]

Hah, funny you should mention this. It came up in december when I got my interview.

They said it was fine. A chatroom like this doesent really count I guess.

[_moksha]

So Vegas, are you a Publican? What if my Spirit is joyful, doesn't that count?

[_maklelan]

I want to take this opportunity for you to think about your recommend interview. When your bishop and stake president interview you and ask if you associate with enemies of the church, you will have to answer yes.

I am an enemy of the church in their eyes. I neither declare nor believe I am an enemy of Mormons. I DO espouse the proclivity for tasks involving discussing the Mormon religion. Choose for yourself if I am an enemy of the church but remember that you do associate with me and others here on this board.

I say this to elicit discussion sparked my maclelan concerning his motives for visiting this forum.

I believe that the believing Mormons do so not out of any altruistic purpose but instead are seeking discussion of a topic they cannot consciously come out against. Instead we are treated to your punditry, defending the indefensible.

So remember...your fraternizing with the enemy and theres not a thing you can do for those who know the game better than you. We win, you loose until you pick up the evidence we give you and think critically.

Allow me to correct another blatant misunderstanding. I have given several temple recommend interviews before, and I am well aware of exactly what this question means (and you are not). It asks if one takes has a role or membership in an organization with expressed intentions and values that actively contradict those of the church. As this board is nothing of the sort, your assertion is utterly ludicrous. Also you keep spelling my name wrong and you continue to make hideous grammatical errors throughout your posts (your fraternizing with the enemy). You'll want to tighten that up if you want people to take your argument as seriously as you take it yourself.

[_Mercury]

I want to take this opportunity for you to think about your recommend interview. When your bishop and stake president interview you and ask if you associate with enemies of the church, you will have to answer yes.

I am an enemy of the church in their eyes. I neither declare nor believe I am an enemy of Mormons. I DO espouse the proclivity for tasks involving discussing the Mormon religion. Choose for yourself if I am an enemy of the church but remember that you do associate with me and others here on this board.

I say this to elicit discussion sparked my maclelan concerning his motives for visiting this forum.

I believe that the believing Mormons do so not out of any altruistic purpose but instead are seeking discussion of a topic they cannot consciously come out against. Instead we are treated to your punditry, defending the indefensible.

So remember...your fraternizing with the enemy and theres not a thing you can do for those who know the game better than you. We win, you loose until you pick up the evidence we give you and think critically.

Allow me to correct another blatant misunderstanding. I have given several temple recommend interviews before, and I am well aware of exactly what this question means (and you are not). It asks if one takes has a role or membership in an organization with expressed intentions and values that actively contradict those of the church. As this board is nothing of the sort, your assertion is utterly ludicrous. Also you keep spelling my name wrong and you continue to make hideous grammatical errors throughout your posts (your fraternizing with the enemy). You'll want to tighten that up if you want people to take your argument as seriously as you take it yourself.

Then I have a challenge. Print out the material you reply to. Have the bishop/SP read it. Have them judge the nature of this forum. I feel they will find you to be encountering faith deterring material, which is frowned upon.

[_Mercury]

Hah, funny you should mention this. It came up in december when I got my interview.

They said it was fine. A chatroom like this doesent really count I guess.

A - this is not a chat room.

B - Why did it come up at all?

[_maklelan]

Then I have a challenge. Print out the material you reply to. Have the bishop/SP read it. Have them judge the nature of this forum. I feel they will find you to be encountering faith deterring material, which is frowned upon.

Don't need to. I've been perfectly open with my leaders, friends, professors and anyone else who wants to know. I've spoken with my bishop several times on our morning runs (we're training for a marathon) about the things I come across, and he's never said a word about it. He knows how strong my testimony is and isn't at all worried about it, which is the only reason that a person is counseled to avoid places like this.

[_Mercury]

Then I have a challenge. Print out the material you reply to. Have the bishop/SP read it. Have them judge the nature of this forum. I feel they will find you to be encountering faith deterring material, which is frowned upon.

Don't need to. I've been perfectly open with my leaders, friends, professors and anyone else who wants to know. I've spoken with my bishop several times on our morning runs (we're training for a marathon) about the things I come across, and he's never said a word about it. He knows how strong my testimony is and isn't at all worried about it, which is the only reason that a person is counseled to avoid places like this.

and you consistently cannot defend the religion you espouse. Don't feel bad, its indefensible.

[_maklelan]

Then I have a challenge. Print out the material you reply to. Have the bishop/SP read it. Have them judge the nature of this forum. I feel they will find you to be encountering faith deterring material, which is frowned upon.

Don't need to. I've been perfectly open with my leaders, friends, professors and anyone else who wants to know. I've spoken with my bishop several times on our morning runs (we're training for a marathon) about the things I come across, and he's never said a word about it. He knows how strong my testimony is and isn't at all worried about it, which is the only reason that a person is counseled to avoid places like this.

and you consistently cannot defend the religion you espouse. Don't feel bad, its indefensible.

The only thing on this thread that makes me feel bad is that there is someone like you out there who is so full of hate that he can't show an inkling of respect to someone who believes differently than he. I wish I could change that.

[_Yoda]

This is the exact question which is asked in a temple interview:

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?

It is true that affiliate and associate are obviously synonymns. Therefore, I suppose that those of us who participate here would view you as an associate or an affiliate of this group. However, I don't really view this association any differently than I would consider associating with people at my job who may have adverse feelings toward the Church. Since the term "affiliate with" is sandwiched between "support" and "agree with", it seems to me that the question is addressing whether or not we are agreeing with that individual's view. As long as we are not, then the question can honestly be answered, "no".