Clarification so as to be clear.

[Limnor]

I’ve never really equated righteousness with institutional obedience, so this part of the conversation is interesting to me, particularly in light of the positions you held in the church, malkie.

How does a Latter-day Saint define a “work” that is acceptable to the Lord, or what it means to be “worthy”? What’s the actual criteria for that in lived terms?

And when you talk about “commitment,” do you mean something that comes more from shared community and structure, or something more inward and personal?

[malkie]

I’ve never really equated righteousness with institutional obedience, so this part of the conversation is interesting to me, particularly in light of the positions you held in the church, malkie.

How does a Latter-day Saint define a “work” that is acceptable to the Lord, or what it means to be “worthy”? What’s the actual criteria for that in lived terms?

And when you talk about “commitment,” do you mean something that comes more from shared community and structure, or something more inward and personal?

Hey, Limnor! You're making me think again

I've tried not to equate righteousness with institutional obedience, or with the level that a person has reached in the church. My references to my and others' previous positions in the church was for MG's benefit - simply to indicate that I and others are not unfamiliar with dedicating time & energy to what we believe(d) to be a good cause. Commitment, in my opinion, must come from within. Same with worthiness - it comes from doing what needs to be done, with the proper attitude including humility. There have been a few times when I have felt relatively "worthy", and more times when I have wanted to crawl in a hole.

From what I've seen, members in general give too much deference to people who are rising, or who have risen, in the church hierarchy.

I'm not sure if I've answered your questions, but, OTOH, I can only answer for myself, and not, for example, your question about how a Latter-day Saint defines a “work” that is acceptable to the Lord.

[Limnor]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I really appreciate the honesty in what you said about feeling “worthy” sometimes and wanting to crawl in a hole at others. That captures something I think most people can relate to, myself included

What I’ve been trying to understand, and maybe this is where my curiosity comes from, is where that line of worthiness actually sits, in practice.

From the outside it can seem both precise and blurry at the same time: clear enough to have interviews and questions attached to it, but subjective enough to depend on a person’s interpretation as a local leader. Is the bishop the final say in determining “worthiness?”

I asked you specifically because I thought someone who had served as a bishop might be able to help me see it from that leadership perspective.

In the military, there are similar structures of assessment and readiness. Measurable standards, but also judgment calls that depend on character and circumstances.

I wondered if “worthiness” functions in a comparable way within church leadership. A balance between precise measurement and a judgment call.

[Limnor]

Additionally, I’m failing to see how a commitment to spending how ever many hours in a church building equates to worthiness as well. But that was secondary question

[malkie]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I really appreciate the honesty in what you said about feeling “worthy” sometimes and wanting to crawl in a hole at others. That captures something I think most people can relate to, myself included

What I’ve been trying to understand, and maybe this is where my curiosity comes from, is where that line of worthiness actually sits, in practice.

From the outside it can seem both precise and blurry at the same time: clear enough to have interviews and questions attached to it, but subjective enough to depend on a person’s interpretation as a local leader. Is the bishop the final say in determining “worthiness?”

I asked you specifically because I thought someone who had served as a bishop might be able to help me see it from that leadership perspective.

In the military, there are similar structures of assessment and readiness. Measurable standards, but also judgment calls that depend on character and circumstances.

I wondered if “worthiness” functions in a comparable way within church leadership. A balance between precise measurement and a judgment call.

I've often felt at least as "worthy" after my effective exit from the church as I ever did as an active, committed, and dedicated member. I'm certainly less judgmental.

There's an expression in the church - Bishop roulette - that acknowledges the latitude that the priesthood leader has, some bishops being very strict by reputation, and others being quite lenient.

As a local leader I felt the need to be strict, and made decisions that I have since been unhappy about. I believe that I should have been much more lenient in some cases. And, yes, the Bishop is almost always the final judge for temple recommends. If the bish says "no", it is not likely that a member of the Stake Presidency will override him - actually, I've never heard of it happening.

However, when it comes to disciplinary actions, the Bishop does not have the authority to judge a holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood for potential excommunication - that's up to the Stake Pres, assisted by the Stake High Council. It seems to be rare for a member who is "tried" by the Stake authorities to not be disciplined in some way - either disfellowshipment, or excommunication. The Stake Pres may authorise a bishop to try a Melchizedek Priesthood but not to impose excommunication as a penalty. (this used to be the case - I'm not sure if it still is)

Once I was in a play, with the role of a gatekeeper - first judgment filter - who was charged with judging people's goodness. My (now ex-)wife remarked, not pleasantly, that the role suited me perfectly - I kept people out.

After I became inactive, because I was not considered "worthy" to have a temple recommend, I was unable to attend my son's wedding. I understood, and it was no surprise to me. However, my co-workers found it difficult to wrap their heads around how this guy that they had worked with for a couple of years could be excluded from his son's wedding for, in effect, not being "good" enough. I explained to them that there are rules to be followed, and not a lot of leeway in making a decision, but it left them with a poor opinion of a religion that would cut parents out of their child's wedding.

Active faithful members advised me to "just tell the Bishop what he needed to hear" - in other words, to lie through my teeth. For me, feeling at least relatively worthy required me not to lie in order to gain an institutional mark of worthiness! - which is how possession of a temple recommend is often regarded. It's another form of hierarchy within the church, with some members making a big deal of how often they attend the temple, or do "the work" for their ancestors through vicarious ordinances.

So, in practice, where that line of worthiness actually sits depends on which direction you are looking from - the individual or the organization. The two views may be at 180°.

I've also participated in Bishop's Court proceedings as the recording clerk. The bish in both of these cases, which involved sexual impropriety, was very strict, and I found the proceedings to be totally humiliating for the accused person. The degree of detail that they were obliged to relate was, in my mind, close to pornographic.

[Limnor]

Thank you for sharing that so openly.

I can see, and appreciate as an “investigator,” how being on both sides of that line has led to an understanding very few—if any—people outside of the church has.

The “bishop roulette” comment strikes at the center of what I’ve been trying to understand. The idea darkly captures the gap between personal judgment and institutional standard, where what’s considered “worthy” is subject to a person who happens to be sitting across a desk but represents access to God. As I’ve said, I’m distrustful of any human having that kind of ecclesiastical power. Your story even confirms that distrust—sometimes you didn’t feel worthy yourself, so how could you be responsible for anyone else’s access? And that isn’t applicable to you alone—I don’t think any human could or should fill that role, myself included.

What stands out most in what you said is that feeling worthy and being declared worthy can be entirely different experiences. It is remarkable to me that one person could be both the declarer and receiver of that pronouncement simultaneously.

I’ve been studying what I see as an evolution of a theological construct within the Book of Mormon beginning with Alma but adapted through the course of the book. There is a tension between justice and mercy that the book tries to resolve, but it ultimately results in a theology of compassionate imitation—to be like God is to be subject to and enforce rules, but to “act” mercifully.

From your story it isn’t clear if you had been “acting” throughout, but I’d be curious if you’d describe that understanding of the teaching similarly, and if my understanding rings true based on your experience having lived on both sides of that line.

[I Have Questions]

I’ve never really equated righteousness with institutional obedience, so this part of the conversation is interesting to me, particularly in light of the positions you held in the church, malkie.

How does a Latter-day Saint define a “work” that is acceptable to the Lord, or what it means to be “worthy”? What’s the actual criteria for that in lived terms?

And when you talk about “commitment,” do you mean something that comes more from shared community and structure, or something more inward and personal?

From what I’ve seen, people sit in the pews every Sunday, attend their meetings, do their callings, pay their tithing, attend the temple, etc and believe that equates to being righteous in a Christlike sense. I don’t think it is.

[Limnor]

I’ve never really equated righteousness with institutional obedience, so this part of the conversation is interesting to me, particularly in light of the positions you held in the church, malkie.

How does a Latter-day Saint define a “work” that is acceptable to the Lord, or what it means to be “worthy”? What’s the actual criteria for that in lived terms?

And when you talk about “commitment,” do you mean something that comes more from shared community and structure, or something more inward and personal?

From what I’ve seen, people sit in the pews every Sunday, attend their meetings, do their callings, pay their tithing, attend the temple, etc and believe that equates to being righteous in a Christlike sense. I don’t think it is.

I’ve read and heard about those “callings” but don’t really know what they are. Could you please define those callings from your perspective? Are the “callings” in response to a bishop “tasking” someone to do something specific? The term “calling” has a spiritual sound to it but does the task measure up to the “deep” sounding task?

[I Have Questions]

From what I’ve seen, people sit in the pews every Sunday, attend their meetings, do their callings, pay their tithing, attend the temple, etc and believe that equates to being righteous in a Christlike sense. I don’t think it is.

I’ve read and heard about those “callings” but don’t really know what they are. Could you please define those callings from your perspective? Are the “callings” in response to a bishop “tasking” someone to do something specific? The term “calling” has a spiritual sound to it but does the task measure up to the “deep” sounding task?

So they would be official “jobs” within the Church ward or stake structure. So a Sunday School teacher, a Quorum President, a Stake Auxiliary leader, a High Councillor etc.

[Limnor]

I’ve read and heard about those “callings” but don’t really know what they are. Could you please define those callings from your perspective? Are the “callings” in response to a bishop “tasking” someone to do something specific? The term “calling” has a spiritual sound to it but does the task measure up to the “deep” sounding task?

So they would be official “jobs” within the Church ward or stake structure. So a Sunday School teacher, a Quorum President, a Stake Auxiliary leader, a High Councillor etc.

Thank you