"Worthiness" is a word that pops up often in LDS circles. It is as prominent as it is primarily because it is invoked when talking about ecclesiastical interviews, most often tied to temple recommends but also associated with the charge bishops receive to regularly interview the ward’s youth. And it also has taken hold in Mormon minds with regard to discussions of the sacrament--especially the practice of some who, by choice or bishop’s counsel, elect to not partake of this ordinance. But is the term and concept of "worthiness" helpful, or does it too often lead to some having negative feelings about themselves that in no way reflect true gospel principles? For instance, we have all likely known people who equate failures to meet particular behavioral standards for entrance into the temple, and in Mormon parlance are therefore excluded for "worthiness" reasons, as meaning they are not worthy of God’s love. It’s a tie too many make. Similarly, some will think that having a difficult time battling to change something about themselves means that they shouldn’t partake of the sacrament, that by so doing after not having been more successful in showing God their determination to do better they might be "drinking damnation" to their souls (a poor understanding of I Corinthians 11:29). In this way, they then deny themselves a chance to be strengthened by their participation. In this episode, Les Blake, Kerstin Koldewyn, and Matt Jones join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for an in-depth discussion of the "W-word" and how it affects Mormon lives. Are there better ways than "assessing worthiness" to think about the purposes of ecclesiastical interviews? How can we improve the settings in which LDS adults counsel and teach youth? How might we change our approach or language about these encounters that eliminates the sense of them being a "worthiness" check, or that could ever lead a person to a negative internalization about their status as--always and ever--"beloved"? What about the scriptures? When they speak of "unworthiness," is it ever in the context of the Divine saying someone has so offended as to be unworthy of God’s love, aid, comfort? Furthermore, what do the scriptures say is the key criterion for deciding about partaking of the sacrament? Should a bishop or stake president ever suggest (or urge in even stronger terms) that someone not participate in this ordinance? How do concepts of "guilt" and "shame" play into our ideas about worthiness? Can we do better there, as well?

"Worthiness" is a word that pops up often in LDS circles. It is as prominent as it is primarily because it is invoked when talking about ecclesiastical interviews, most often tied to temple recommends but also associated with the charge bishops receive to regularly interview the ward’s youth. And it also has taken hold in Mormon minds with regard to discussions of the sacrament--especially the practice of some who, by choice or bishop’s counsel, elect to not partake of this ordinance. But is the term and concept of "worthiness" helpful, or does it too often lead to some having negative feelings about themselves that in no way reflect true gospel principles? For instance, we have all likely known people who equate failures to meet particular behavioral standards for entrance into the temple, and in Mormon parlance are therefore excluded for "worthiness" reasons, as meaning they are not worthy of God’s love. It’s a tie too many make. Similarly, some will think that having a difficult time battling to change something about themselves means that they shouldn’t partake of the sacrament, that by so doing after not having been more successful in showing God their determination to do better they might be "drinking damnation" to their souls (a poor understanding of I Corinthians 11:29). In this way, they then deny themselves a chance to be strengthened by their participation. In this episode, Les Blake, Kerstin Koldewyn, and Matt Jones join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for an in-depth discussion of the "W-word" and how it affects Mormon lives. Are there better ways than "assessing worthiness" to think about the purposes of ecclesiastical interviews? How can we improve the settings in which LDS adults counsel and teach youth? How might we change our approach or language about these encounters that eliminates the sense of them being a "worthiness" check, or that could ever lead a person to a negative internalization about their status as--always and ever--"beloved"? What about the scriptures? When they speak of "unworthiness," is it ever in the context of the Divine saying someone has so offended as to be unworthy of God’s love, aid, comfort? Furthermore, what do the scriptures say is the key criterion for deciding about partaking of the sacrament? Should a bishop or stake president ever suggest (or urge in even stronger terms) that someone not participate in this ordinance? How do concepts of "guilt" and "shame" play into our ideas about worthiness? Can we do better there, as well?

Every group that struggles for greater voice, rights, and fairness welcomes and draws strength from "allies"--people who are not a member of that group yet who stand up for or work (mostly) behind the scenes to further the cause. It’s an important role, and one that can be very satisfying, but it’s also an unusual position as allies don’t typically lead. The stories of being silenced or suffering injustices is not theirs to tell. It's also a role with many challenges. In some ways, being an ally is fun, as activism on issues often garners praise and camaraderie, but it is also full of pitfalls. Are we making this cause "about me"? Am I wearing my ally role as a badge of honor? Or are we truly in the trenches, willing to be in the background, to be taught and changed by the stories we will learn? Being an ally also carries great responsibilities to be well-informed, well-spoken, and patient as we teach and inform. Allies must know their facts and understand a group’s larger goals. Allies also generally enjoy one or more "privileges" not shared by members of the group they are working alongside --being straight, white, able-bodied, healthy in body and mind, economically advantaged, etc.--privilege that is generally unearned and too often unrecognized. How can allies come to understand their privilege and to use it in helpful ways? In this episode, three people who work as allies--Jody England Hansen, Jerilyn Hassel Pool, and Mark Barnes--join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a discussion of this role (even perhaps "calling") of being an ally. What have they learned on their journeys as allies for various causes? What have been the most gratifying things? The toughest?

What seem to be very simple rituals and teachings become, under sustained reflection and a conscious spiritual walk, immensely rich. This is the case with this episode, which continues a series started this past December and January (episodes 261, 263-264) that discusses topics in Samuel M. Brown’s book, First Principles and Ordinances: The Fourth Article of Faith in Light of the Temple (Maxwell Institute, 2014). Joining Sam again, as he did for the episode that covered Faith and Repentance, is philosopher and theologian Adam Miller, this time for a terrific discussion of the ordinance of baptism. What are some of the ritual forms from the ancient world that baptism emerged from? What is the significance of John the Baptist and the Apostle Paul in expanding its usage and meaning? Do potential problems arise when we over-emphasize the common teaching that baptism is primarily about being cleansed of our sins? In their conversation, Sam and Adam also reflect in very rich ways upon its symbolism, as well as its role within Mormonism, including its ability to help bind us together into the "body of Christ." As the discussion unfolds, they then turn to the role of the sacrament and its intricate connection with baptism. How does this ritual meal act as a ritual meal that binds us closer to God and each other?