A different Q15 ---------Question #12 (more financial obligations)

[NOWmormon]

Each day, for the rest of May, please share your honest response to each temple recommend question, based on what you believe right now
-
#12
Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
-
Personal thoughts:
-Why are “former” spouse/children specifically targeted? Why don’t “current” spouse/children matter?
-Why is this a requirement to get to heaven (celestial kingdom?
-Why/when did this requirement start?

[Dravin]

I do not have a former spouse or children.

[SeeNoEvil]

Nope. But I know who does and how he always answered this question. Of course they are going to say, Yes and then Yes!

[Corsair]

I supose it is nice to have at least one question where I don't have to resort to clever sophistry or outright lying to answer.

[Jinx]

This is a relatively new question. I don't know the specific reasoning behind it, but obviously it's meant to weed out deadbeat parents who aren't paying child support.

Doesn't apply to me.

[Mormorrisey]

At least I appreciate the question, even though like See No Evil, I've seen and dealt with those who tend to answer this one less than truthfully. I think it's so important that if you've brought children into this world, you d@#$ well better be accountable for them. I had a host of single moms to deal with as a bishop, and it made me furious how their partners would try and duck their responsibilities. What makes me sad or glad, depending on the day, is that subsequent leaders were less than generous to these single moms, and many of them are not active today, nor are their children - they needed all the help they can get, and often they didn't get it. On a good day, I'm hoping these women went to an organization that is actually helping them. Feeling a bit tense as I write this.

[2bizE]

I think this is an important question. If you are not paying child support and only one of the parents has to shoulder all of the financial responsibility, that is not right.

[wtfluff]

#12
Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

No to "part a" of the question.

(Whew! Easiest question so far...)

[Nonny]

Nope.

[Give It Time]

Okay, more BS on this one.

My ex was deadbeat at the time of his interview. I don't know what he told these guys. They gave him a recommend. I found out he was deadbeat, told them--more out of a outrage than anything. They did nothing. Nothing! Nothing!



Nothing!


They didn't even apologise or say, "oops" or anything. Not. One. Single. Thing. This question is complete and utter bullshit!


My personal answer has been in the past: no.

Going forward, it might be: Hell, no. That's damned straight. No bullshit. You, jackass, you.



*Cleansing breath*

I'm going to go move some shelves.

[Random]

#12
Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

Don't have any such obligations. Never did.



Wait "former spouse or children" sure sounds like "former children" to me.

[Random]

-Why are “former” spouse/children specifically targeted? Why don’t “current” spouse/children matter?

Personally, I think if you have children, they are your current children whether they live with you or not. And I totally agree with you - but, maybe, that is covered under the earlier question of how you treat your family?

[Give It Time]

-Why are “former” spouse/children specifically targeted? Why don’t “current” spouse/children matter?

Personally, I think if you have children, they are your current children whether they live with you or not. And I totally agree with you - but, maybe, that is covered under the earlier question of how you treat your family?

I think they should sort this out into questions. Individual questions. Individual, very specific questions. They should get as intrusive and voyeuristically creepy as they do with some of the chastity interviews I've heard about. Get it down to the brassiest of tacks and hold those abusers' feet to the fire. It is, after all, our children.

[MoPag]

I do have a former spouse, but I don't have any financial or other obligations towards him.


This question...I don't know...it kind of seems like a PR stunt. So the church can say "oh see this is how we crack down on deadbeat spouses." But what would the church say is more important to pay, child support or tithing?

Also is this question really meant to help the single parent who has custody of the kids? Or is it meant to ensure the church doesn't have to hand out food orders to singles mothers if they can help it.

[Give It Time]

I do have a former spouse, but I don't have any financial or other obligations towards him.


This question...I don't know...it kind of seems like a PR stunt. So the church can say "oh see this is how we crack down on deadbeat spouses." But what would the church say is more important to pay, child support or tithing?

Also is this question really meant to help the single parent who has custody of the kids? Or is it meant to ensure the church doesn't have to hand out food orders to singles mothers if they can help it.

Oh my heck! This is fabulous!

Scenario One:

If there's doubt about whether or not a person commits abuse or is deadbeat, all negative gossip is quelled because the person has a temple recommend. They've been vetted by a bp and an SP. She says he's abusive, but we have these two questions on the temple recommend interview to ferret out this behavior. So, his abuse isn't that bad and she's a hysterical woman.

Wow! I mean I already knew that, but wow!

Scenario Two:

A person like me complains about the church and how it enables abuse.

Response: that's not true! It's one of our temple recommend questions. A person can't get a recommend it they're guilty of abuse.

Excellent point about child support vs tithing. Tithing would win.

Also, excellent points about keeping women off welfare. I also think that's a significant reason the church is so adamantly against divorce. They actually don't want the welfare burden.

[2bizE]

I do have a former spouse, but I don't have any financial or other obligations towards him.


This question...I don't know...it kind of seems like a PR stunt. So the church can say "oh see this is how we crack down on deadbeat spouses." But what would the church say is more important to pay, child support or tithing?

Also is this question really meant to help the single parent who has custody of the kids? Or is it meant to ensure the church doesn't have to hand out food orders to singles mothers if they can help it.

Oh my heck! This is fabulous!

Scenario One:

If there's doubt about whether or not a person commits abuse or is deadbeat, all negative gossip is quelled because the person has a temple recommend. They've been vetted by a bp and an SP. She says he's abusive, but we have these two questions on the temple recommend interview to ferret out this behavior. So, his abuse isn't that bad and she's a hysterical woman.

Wow! I mean I already knew that, but wow!

Scenario Two:

A person like me complains about the church and how it enables abuse.

Response: that's not true! It's one of our temple recommend questions. A person can't get a recommend it they're guilty of abuse.

Excellent point about child support vs tithing. Tithing would win.

Also, excellent points about keeping women off welfare. I also think that's a significant reason the church is so adamantly against divorce. They actually don't want the welfare burden.

So what is the process for fixing this? Do you go to your bishop and ask for welfare assistance because your ex husband is a deadbeat dad? Would your bishop reach out to your ex's bishop?

[Just This Guy]

Not applicable to me.

[Give It Time]

I do have a former spouse, but I don't have any financial or other obligations towards him.


This question...I don't know...it kind of seems like a PR stunt. So the church can say "oh see this is how we crack down on deadbeat spouses." But what would the church say is more important to pay, child support or tithing?

Also is this question really meant to help the single parent who has custody of the kids? Or is it meant to ensure the church doesn't have to hand out food orders to singles mothers if they can help it.

Oh my heck! This is fabulous!

Scenario One:

If there's doubt about whether or not a person commits abuse or is deadbeat, all negative gossip is quelled because the person has a temple recommend. They've been vetted by a bp and an SP. She says he's abusive, but we have these two questions on the temple recommend interview to ferret out this behavior. So, his abuse isn't that bad and she's a hysterical woman.

Wow! I mean I already knew that, but wow!

Scenario Two:

A person like me complains about the church and how it enables abuse.

Response: that's not true! It's one of our temple recommend questions. A person can't get a recommend it they're guilty of abuse.

Excellent point about child support vs tithing. Tithing would win.

Also, excellent points about keeping women off welfare. I also think that's a significant reason the church is so adamantly against divorce. They actually don't want the welfare burden.

So what is the process for fixing this? Do you go to your bishop and ask for welfare assistance because your ex husband is a deadbeat dad? Would your bishop reach out to your ex's bishop?

In this man's church, my dear, one sucks it up.

I did just write an email to my present bishop that his predecessor had done this and that is a major thing that went wrong between me and the ward. I told the previous bishop, personally, this was going on. He gave my ex his full tacit support. I wasn't about to track down my ex's bishop, to me that's crossing a vindictive line.