The notion of “worthiness interviews” deserves a thorough theological and pastoral response. I write this as a person who was raised Mormon, who has a spouse and two daughters who are active Mormons, and who is now a candidate for ordination in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. I have training in pastoral care and ministry, as well as Christian theology.

I write this post for my daughters, and my daughters’ friends, and the many Mormons in my life whom I love deeply and whose relationships I cherish.

To be perfectly clear: there is no room in the gospel of Jesus Christ for anything remotely resembling the practice of “worthiness” or “personal” interviews.

This practice is theologically indefensible. It is a violation of ethical and pastoral boundaries that would result in the discipline and likely removal of pastors and ministers in all Christian denominations of which I am aware. Even when administered with care, it is inherently abusive and should be immediately abandoned.

Theological Critique

The Mormon practice of worthiness interviews stems from the notion that one must attain a certain standard of behavior in order to “qualify for” the full blessings of the church. These blessings include the ordinances of the temple, the promptings of the Holy Ghost, and the Celestial Kingdom (the highest tier of heaven in Mormon belief). To live unworthily is to be denied these blessings.

In the Christian gospel, there is no such thing as human “worthiness.” There is only One who is worthy—Jesus Christ. The good news of the gospel is that it is by Christ’s merits, not ours, that we are brought into right relationship with God. Christ exchanges our unworthiness for his worthiness; our unrighteousness for his righteousness; our death for his life. To attempt to take some of that responsibility away from Christ and put it on our own shoulders undermines the power and efficacy of Christ’s work on our behalf and detracts from his divinity and power. It turns Christ into an idol, a false god, whom we do not trust to be as powerful as God has actually made him.

In Christianity, we understand that God’s love and healing are not anything we must earn or strive for or work for; indeed, we cannot. Instead, all of this is pure gift, freely given—scandalous, unadulterated grace.

The objection many Mormons will raise is that this teaching minimizes sin, but in fact, this teaching recognizes the depth of human sin and our powerlessness against it. In so doing, we are released from humanity’s most fundamental sin: the idolatry of believing we can save ourselves if only we’re good enough, right enough, pure enough.

When we trust in God’s grace, we recognize that we simply are enough, for God has declared it so. And in the freedom, joy, wholeness, and gratitude that come from understanding we belong—not because we wear the right underwear or drink the right beverages or think the right thoughts—but because Christ himself has invited us to the table, we are transformed to our very core. And this transformation is what finally enables us to open ourselves to love and forgive and care for others. Not only is this difficult to do under a worthiness model, it is impossible, because we are caught up in the endless falsehood of justifying our own existence and establishing our own worthiness.

The bottom line? Worthiness interviews are unnecessary in a gospel context. They are built on false theological premises that cannot be defended in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Pastoral Critique

Pastorally, worthiness interviews fare no better. The problems, again, have theological roots: Mormons see bishops as “judges in Israel” who have the “keys” to declare worthiness or unworthiness.

Before I continue, I should be clear that my critique does not extend to the practice of voluntary confession. Confession is good for the soul. There is something profoundly healing about speaking your deepest shame to another person and being met with mercy. But the confessor’s role is not to act as “judge in Israel,” nor to lead you through a convoluted “repentance process,” but to declare—over and over, if necessary—that you have already been forgiven because of the unfailing love of God in Christ. The confessor is there to remind you that nothing, not even the very worst thing you have ever done, can separate you from God’s love.

The practice of confession is sacred. It is deeply vulnerable. It requires radical trust—something that must be safeguarded by clear and appropriate pastoral boundaries, the violation of which shatters trust and causes tremendous harm. These boundaries include:

1) Confession must never be coerced or “interviewed” out of you, but offered voluntarily.

2) It is completely up to you to decide what sins to confess. There is no oppressive legalistic “rule” about what must be confessed and what doesn’t. You have the freedom to seek out confession or not, depending on how deeply you’re wrestling with your own conscience, and how much you feel you need help believing God’s promises of forgiveness and healing.

3) The specific details are wholly unnecessary, including about sexual matters. It is deeply inappropriate for the confessor to pry for details to make sure you “make a full confession” or “fully repent.” That is between you and God.

Boundaries such as these ensure that confession is beneficial for those in need of pastoral care, and not a traumatic or abusive experience. The LDS church’s claim that “personal interviews are an important part of ministering to those in a congregation” is patently false. There is nothing ministerial whatsoever about a regular inquisition.

I am trying to be very clear that the existence of these interviews is extremely problematic from a pastoral care perspective, regardless of the age or gender of the person being interviewed—and, honestly, regardless of the content of the interviews. Their very existence reveals a deep theological misunderstanding regarding the nature of God’s grace and a frightening lack of pastoral wisdom. Whether you are 12 or 22 or 42 or 82, they are unnecessary and harmful.

However, when you throw in the added elements of grown men asking sexual questions of minors behind closed doors, they become utterly unconscionable. There is simply no pastoral reason to ask minors (or anyone) about their sexual behavior. If someone seeks out pastoral care for sexual behavior they find problematic and need help addressing, they certainly may—but their repentance is between them and God. To proactively ask questions about it is prurient and abusive, even if the question is as generic as, “Do you live the law of chastity?”

Conclusion

But of course, often the questions go well beyond that. As a child and young adult, from multiple leaders in multiple contexts, I was asked questions about masturbation, about whether I had climaxed during a make-out session, about where exactly hands went, about how frequently things had occurred. Not one of these questions was remotely helpful or appropriate. They triggered deep shame and anxiety, and taught me that I could not trust my own instincts about what was okay and what wasn’t: these questions felt wrong, yet here were representatives of God asking them because of a policy mandated by “prophet, seers, and revelators.” I learned to sublimate my God-given instincts that protect me from danger to the authority of the church. I was made weaker and more vulnerable to abuse and harm as a result.

To summarize: there is nothing resembling the practice of regular worthiness interviews in any other Christian denomination. This is because they are deeply wrong. They are based on false teachings and damaging theology, and completely disregard appropriate ethical and pastoral boundaries.

They simply must be stopped.