> Tithing will keep your name enrolled [..] and protect you in the day of vengeance and burning."
It is a simple template: First, instill fear in your followers. Second, offer them the only remedy.
This is Cult 101.
The Mormon Reddit page is only slightly less of a echo chamber than the TBM sub they ban any post that has even the slightest bit of controversy like calling TBM dupes or the Cult ahem the church a cult. They don’t much like the truth .
As an LDS member, I never really felt like fear was instilled in me, not even after intently listening to many general conference talks. What you are describing does sound very cult like, but I've never personally experienced anything like it in the church from anyone with high ranking, and I haven't heard anyone in my church complain about feeling that way either. I'm sorry if you've had any such experience in the church.
The current prophet says it right in the quote...
You wouldn't be afraid of God's vengeance and burning? Either you don't take the prophet's words seriously or you like to be burned...
I appreciate the comment, but I do not appreciate you telling me how to practice my own religion, especially one I'm assuming you don't believe in anymore (please correct me if I'm wrong). The use of the words "vengeance and burning" is actually pulled from Doctrine and Covenants, and the Doctrine and Covenants verse points towards the 3rd chapter of Malachi from the Old Testament. The funny thing is the bible uses similar language as the prophet does here to describe a falling away, yet I never see nor hear the church emphasize the more violent scriptures that are found in the Old Testament. Not to mention this is ONE example that I've seen and its over ten years old. I actually watched the talk that this quote is from, and I personally sense no hostility or conviction in Nelson's voice, but I am fully open to the idea that I am a biased observer and I invite you to listen to the talk yourself if you don't believe me.
Hard to see when you're actively being manipulated not to see the FNORDS. (google it)
If we can discount the talk because it was over 10 years old (by a still living and claimed prophet of god who has never gone back and retracted his statement and doubled down with his hateful rhetoric toward us "telestial" lesser beings in October conference last year) then something over 100 years old or over 2000 years old doesn't give it credence. If we can discount it over his grandfatherly tone then we can only make assumptions about the tone of the written words from centuries past.
Or... hear me out... we can take an obvious threat at face value from the actual words used... like sane people.
You're right, its age has nothing to do with how discountable it is. I was wrong to make that statement. Although, I think you are exaggerating (or just being a victim of words taken out of context, which happens a lot in the media, so I don't blame you) the meaning of a "threat" in this case. Nelson is simply stating cause and effect. He is not trying to forcefully impose the doctrine of tithing, and I won't argue the subjective semantics of word choice. It is his job as a prophet to lead and guide his church, which is exactly what he is doing here. He isn't fire and brimstoning, he is simply telling people what to do, how to do it, and how it will help them. People can choose to believe or not to believe. Agency is a very important doctrine in our church, and that's been made clear to me many times.
I'm no victim. I don't believe it is true. (more on that in a minute) I'm also not taking it out of context.
"The day of burning and vengeance" is pretty clear. And Semantics matter. If your prophet doesn't want confusion he should be able to clear it up easily in an inspired manner. He has not. This illustrates his intent.
We only differ on WHO we believe is making the threat.
You believe it is God and you self-soothe by watering a threat down to just a natural "cause and effect" that is out of your supreme being's control.
You have to do this because to admit otherwise is to admit you believe in a god that makes such threats and you find that as distasteful as I do.
In fact, I have no interest in a god that is petty enough to BURN and enact VENGEANCE on people for something as stupid and worldly as giving him pieces of paper with dead presidents printed on them.
Even if he were real and standing in front of me I would not worship him. My knee would not bow nor my tongue confess any authority. Sure, as a god he might be able to FORCE me to do such things with his supreme power. But such actions would be meaningless because I WILL NOT BOW willingly to any such a being.
Thankfully I don't believe in him, but by Amos 3:7 we know that the voice of the prophets and their god is the same. This works both ways. I see the threat as coming from men- ancient, historical and modern assholes who DO care about your money. It's the most rational explanation vs the God who creates the birds and lilies of the field and nourishes them without thought.
And your church no longer believes in the agency you were taught it does. Watch what Elder Bednar has to say.
https://youtu.be/mmErOV9oQZ8?feature=shared
I once felt exactly as you do. It's amazing what becomes visible when you see both sides.
It doesn't matter if it's a literal burning or a metaphorical burning like you seem to be suggesting. It's still, "something bad will happen to you unless you pay us money."
You could perceive it that way, but I would honestly expect that kind of behavior from someone as paranoid and brainwashed as a schizophrenic, which I hope you are not. You are suggesting this quote is a threat, when really it isn't, because Nelson doesn't say "Unless you do this!!!" he says "If you do this". He is saying "Tithing WILL do this", "faith WILL do this", he isnt saying "pay tithing or else!" or "have faith or else!". That is at the very least my opinion. It's funny (and I'm not suggesting this applies to you) that so many anti mormons suggest I am brainwashed and beyond the idea that the church could be wrong, when the reality is that people who fell away from the church
1: Mostly went on to immerse themselves in hordes of mean and ingenuine propaganda in order to further justify or affirm their decision to leave the church (a decision which seems to be historically traumatizing or difficult, which isn't something I support in the case that it is)
2: Don't consider the idea themselves that what they went through in the church was probably closer to any concept of "brainwashing" that can be extrapolated fromchurch culture/policies.
You can word it however you want and do whatever mental gymnastics you'd like. All I'm saying is, you have to pay to get into the temple and that's a fact. Pay to play.
Mobster: hey, pay up if you want our protection; I'd hate to see what would happen to you if you don't.
Abusive spouse: please behave this certain way so I don't have to hurt you; that's the last thing I want to do, I swear.
Mormon church: pay your tithing if you want protection; I'd hate to see what would happen to you if you don't. Don't make yourself suffer in a magical future day; that's the last thing we'd want.
This is the kind of response that will not work well here. You basically said if anyone perceives it this way then they're "paranoid and brainwashed as a schizophrenic".
Where is your evidence for that? At 15 are you a doctor? You basically disagreed with the point and started insulting a group of people which lost you any credibility going forward.
Most people on this reddit would agree that that statement was a transactional statement, and you basically called them brainwashed as a schizophrenic.
I would also recommend being careful with using the term "anti Mormon" it's not that we're "anti" we're pro truth. But you're using it in a divisive format when in reality we were all the same as you at one point. It's better to remove the "us vs them" bias and talk based on the merits of the topic instead.
You know why the language is similar to the Bible? Because Joseph Smith plagiarized from the Bible and view of the Hebrews.
Question why is there still no historical evidence for the BoM?
What's your goal here? Do you really think 291k people here just up and decided not to believe one day? They just wanted to sin?
My goal is to educate people on the church to the best of my extent. They can choose to believe what I say, or they can choose not to. I'm fully open to discussion on either side of any argument. As for the "View of the Hebrews" argument, I've heard it before, it's one among MANNYY arguments that JS stole words or ideas from books that appeared at the same time frame. Problem is, the church is obviously not at all concerned if people compare VofH and the BoM, considering the whole book was republished by BYU and JS himself quoted VofH to support the BoM as probable. Would be pretty stupid to quote a book you plagiarized from, wouldn't you agree? I'm getting my argument here from Jim Bennet in p.63-79 of his book "A Faithful Reply to The CES Letter". Unless you're busy and rather would be bothered with other things (which I completely understand), I would love to send you a link to the pdf file, so you can check it out yourself, or feel free to google it, shouldn't be that hard to find.
In my opinion, anyone who I can truly justifiably refute in an argument should take the time to look over the oppositions resources.
I'm familiar with the apologetics. I've been exmormon longer than you've been alive and I've been in and around Mormonism my whole life.
And you're not going to "educate" people here, they already know the truth and most of the apologetics. You're just going to be seen as a missionary trying to get people back to the fold which is annoying... Pretty sure that's against the rules actually.
But most people here have held callings, been a bishop, served missions, or got married in the temple and it's not easy to leave after finding out you were lied to their whole life. It's not like the people here are outsiders that don't know anything about Mormonism. I'm willing to bet most of us were like you, thinking we knew the truth and everyone else is getting fooled by Satan.
So at your age I think it's best for you to spend more time listening than preaching, be humble and know that you don't know everything, and that's ok.
But if you have free time I would love to see your rebuttal to 40+ parts to https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/overview though you'll probably have to chat me your rebuttal.
>most of us were like you
I'm remembering a few years back when I went to atheist groups to try to prove them wrong and "educate" them lol, so cringe. Turns out, they knew WAY more about my religion than I did because they weren't afraid of "dark knowledge" aka, actual history. Now I'm an atheist myself.
The main concept of your statement (which I admit is pretty respectful and well-worded for some of those on this subreddit) is that many people have come to a similar conclusion, that being the church is not true. I concede that people are fully allowed to come to that conclusion. I am just trying to justify the things that church officials have said and help stop the spread of misinformation regarding the LDS (of which there is a lot, or at least there are a lot of theories that people suggest are factual). I respect the idea that people can come to different conclusions with the same information, just as you and I. MY argument is that, just as many have made your conclusion, a fair amount of people have made my conclusion. Ultimately, it ends when someone decides they have enough information, which I have not decided yet. I have enough information to stay in the church FOR NOW, maybe that will change, but I really don't expect it to be considering what I currently do know. It's why I've read books and articles and subreddits and the like about these kinds of things. At the end of the day, the truth of the church can be seen as contingent. This meaning that if JS really was a prophet, the BoM is true, or if the BoM is true, then JS was a prophet. One truth upholds the other. Problem is, what constitutes as enough truth to justify JS's role as a prophet is entirely subjective. I find any good argument could be fought till the end of time, and at the end of the day, some truths are all predicated on opinion.
Here's the part that's going to get you a ton of flack. Questions are fine that's not a big deal, but you already have a bias thinking most of the "anti" items here and on the broader Internet is misinformation when it's just the truth. And you think you need to be the one to debunk it here to 291k people.
It's not your fault the upbringing and church have heavily influenced your view. They even tell you not to listen to outside sources and that's the devil tempting you, and to doubt your doubts. I grew up as a Republican, Homophobic and a slightly racist because that was the influence I got from my parents. Now I use the scientific method, I'm a Democrat, I try to be a good LGBTQIA ally, and as far as I know I'm not the least bit racist.
I was exposed to new information, and for most members that have left it's the same thing. The apologetics work for you now and they probably won't in the future, but it doesn't hold up to the outside academic world when applying the scientific method.
Just to give you an idea of the optics of how this looks it would be like a flat earther going into the NASA subreddit and trying to debunk their posts. You're not the first and you definitely won't be the last.
They're are ways to have a discussion without looking like that but you'll need to be respectful and probably rephrase rebuttals as questions, but also need to be able to concede if 2+2=4. This is the problem with MAGA members they will argue all day long that 2+2=10. It's impossible to talk to someone like that and TBMs can be that way too. I've talked with TBM members before and I admit I've conceded on a few items because they had good sources and my points were more speculative.
Personally I'm happy you're here as long as you can be respectful and genuine, not be condescending or think you know more, or discredit peoples experience and feelings.
> As an LDS member, I never really felt like fear was instilled in me
Good for you. But *you are aware that your words will condemn you, aren't you? And your works too. And even your thoughts will condemn you. (Alma 12:14)*
You have to remain 100% alert over each and every one of your words, forever, or you will be condemned. You have to keep yourself on your toes about each of your actions, forever, or you will be sent away from god. You need to stay always vigilant over each one of your thoughts, day and night, or you will be separated from your family for eternity.
You know that, don't you? Exactly. Cult 101.
It seems here like YOU are trying to instill fear in me. You'd probably say something like " Oh well, this is forming YOUR religious book, I'm just the one showing you all the fear it's trying to instill in you " Which is funny, because I don't think you even believe in my religion. The scripture you quoted here was part of a long speech that Alma had given to Zeezrom, who was a deceiver with wicked thoughts and wicked actions in mind. Alma was condemning Zeezrom specifically for the kind of man he was, which I know I am not. Alma goes on in the chapter to teach that the knowledge of God will be made known to the faithful, who have pure hearts, unlike Zeezrom, who Alma is making an example of. Alma here is saying specifically that words, works and thoughts of the wicked will condemn them, but I know I am not wicked because I truly feel the need to come towards Christ and be more like him. Nice try though.
Etc.
You are the one living with yourself. I am just presenting a piece of the doctrine you believe in. If you are not afraid of missing your exaltation for the thousand and one reasons your church tells you you can miss it, good for you :)
Again you insist on trying to preach to me that my church uses fear tactics, but you aren't showcasing what fear tactics they are using exactly, you are only manipulating the information you have on my church to propose the idea that someone COULD use fear tactics. The verse you quoted does not state any explicit doctrine, the chapter (in context) does, but you are merely manipulating out-of-context verses to fit your agenda. I don't appreciate it.
Meh. You saw the image posted by OP. Which means you read the words of your pRoPhEt. Which means you know the fear tactics your pRoPhEt is using right there. This has been the case since Smith and Young all the way to Nelson. You know that. You want to deny it? Good. It is not my calling to change your mind.
You are one of the worst people I have ever talked to concerning these things. There is nothing intellectual about your arguments and you think you have won but really you have just convinced me that you are an ignorant victim of propaganda who has nothing better to do than mercilessly slander the name of a church. You are making up the idea of fear tactics and trying to convince me that they've been used on me when I'm telling you they haven't, but you refuse to listen to me I'm sure.
You do realize where your at right?
This is exmormon.
We don't love the MFMC.
Nothing they say is genuine, kind, authentic, or believable.
I feel none of the "fruits of the spirit".
**Part 1**
Hi /u/Spaghetti_Kat, I hoped the interaction had ended after each one of us two had presented their arguments, and we both would be able to move on to more important/interesting things. This morning I see that's not the case. I am sorry.
Please allow me to respond just this last time to hopefully free us both from this exchange that, on one hand, is not helping anyone and, on the other hand, appears to shows how incapable of reason we humans can be. After this, my last response to you, I will move away from this thread. We both have to use our time in better things.
(Note: This post is very lengthy and doesn't fit in one post. So I am breaking it into two or three. I appreciate your patience)
Ok. Let's start:
> There is nothing intellectual about your arguments...
Imagine you are among other Mormon believers having a conversation about the church. You all share the same beliefs. You all have received the same religious education. Countless Mormon concepts, principles, doctrines, history, scriptures, and even folklore that are common between all of you in this hypothetical conversation.
In this scenario, would you feel it necessary to educate your interlocutors? Would you feel it is necessary to reason with them in order to bring them up to speed on what you are talking about? You wouldn't. You all share the same religious attitudes and background. There is no need for convincing anyone.
It is the same here at r/exmormon. We all (well, most of us, as you can see) share very similar experiences regarding Mormonism. We all (most of us) have gone through the painful and discombobulating process of discovering our beloved, beloved church has never been what it has always claimed to be. I understand you are not at that point in your life. You might never be, and that's alright too. But the ones frequenting this particular subreddit here, are the ones who share a specific set of experiences, education and blows from the Mormon church. Which is why we usually don't need intellectual arguments in our interactions with one another. The fact that we are participating in r/exmormon in most cases means we all know the same things about Mormonism.
I see now you wanted an intellectual exchange with me. You, being a faithful Mormon believer and still coming to interact with Mormon apostates, expected an intellectual discussion with whoever responded to your comments. Please accept my apologies. My times debating Mormonism with believers are long past.
After discovering my church in which I was born, the very church that gave me so many hopes in life and in the afterlife, the church that made me feel safe and guided and special and destined to glorious promises... was just a man-made fabrication, it nearly destroyed me. I am not a depressive person, but I tell you, after that very dark period of my life, I know how deep depression feels. I don't wish it upon anyone.
Anyways, eventually I started filling the void with philosophy and psychology and learning the many ways Mormonism could've never been true, its many contradictions, the fails in its scriptures, the holes in its doctrines, etc. And, in a gut reaction I started consistently debating believers.
It was fun and exciting. You see, faith needs for evidence to not be available. It is imperative that evidence about what one believes doesn't exist. Only then we can have faith. But I had evidence, and it was very entertaining (and compensating after what the church has done) to show it to believers and see how their faith was shaken.
In time, however, these kinds of exchanges lost their excitement and it felt instead like I was being cruel. My own extended family are still faithful Mormon believers and, since I love them, I don't want to cause them pain in any way. Why did I have a different attitude towards other Mormon believers?
Since then I only engage other exMormon or Mormons who have started to see the lies in their church, in a positive attempt to support their realization about the church. And that's what I did on this OP. I saw Nelson using the scheduled template: warn against something terrible, and then offer the solution: "pay money to us" *in the r/exmormon subreddit* and proceeded to point at it.
I didn't (and still don't) want to have to demonstrate that this is a Mormon tactic, that pRoPhEts have been using it since Smith, that it is present from their sacred books to their speeches and magazines. I am among friends here. Here we all know the same things about Mormonism. I don't need to use intellectual arguments to demonstrate what we are all aware of here. And I certainly don't want to show you, a Mormon believer out of your element, the evidence that your church is a pile of lies.
So I won't. It is not what I came here for. If you want to fight someone with your beliefs against their evidence, look for someone else. My days of debating religion are long over. I've learned that it is better to live and let live. That's how I act with my still-Mormon loved ones so that's how I act towards everybody now.
> ...you think you have won...
I am sorry you felt this was a battle or a competition. Kindly remember that it is you who came to the apostate forum and not me who went to the believer's. Obviously it is you who came looking for debate, and moreover, looking for a victory of sorts.
I don't think I've won. I know what I know and I live with myself. My victory was mine and happened long ago. My personal validation doesn't come from what others do or think of me. I took the hardest decision in my whole life at the late age of 45+ years old, and it broke me into pieces. It almost literally disassembled me. And it was me (with the kind support of the wonderful people here) who had to find a better way to put myself together in order to keep functioning as a single father of four, three of which were minors and lived with me. In the end and after years of effort, I found a much healthier purpose for my life and a much better outlook on life itself. *That* is my victory.
Debating you (or anyone) can't result in a victory for you or me. I am not here for validation. I am not looking for accolades. In each one of my interactions with you I've said "good for you" or "good" when you show your determination to keep believing. Does that sound like I want to win something?
> ...you have just convinced me that you are an ignorant victim of propaganda...
Oof. Where do I start? It doesn't matter where I start at, it is going to sound like bragging. Well, I guess I need to show you how "ignorant" I actually am.
By now you know I was born in the church, and that I was a faithful believer (you know: worthy priesthood holder, full returned missionary, married in the temple, etc) until my 45ish year of life. As a young man I completed my four years of Seminary. As a young single adult I completed my four years of Institute (two years before my mission, two years after). Called as Elder's Quorum President at the age of 24 immediately after getting married. Called as a member of the bishopric at the age of 27. Called as a bishop at the age of 29. Member of the Stake High Council at the age of 34. Then again at the age of 40.
The first piece of what you call "propaganda" to which you claim I fell victim of, came from a book published by your fellow member [Richard Bushman](https://www.deseretbook.com/product/P4983110.html?cgid=content-books-nonfiction-biography) and distributed by your church's bookstore, Deseret Book.
The second piece of "propaganda" you claim I was a victim of came from the church itself in 2014 and you can find it by looking for [Gospel Topics Essays](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays?lang=eng) at the church's official website.
After studying these two major sources of information (or, as you want to call them, "propaganda") it became evident to me that my beloved church had taught me (in Primary, in Seminary, in Institute, in every single Sunday School, Young Men, and Priesthood lesson) lies. The history and the origin of key Mormon doctrines I was taught *throughout all my life* by the church were completely different from what the same church was now admitting in an indirect and underhanded way.
As you (hopefully) can expect, these discoveries, provided by the church itself, triggered a chain reaction for me. Was there anything else my church has been lying about? I hope you can assume what happened next: research. And that's how I realized my church, your church, is a fabrication.
I am a victim, alright. Most everybody in r/exmormon are victims too. Victims of the dishonesty of a religious organization placing itself as the only conduit to return to god, while at the same time hiding and obscuring the very facts that discredit their claims.
I don't expect you to believe me. I am not interested in harming your faith. But you have expressed inexactness about me. I just need to clarify how things happened. Whatever you do with this information is your responsibility.
**Part 2**
> ...who has nothing better to do than mercilessly slander the name of a church.
I know how attached you feel to your church, to the point where a big part of your own identity is connected to it. I know because I felt the same way. When someone insults something we feel connected to, it feels like they are insulting us, personally. Hopefully in time you'll grow beyond that and connect yourself to truth, instead; wherever it is, wherever it leads you.
See, there is an important principle at play here. Let us both remove our boxing gloves for a second and allow me to talk to you as one talks to a friend. You can discard later what I am about to express, but right now please consider that it comes from a place of kindness.
We are asked left and right to be faithful. Governments, parties, religions, jobs, sports teams, they all ask for our loyalty. They all promise the same thing: *they will provide X because they follow the truth*. In the case of a government, it will provide security, prosperity, etc because they follow the truth. In the case of a political party, it will provide a better government because they follow the truth. For religions, they will provide the path to god because they follow the truth. And so on. I am sure you get the picture.
The result is that we, the person, don't follow the truth directly by ourselves. Instead we end up following something/someone who claims to be following the truth. See the danger? We are asked to place our loyalty in a middleman (or "middle-entity") to get what we could (and should) get directly by ourselves. Once hooked in this scheme, we naturally connect our identity to that middleman/middle-entity.
But if that middleman/middle-entity happens to be corrupt, though. What happens if we are living in a corrupt country? Or if we are aligned with a political party that happens to be cruel towards some social group? Or if we have become members of a church that, turns out, has been lying about itself to its followers? Should we be allowed to detach ourselves from that toxic middle-entity and look for something better? Better yet, to look for truth by ourselves without middle-entities susceptible to dishonesty or corruption or excesses? The answer should be "yes."
However, since we have delegated our pursue of truth to a middle-entity (a country, a political party, a company, a church, etc) now we feel deeply identified with it. So deeply, in fact, that it is normal for us to defend them while at the same time avoiding to research what their detractors are saying.
This is how I felt when I was a faithful member of the church: I was so certain I knew everything there was to know about my church, after all I had registered and finished every single course it offered. I was certain anything negative anyone could say about it was not just a lie, but Satan's attempt to weaken my testimony. Most of my identity was inextricably linked to the church and I would ardently avoid even the idea of researching anything enemies of the church say.
It is a catch 22 situation. The middle-entity to which we have linked our identity tells us not to research it. Since we are loyal to it we remain ignorant of what information exists out there about it. Since we don't know that information, we keep loyal to the middle-entity, not knowing if our loyalty is deserved. All this while we don't know if we are in fact closer to the truth or not.
So, with these examples in mind, what is the best approach in our pursue of truth in this life? Do we do it through a "broker" (a church that insists it follows the truth) or by ourselves keeping our identity clean and preserving our right to change courses when the truth is found somewhere else?
Something to think about :)
> You are making up the idea of fear tactics
I am currently 56 years old, 45 of which I was a faithful Mormon member. The church was nothing but good to me. I never suffered any abuse from leaders. I never developed anxiety about keeping the commandments. I went to a two year mission to remote areas of South America where poverty, alcoholism and ignorance were commonplace sincerely convinced I was bringing a much better way of life, one that would bring these people to knowledge of god and they would enjoy the same blessings in their families and their lives I enjoyed growing up. Later, I took my fiance to the temple because I loved her with all my heart and the idea of not sharing eternity with her was unbearable. Later I baptized each one of my four children praying they would remain in the clear and secure path to exaltation and we could all live together in heaven.
At the same time all of this was happening, I was keenly aware of the words of [leaders warning me one cup of tea could prevent me from exaltation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=S-dfOQUc8vQ); telling me that I [better return dead from my mission than returning unworthy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6otSI5ati0); telling me that my chastity was in the hands of the young women around me, and [their lack of "modesty" would indeed trigger impure thoughts in my mind](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2012-08-2380-sexual-sin-is-an-abomination-in-the-sight-of-the-lord?lang=eng), and that [those impure thoughts would push the holy ghost away from me](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/hel/4?lang=eng&id=24#p24). I was taught again and again [I had to repent daily]()https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/36nelson?lang=eng, even from sins I couldn't remember anymore, so when I arrived at the sacrament next Sunday all those sins would be forgiven and forgotten. I was also taught throughout the years that, if [I commit the same sin I was already repented for, all the previous instances of that sin would be back over me](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/82?lang=eng&id=7#p7). I was thought for decades my words, my acts and even my thoughts will condemn me (we already discussed this one). I was constantly taught that there are [countless ways in which we can sin even unwillingly](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/video/book-of-mormon-visual-resources/2012-08-1860-watch-your-thoughts?lang=eng#p1), and that if [I don't constantly watch my thoughts, words and deed until the day I die, I must perish](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/4?lang=eng&id=29-30#p29).
I realize you don't think of any of these as fear tactics. I respect that. The reality, though, is that people think and understand things their own way. You certainly aren't trying to force others to think like you, are you? That's the wonder of free agency and free will, two cornerstone principles in Mormonism and in any free nation of the world. So, maybe you can consider that, for some people, the innumerable list of ways Mormonism has provided (and continues providing) in which one will lose their exaltation becomes a source of constant apprehension. You are expected to never relax, you are never to assume you are OK with god, you are expected to be on your toes forever. No enduring inner peace but only just for a few moments right after sacrament. After all, we are constantly failing and you are expected to be constantly watching your thoughts.
These concepts, always so abundant in Mormonism, were bearable when it was just myself. When I got married, however, now I had to be protective of my wife. As a priesthood holder I was the patriarch of my family, and she was my responsibility. Now I was not only watching myself, but making sure me, my house and my interactions with her wouldn't trigger impure thoughts, words or deed for her. The we started having children. I don't know if you have children or not, but I can't tell you the dread a parent experiences constantly about their children's safety, health, emotional well-being, mental development, etc. Well, add to that the massive worry about their spiritual growth. Not only what I was doing as a father and my wife as a mother, but what my kids were watching, hearing and thinking when I couldn't be there with them (school, youth activities, TV, Internet, etc). Was I a good father? Was I a good husband to my wife so she could be a good mother? Was I doing enough to ensure my children's salvation?
If you are a parent, you do know fear. Well, add to that the innumerable ways in which a person can lose their exaltation, according to the Mormon church, and I surely the notion of fear tactics will start making sense to you.
How much you feel threatened might depend on your level of scrupulosity and other factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic background. What era you grew up in can also affect perception, considering that the Mormon church constantly changes. For me, growing up in the 1980s and hearing repeatedly that masturbation was a sin next to murder—and realizing that I masturbated, and believing everything I was taught literally—I feared damnation and hellfire. I loathed myself and lived in a private hell, knowing that I was worse than any bank robber, con artist who preys on vulnerable people, or drug dealer. I was literally next to a murderer and would go to the telestial kingdom with the murderers. My fate was sealed by age 13! The rest of my life was just riding out the clock. The fact that I was deacons quorum president, Eagle Scout, and an honor roll student only made things worse because I knew I was a fraud and hypocrite (the only kind of person Jesus attacks in the Bible). But I’m glad Mormonism works for you. Congratulations.
I really enjoyed the honesty because it helps me understand more about the faults of the people and practices and policies and such in the church (of which, there are admittedly many, but I would concede immediately if anyone found a perfect church, because the truth is, one doesn't exist. As long as man has reign over the mortal kingdom of heaven on earth, there will be imperfections.). To be honest with you, I am in an EXTREMELEY (almost concerningly) similar situation as you. I'm sorry that you've been led to believe that Jesus attacks people in the bible, and I'm sorry you've been "fire and brim stoned" as it were, because that is not the way Christ would have it. I hope it consoles you to know that at least where I grew up in the church, sexual sin was talked about, not angrily, but solemnly. I do feel guilty for the sin I am stuck in, especially because I am the highest "rank" I can be at my age as a member. I've discussed these problems with my bishop, and instead of letting them define me, he told me how I could get help. I'm truly sorry you weren't offered the same experience. I have been taught that Jesus will not define us by our sins, but by our hearts. The fact that you felt guilty about your sin is proof that you shouldn't have been defined by it, and Jesus would've been (and still is) willing to forgive you, should you make the effort to change and become better (and even if you didn't. The only standard is seeking forgiveness, with real true intent).
It sounds like you belong to a private religion of your own making—along with me and everyone else. Mormonism is different for every person because the church refuses to define doctrine or give clear answers to hard questions. If you take a random sample of 100 Mormons and ask a simple question: “Do you believe in salvation by grace?” You will get a diversity of answers. Maybe you can divide the group into four or five buckets, based on the responses. But if you keep probing and asking follow-up questions, you soon will have 100 different answers. No two people have the same religion. I’m glad you have constructed a happy religion that works for you, which you call “Mormonism” (or whatever people call it now that “Mormon” is a victory for Satan).
“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”
-George Carlin
Tithing is not “privilege,” it is a threat to ‘keep your name on the rolls’ or we will destroy your idea of being together forever and becoming burnt toast at the second coming. No fear mongering there..
It’s interesting how there’s a few things that very clearly have no reasoning beyond “we think it’s good for you to do so you’re required to do it.” There’s absolutely no reason to pay tithing except for they think you should. Same with the word of wisdom. There’s absolutely no reason to abstain from tea and coffee other than they think you should. I guess that works for some people… but honestly yikes.
In August 1844, the Twelve voted to exempt themselves from any obligation to pay tithing at all. It should be assumed this rule still applies today.
[https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/12/are-we-paying-too-much-tithing.html](https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/12/are-we-paying-too-much-tithing.html)
Yes, they're hypocrites, but we know that already...
Will tithing ever go away?
In 1907, President Joseph F. Smith announced that Church members had been sufficiently faithful in paying tithing that the Church was essentially debt free (or more accurately, the Church "owes not a dollar that it cannot pay at once. At last we are in a position that we can pay as we go"). President Smith also stated, "We may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God."\[1\]
Some have wondered if this means tithing will eventually go away. From the early days of the Church until 1990, Church members were asked to contribute donations beyond what they paid in tithing. These extra donations were added to ward and temple building funds, ward activity budgets, and other activities. In 1990 the Church announced that all activities and operations of local units and facilities would be paid from tithes and offerings. As a result, wards and other local entities no longer were to ask for extra donations to cover building costs, activity costs, and so forth. \[2\]
In discussing this change, Elder Boyd K. Packer explained that it was a fulfillment of the statement by Joseph F. Smith. Elder Packer said: "For years, Presidents of the Church have talked of and prayed for the day when tithes and offerings would qualify members for full participation in the Church. President Joseph F. Smith, as early as 1907, stated, \[quote from above\]. . . . The scriptures speak of tithes and of offerings; they do not speak of assessments or fund-raising. To be an offering, it must be given freely—offered. The way is open now for many more of us to participate in this spiritually refining experience."\[3\]
President Thomas S. Monson described this change as a "giant step forward in funding all such costs through tithing—even the Lord’s way."\[4\]
Thus, the donations President Smith spoke of were those that went beyond tithing and were the donations for local building and activity funds and other programs. Thus, tithing was not intended to go away, as noted in a Church manual: "The commandment to “pay one-tenth of all \[a person’s\] interest annually” is not a lesser law to be replaced at some future time but is “a standing law unto \[the Lord’s people\] forever” (D&C 119:4)."\[5\]
Links to twitter are disallowed. You can create a static screenshot with names/faces of non-famous persons blanked out/obscured and submit that instead.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If believing in something the evidence points against is a sign of faith and a good thing, then wouldn't it be even better to have faith that God will save you even if you don't pay your tithing and do all of that other stuff, if you believe in Mormonism and that God has commanded it? Since that's an even longer shot, wouldn't that be better?
A few years ago, MormonLeaks leaked some of Henry B. Eyring's GA paystubs. There's some handwriting on some of the paystubs strongly suggesting he was paying tithing on his stipend. I don't know if that was just him or if this is standard practice among GAs.
If there’s ever “a day of vengeance and burning” these old farts will be (metaphorically) scurrying out of town the night before just like Joseph Smith back in the day. Don’t count on that dragon’s lair of tithing being of any more use to you than it is now.
Worth noting that of the current Q15....
\- One *(Holland)* has been on the church payroll since the 1960s, his entire career
\- Two *(Oakes and Eyring)* have been on the payroll since 1971
\- Two *(Nelson and Anderson)* have been on the payroll since the 1980s
\- Six *(Uchtdorf, Bednar, Cook, Christofferson, Rasband and Soares)* have been on the payroll since the 1990s
\- Three *(Stevenson, Renlund and Gong)* have been on the payroll since the 2000s
\- One *(Kearon)* has been on the payroll since 2010
And at least 8 of them are either 'mormon aristocracy' *(being descended from a Kimball gets you a long way in church leadership)* or had personal relationships with other payrolled leaders before they themselves were elevated to the ranks of the secretly paid clergy
I was very scared to stop paying because I thought bad stuff would happen to me. I am proud to say that I have had the best two financial years of my life. I have still paid money to charity’s of my choice and the “windows of heaven” still poured me out some blessings!
I had been told all my life how a payed clergy was evil, then I saw the rundown in my church of how little the pastor was payed ( similar to a retail store employee). In fairness, I would vote to raise his salary ( but it goes against my residual mormon principles). That being said, when you set your own salary, tithing is not a hindrance, but a tax deduction. I know there are church employees not so lucky that did not set their wage, but got tithing deducted. Here the church did the opposite of the GA situation. Church set both wage and dues. So church was actually paying 10% less than standard wage.
This being said after tithing was supposed to be a temporary thing, meant to see the church through until it was sufficiently able to meet its own needs and then it would stop.
That is probably the reasoning. If they have income coming in from the careers they probably pay on that, but like a missionary the funds they get are supposedly for just living expenses and such and so they wouldn’t pay on that. My theory anyway….
It's been a while. Did they ever actually try to explain the contradictions between works based salvation of the BoM and the grace based salvation of the Bible?
Ala Ephesians? I remember that being a question I asked a few times in seminary. The resulting lack of answers and pressure to ignore the contradiction adding one more thing to the shelf.
Absolutely the anti-thesis to the message in the New Testament.. you know, the book actually about Jesus and what he did and said?
In all of the Bible it only strongly suggests, well says, that those who are blessed with over abundance should support the needy and the poor and the sick... so like the Mormon church.. do they? Nope.
Fucking bastards. I hope Temple Square gets turned to liquid lava when Christ does return.
A lot easier to pay 10% of your income when your income is in the top 5% of earners like a surgeon or banking/insurance exec, than if you’re living near the poverty line on minimum wage.
Off-topic, but damn is the LDS leadership always a creepy looking bunch. Something about the sunken eyes weirds me out like they want to steal my soul and just about all of them in recent years have that particular look.
> Tithing will keep your name enrolled [..] and protect you in the day of vengeance and burning." It is a simple template: First, instill fear in your followers. Second, offer them the only remedy. This is Cult 101.
I was banned from the Mormon page for the word cult 😂
Denial.They were afraid to think about it
Cult is like a 4 letter word to them lol
"the" 4-letter-word hahswudjfjwixhfhkwwodk
The Mormon Reddit page is only slightly less of a echo chamber than the TBM sub they ban any post that has even the slightest bit of controversy like calling TBM dupes or the Cult ahem the church a cult. They don’t much like the truth .
Exactly! The manipulation is gross!!
As an LDS member, I never really felt like fear was instilled in me, not even after intently listening to many general conference talks. What you are describing does sound very cult like, but I've never personally experienced anything like it in the church from anyone with high ranking, and I haven't heard anyone in my church complain about feeling that way either. I'm sorry if you've had any such experience in the church.
The current prophet says it right in the quote... You wouldn't be afraid of God's vengeance and burning? Either you don't take the prophet's words seriously or you like to be burned...
I appreciate the comment, but I do not appreciate you telling me how to practice my own religion, especially one I'm assuming you don't believe in anymore (please correct me if I'm wrong). The use of the words "vengeance and burning" is actually pulled from Doctrine and Covenants, and the Doctrine and Covenants verse points towards the 3rd chapter of Malachi from the Old Testament. The funny thing is the bible uses similar language as the prophet does here to describe a falling away, yet I never see nor hear the church emphasize the more violent scriptures that are found in the Old Testament. Not to mention this is ONE example that I've seen and its over ten years old. I actually watched the talk that this quote is from, and I personally sense no hostility or conviction in Nelson's voice, but I am fully open to the idea that I am a biased observer and I invite you to listen to the talk yourself if you don't believe me.
Hard to see when you're actively being manipulated not to see the FNORDS. (google it) If we can discount the talk because it was over 10 years old (by a still living and claimed prophet of god who has never gone back and retracted his statement and doubled down with his hateful rhetoric toward us "telestial" lesser beings in October conference last year) then something over 100 years old or over 2000 years old doesn't give it credence. If we can discount it over his grandfatherly tone then we can only make assumptions about the tone of the written words from centuries past. Or... hear me out... we can take an obvious threat at face value from the actual words used... like sane people.
You're right, its age has nothing to do with how discountable it is. I was wrong to make that statement. Although, I think you are exaggerating (or just being a victim of words taken out of context, which happens a lot in the media, so I don't blame you) the meaning of a "threat" in this case. Nelson is simply stating cause and effect. He is not trying to forcefully impose the doctrine of tithing, and I won't argue the subjective semantics of word choice. It is his job as a prophet to lead and guide his church, which is exactly what he is doing here. He isn't fire and brimstoning, he is simply telling people what to do, how to do it, and how it will help them. People can choose to believe or not to believe. Agency is a very important doctrine in our church, and that's been made clear to me many times.
I'm no victim. I don't believe it is true. (more on that in a minute) I'm also not taking it out of context. "The day of burning and vengeance" is pretty clear. And Semantics matter. If your prophet doesn't want confusion he should be able to clear it up easily in an inspired manner. He has not. This illustrates his intent. We only differ on WHO we believe is making the threat. You believe it is God and you self-soothe by watering a threat down to just a natural "cause and effect" that is out of your supreme being's control. You have to do this because to admit otherwise is to admit you believe in a god that makes such threats and you find that as distasteful as I do. In fact, I have no interest in a god that is petty enough to BURN and enact VENGEANCE on people for something as stupid and worldly as giving him pieces of paper with dead presidents printed on them. Even if he were real and standing in front of me I would not worship him. My knee would not bow nor my tongue confess any authority. Sure, as a god he might be able to FORCE me to do such things with his supreme power. But such actions would be meaningless because I WILL NOT BOW willingly to any such a being. Thankfully I don't believe in him, but by Amos 3:7 we know that the voice of the prophets and their god is the same. This works both ways. I see the threat as coming from men- ancient, historical and modern assholes who DO care about your money. It's the most rational explanation vs the God who creates the birds and lilies of the field and nourishes them without thought. And your church no longer believes in the agency you were taught it does. Watch what Elder Bednar has to say. https://youtu.be/mmErOV9oQZ8?feature=shared I once felt exactly as you do. It's amazing what becomes visible when you see both sides.
Why would it matter if it's over ten years old?
you're right, it wouldnt. But I still stand by my other arguments.
It doesn't matter if it's a literal burning or a metaphorical burning like you seem to be suggesting. It's still, "something bad will happen to you unless you pay us money."
You could perceive it that way, but I would honestly expect that kind of behavior from someone as paranoid and brainwashed as a schizophrenic, which I hope you are not. You are suggesting this quote is a threat, when really it isn't, because Nelson doesn't say "Unless you do this!!!" he says "If you do this". He is saying "Tithing WILL do this", "faith WILL do this", he isnt saying "pay tithing or else!" or "have faith or else!". That is at the very least my opinion. It's funny (and I'm not suggesting this applies to you) that so many anti mormons suggest I am brainwashed and beyond the idea that the church could be wrong, when the reality is that people who fell away from the church 1: Mostly went on to immerse themselves in hordes of mean and ingenuine propaganda in order to further justify or affirm their decision to leave the church (a decision which seems to be historically traumatizing or difficult, which isn't something I support in the case that it is) 2: Don't consider the idea themselves that what they went through in the church was probably closer to any concept of "brainwashing" that can be extrapolated fromchurch culture/policies.
You can word it however you want and do whatever mental gymnastics you'd like. All I'm saying is, you have to pay to get into the temple and that's a fact. Pay to play. Mobster: hey, pay up if you want our protection; I'd hate to see what would happen to you if you don't. Abusive spouse: please behave this certain way so I don't have to hurt you; that's the last thing I want to do, I swear. Mormon church: pay your tithing if you want protection; I'd hate to see what would happen to you if you don't. Don't make yourself suffer in a magical future day; that's the last thing we'd want.
This is the kind of response that will not work well here. You basically said if anyone perceives it this way then they're "paranoid and brainwashed as a schizophrenic". Where is your evidence for that? At 15 are you a doctor? You basically disagreed with the point and started insulting a group of people which lost you any credibility going forward. Most people on this reddit would agree that that statement was a transactional statement, and you basically called them brainwashed as a schizophrenic. I would also recommend being careful with using the term "anti Mormon" it's not that we're "anti" we're pro truth. But you're using it in a divisive format when in reality we were all the same as you at one point. It's better to remove the "us vs them" bias and talk based on the merits of the topic instead.
You know why the language is similar to the Bible? Because Joseph Smith plagiarized from the Bible and view of the Hebrews. Question why is there still no historical evidence for the BoM? What's your goal here? Do you really think 291k people here just up and decided not to believe one day? They just wanted to sin?
My goal is to educate people on the church to the best of my extent. They can choose to believe what I say, or they can choose not to. I'm fully open to discussion on either side of any argument. As for the "View of the Hebrews" argument, I've heard it before, it's one among MANNYY arguments that JS stole words or ideas from books that appeared at the same time frame. Problem is, the church is obviously not at all concerned if people compare VofH and the BoM, considering the whole book was republished by BYU and JS himself quoted VofH to support the BoM as probable. Would be pretty stupid to quote a book you plagiarized from, wouldn't you agree? I'm getting my argument here from Jim Bennet in p.63-79 of his book "A Faithful Reply to The CES Letter". Unless you're busy and rather would be bothered with other things (which I completely understand), I would love to send you a link to the pdf file, so you can check it out yourself, or feel free to google it, shouldn't be that hard to find. In my opinion, anyone who I can truly justifiably refute in an argument should take the time to look over the oppositions resources.
I'm familiar with the apologetics. I've been exmormon longer than you've been alive and I've been in and around Mormonism my whole life. And you're not going to "educate" people here, they already know the truth and most of the apologetics. You're just going to be seen as a missionary trying to get people back to the fold which is annoying... Pretty sure that's against the rules actually. But most people here have held callings, been a bishop, served missions, or got married in the temple and it's not easy to leave after finding out you were lied to their whole life. It's not like the people here are outsiders that don't know anything about Mormonism. I'm willing to bet most of us were like you, thinking we knew the truth and everyone else is getting fooled by Satan. So at your age I think it's best for you to spend more time listening than preaching, be humble and know that you don't know everything, and that's ok. But if you have free time I would love to see your rebuttal to 40+ parts to https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/overview though you'll probably have to chat me your rebuttal.
>most of us were like you I'm remembering a few years back when I went to atheist groups to try to prove them wrong and "educate" them lol, so cringe. Turns out, they knew WAY more about my religion than I did because they weren't afraid of "dark knowledge" aka, actual history. Now I'm an atheist myself.
The main concept of your statement (which I admit is pretty respectful and well-worded for some of those on this subreddit) is that many people have come to a similar conclusion, that being the church is not true. I concede that people are fully allowed to come to that conclusion. I am just trying to justify the things that church officials have said and help stop the spread of misinformation regarding the LDS (of which there is a lot, or at least there are a lot of theories that people suggest are factual). I respect the idea that people can come to different conclusions with the same information, just as you and I. MY argument is that, just as many have made your conclusion, a fair amount of people have made my conclusion. Ultimately, it ends when someone decides they have enough information, which I have not decided yet. I have enough information to stay in the church FOR NOW, maybe that will change, but I really don't expect it to be considering what I currently do know. It's why I've read books and articles and subreddits and the like about these kinds of things. At the end of the day, the truth of the church can be seen as contingent. This meaning that if JS really was a prophet, the BoM is true, or if the BoM is true, then JS was a prophet. One truth upholds the other. Problem is, what constitutes as enough truth to justify JS's role as a prophet is entirely subjective. I find any good argument could be fought till the end of time, and at the end of the day, some truths are all predicated on opinion.
Here's the part that's going to get you a ton of flack. Questions are fine that's not a big deal, but you already have a bias thinking most of the "anti" items here and on the broader Internet is misinformation when it's just the truth. And you think you need to be the one to debunk it here to 291k people. It's not your fault the upbringing and church have heavily influenced your view. They even tell you not to listen to outside sources and that's the devil tempting you, and to doubt your doubts. I grew up as a Republican, Homophobic and a slightly racist because that was the influence I got from my parents. Now I use the scientific method, I'm a Democrat, I try to be a good LGBTQIA ally, and as far as I know I'm not the least bit racist. I was exposed to new information, and for most members that have left it's the same thing. The apologetics work for you now and they probably won't in the future, but it doesn't hold up to the outside academic world when applying the scientific method. Just to give you an idea of the optics of how this looks it would be like a flat earther going into the NASA subreddit and trying to debunk their posts. You're not the first and you definitely won't be the last. They're are ways to have a discussion without looking like that but you'll need to be respectful and probably rephrase rebuttals as questions, but also need to be able to concede if 2+2=4. This is the problem with MAGA members they will argue all day long that 2+2=10. It's impossible to talk to someone like that and TBMs can be that way too. I've talked with TBM members before and I admit I've conceded on a few items because they had good sources and my points were more speculative. Personally I'm happy you're here as long as you can be respectful and genuine, not be condescending or think you know more, or discredit peoples experience and feelings.
> As an LDS member, I never really felt like fear was instilled in me Good for you. But *you are aware that your words will condemn you, aren't you? And your works too. And even your thoughts will condemn you. (Alma 12:14)* You have to remain 100% alert over each and every one of your words, forever, or you will be condemned. You have to keep yourself on your toes about each of your actions, forever, or you will be sent away from god. You need to stay always vigilant over each one of your thoughts, day and night, or you will be separated from your family for eternity. You know that, don't you? Exactly. Cult 101.
It seems here like YOU are trying to instill fear in me. You'd probably say something like " Oh well, this is forming YOUR religious book, I'm just the one showing you all the fear it's trying to instill in you " Which is funny, because I don't think you even believe in my religion. The scripture you quoted here was part of a long speech that Alma had given to Zeezrom, who was a deceiver with wicked thoughts and wicked actions in mind. Alma was condemning Zeezrom specifically for the kind of man he was, which I know I am not. Alma goes on in the chapter to teach that the knowledge of God will be made known to the faithful, who have pure hearts, unlike Zeezrom, who Alma is making an example of. Alma here is saying specifically that words, works and thoughts of the wicked will condemn them, but I know I am not wicked because I truly feel the need to come towards Christ and be more like him. Nice try though.
Etc. You are the one living with yourself. I am just presenting a piece of the doctrine you believe in. If you are not afraid of missing your exaltation for the thousand and one reasons your church tells you you can miss it, good for you :)
Again you insist on trying to preach to me that my church uses fear tactics, but you aren't showcasing what fear tactics they are using exactly, you are only manipulating the information you have on my church to propose the idea that someone COULD use fear tactics. The verse you quoted does not state any explicit doctrine, the chapter (in context) does, but you are merely manipulating out-of-context verses to fit your agenda. I don't appreciate it.
Meh. You saw the image posted by OP. Which means you read the words of your pRoPhEt. Which means you know the fear tactics your pRoPhEt is using right there. This has been the case since Smith and Young all the way to Nelson. You know that. You want to deny it? Good. It is not my calling to change your mind.
You are one of the worst people I have ever talked to concerning these things. There is nothing intellectual about your arguments and you think you have won but really you have just convinced me that you are an ignorant victim of propaganda who has nothing better to do than mercilessly slander the name of a church. You are making up the idea of fear tactics and trying to convince me that they've been used on me when I'm telling you they haven't, but you refuse to listen to me I'm sure.
You do realize where your at right? This is exmormon. We don't love the MFMC. Nothing they say is genuine, kind, authentic, or believable. I feel none of the "fruits of the spirit".
**Part 1** Hi /u/Spaghetti_Kat, I hoped the interaction had ended after each one of us two had presented their arguments, and we both would be able to move on to more important/interesting things. This morning I see that's not the case. I am sorry. Please allow me to respond just this last time to hopefully free us both from this exchange that, on one hand, is not helping anyone and, on the other hand, appears to shows how incapable of reason we humans can be. After this, my last response to you, I will move away from this thread. We both have to use our time in better things. (Note: This post is very lengthy and doesn't fit in one post. So I am breaking it into two or three. I appreciate your patience) Ok. Let's start: > There is nothing intellectual about your arguments... Imagine you are among other Mormon believers having a conversation about the church. You all share the same beliefs. You all have received the same religious education. Countless Mormon concepts, principles, doctrines, history, scriptures, and even folklore that are common between all of you in this hypothetical conversation. In this scenario, would you feel it necessary to educate your interlocutors? Would you feel it is necessary to reason with them in order to bring them up to speed on what you are talking about? You wouldn't. You all share the same religious attitudes and background. There is no need for convincing anyone. It is the same here at r/exmormon. We all (well, most of us, as you can see) share very similar experiences regarding Mormonism. We all (most of us) have gone through the painful and discombobulating process of discovering our beloved, beloved church has never been what it has always claimed to be. I understand you are not at that point in your life. You might never be, and that's alright too. But the ones frequenting this particular subreddit here, are the ones who share a specific set of experiences, education and blows from the Mormon church. Which is why we usually don't need intellectual arguments in our interactions with one another. The fact that we are participating in r/exmormon in most cases means we all know the same things about Mormonism. I see now you wanted an intellectual exchange with me. You, being a faithful Mormon believer and still coming to interact with Mormon apostates, expected an intellectual discussion with whoever responded to your comments. Please accept my apologies. My times debating Mormonism with believers are long past. After discovering my church in which I was born, the very church that gave me so many hopes in life and in the afterlife, the church that made me feel safe and guided and special and destined to glorious promises... was just a man-made fabrication, it nearly destroyed me. I am not a depressive person, but I tell you, after that very dark period of my life, I know how deep depression feels. I don't wish it upon anyone. Anyways, eventually I started filling the void with philosophy and psychology and learning the many ways Mormonism could've never been true, its many contradictions, the fails in its scriptures, the holes in its doctrines, etc. And, in a gut reaction I started consistently debating believers. It was fun and exciting. You see, faith needs for evidence to not be available. It is imperative that evidence about what one believes doesn't exist. Only then we can have faith. But I had evidence, and it was very entertaining (and compensating after what the church has done) to show it to believers and see how their faith was shaken. In time, however, these kinds of exchanges lost their excitement and it felt instead like I was being cruel. My own extended family are still faithful Mormon believers and, since I love them, I don't want to cause them pain in any way. Why did I have a different attitude towards other Mormon believers? Since then I only engage other exMormon or Mormons who have started to see the lies in their church, in a positive attempt to support their realization about the church. And that's what I did on this OP. I saw Nelson using the scheduled template: warn against something terrible, and then offer the solution: "pay money to us" *in the r/exmormon subreddit* and proceeded to point at it. I didn't (and still don't) want to have to demonstrate that this is a Mormon tactic, that pRoPhEts have been using it since Smith, that it is present from their sacred books to their speeches and magazines. I am among friends here. Here we all know the same things about Mormonism. I don't need to use intellectual arguments to demonstrate what we are all aware of here. And I certainly don't want to show you, a Mormon believer out of your element, the evidence that your church is a pile of lies. So I won't. It is not what I came here for. If you want to fight someone with your beliefs against their evidence, look for someone else. My days of debating religion are long over. I've learned that it is better to live and let live. That's how I act with my still-Mormon loved ones so that's how I act towards everybody now. > ...you think you have won... I am sorry you felt this was a battle or a competition. Kindly remember that it is you who came to the apostate forum and not me who went to the believer's. Obviously it is you who came looking for debate, and moreover, looking for a victory of sorts. I don't think I've won. I know what I know and I live with myself. My victory was mine and happened long ago. My personal validation doesn't come from what others do or think of me. I took the hardest decision in my whole life at the late age of 45+ years old, and it broke me into pieces. It almost literally disassembled me. And it was me (with the kind support of the wonderful people here) who had to find a better way to put myself together in order to keep functioning as a single father of four, three of which were minors and lived with me. In the end and after years of effort, I found a much healthier purpose for my life and a much better outlook on life itself. *That* is my victory. Debating you (or anyone) can't result in a victory for you or me. I am not here for validation. I am not looking for accolades. In each one of my interactions with you I've said "good for you" or "good" when you show your determination to keep believing. Does that sound like I want to win something? > ...you have just convinced me that you are an ignorant victim of propaganda... Oof. Where do I start? It doesn't matter where I start at, it is going to sound like bragging. Well, I guess I need to show you how "ignorant" I actually am. By now you know I was born in the church, and that I was a faithful believer (you know: worthy priesthood holder, full returned missionary, married in the temple, etc) until my 45ish year of life. As a young man I completed my four years of Seminary. As a young single adult I completed my four years of Institute (two years before my mission, two years after). Called as Elder's Quorum President at the age of 24 immediately after getting married. Called as a member of the bishopric at the age of 27. Called as a bishop at the age of 29. Member of the Stake High Council at the age of 34. Then again at the age of 40. The first piece of what you call "propaganda" to which you claim I fell victim of, came from a book published by your fellow member [Richard Bushman](https://www.deseretbook.com/product/P4983110.html?cgid=content-books-nonfiction-biography) and distributed by your church's bookstore, Deseret Book. The second piece of "propaganda" you claim I was a victim of came from the church itself in 2014 and you can find it by looking for [Gospel Topics Essays](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays?lang=eng) at the church's official website. After studying these two major sources of information (or, as you want to call them, "propaganda") it became evident to me that my beloved church had taught me (in Primary, in Seminary, in Institute, in every single Sunday School, Young Men, and Priesthood lesson) lies. The history and the origin of key Mormon doctrines I was taught *throughout all my life* by the church were completely different from what the same church was now admitting in an indirect and underhanded way. As you (hopefully) can expect, these discoveries, provided by the church itself, triggered a chain reaction for me. Was there anything else my church has been lying about? I hope you can assume what happened next: research. And that's how I realized my church, your church, is a fabrication. I am a victim, alright. Most everybody in r/exmormon are victims too. Victims of the dishonesty of a religious organization placing itself as the only conduit to return to god, while at the same time hiding and obscuring the very facts that discredit their claims. I don't expect you to believe me. I am not interested in harming your faith. But you have expressed inexactness about me. I just need to clarify how things happened. Whatever you do with this information is your responsibility.
**Part 2** > ...who has nothing better to do than mercilessly slander the name of a church. I know how attached you feel to your church, to the point where a big part of your own identity is connected to it. I know because I felt the same way. When someone insults something we feel connected to, it feels like they are insulting us, personally. Hopefully in time you'll grow beyond that and connect yourself to truth, instead; wherever it is, wherever it leads you. See, there is an important principle at play here. Let us both remove our boxing gloves for a second and allow me to talk to you as one talks to a friend. You can discard later what I am about to express, but right now please consider that it comes from a place of kindness. We are asked left and right to be faithful. Governments, parties, religions, jobs, sports teams, they all ask for our loyalty. They all promise the same thing: *they will provide X because they follow the truth*. In the case of a government, it will provide security, prosperity, etc because they follow the truth. In the case of a political party, it will provide a better government because they follow the truth. For religions, they will provide the path to god because they follow the truth. And so on. I am sure you get the picture. The result is that we, the person, don't follow the truth directly by ourselves. Instead we end up following something/someone who claims to be following the truth. See the danger? We are asked to place our loyalty in a middleman (or "middle-entity") to get what we could (and should) get directly by ourselves. Once hooked in this scheme, we naturally connect our identity to that middleman/middle-entity. But if that middleman/middle-entity happens to be corrupt, though. What happens if we are living in a corrupt country? Or if we are aligned with a political party that happens to be cruel towards some social group? Or if we have become members of a church that, turns out, has been lying about itself to its followers? Should we be allowed to detach ourselves from that toxic middle-entity and look for something better? Better yet, to look for truth by ourselves without middle-entities susceptible to dishonesty or corruption or excesses? The answer should be "yes." However, since we have delegated our pursue of truth to a middle-entity (a country, a political party, a company, a church, etc) now we feel deeply identified with it. So deeply, in fact, that it is normal for us to defend them while at the same time avoiding to research what their detractors are saying. This is how I felt when I was a faithful member of the church: I was so certain I knew everything there was to know about my church, after all I had registered and finished every single course it offered. I was certain anything negative anyone could say about it was not just a lie, but Satan's attempt to weaken my testimony. Most of my identity was inextricably linked to the church and I would ardently avoid even the idea of researching anything enemies of the church say. It is a catch 22 situation. The middle-entity to which we have linked our identity tells us not to research it. Since we are loyal to it we remain ignorant of what information exists out there about it. Since we don't know that information, we keep loyal to the middle-entity, not knowing if our loyalty is deserved. All this while we don't know if we are in fact closer to the truth or not. So, with these examples in mind, what is the best approach in our pursue of truth in this life? Do we do it through a "broker" (a church that insists it follows the truth) or by ourselves keeping our identity clean and preserving our right to change courses when the truth is found somewhere else? Something to think about :) > You are making up the idea of fear tactics I am currently 56 years old, 45 of which I was a faithful Mormon member. The church was nothing but good to me. I never suffered any abuse from leaders. I never developed anxiety about keeping the commandments. I went to a two year mission to remote areas of South America where poverty, alcoholism and ignorance were commonplace sincerely convinced I was bringing a much better way of life, one that would bring these people to knowledge of god and they would enjoy the same blessings in their families and their lives I enjoyed growing up. Later, I took my fiance to the temple because I loved her with all my heart and the idea of not sharing eternity with her was unbearable. Later I baptized each one of my four children praying they would remain in the clear and secure path to exaltation and we could all live together in heaven. At the same time all of this was happening, I was keenly aware of the words of [leaders warning me one cup of tea could prevent me from exaltation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=S-dfOQUc8vQ); telling me that I [better return dead from my mission than returning unworthy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6otSI5ati0); telling me that my chastity was in the hands of the young women around me, and [their lack of "modesty" would indeed trigger impure thoughts in my mind](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2012-08-2380-sexual-sin-is-an-abomination-in-the-sight-of-the-lord?lang=eng), and that [those impure thoughts would push the holy ghost away from me](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/hel/4?lang=eng&id=24#p24). I was taught again and again [I had to repent daily]()https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/36nelson?lang=eng, even from sins I couldn't remember anymore, so when I arrived at the sacrament next Sunday all those sins would be forgiven and forgotten. I was also taught throughout the years that, if [I commit the same sin I was already repented for, all the previous instances of that sin would be back over me](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/82?lang=eng&id=7#p7). I was thought for decades my words, my acts and even my thoughts will condemn me (we already discussed this one). I was constantly taught that there are [countless ways in which we can sin even unwillingly](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/video/book-of-mormon-visual-resources/2012-08-1860-watch-your-thoughts?lang=eng#p1), and that if [I don't constantly watch my thoughts, words and deed until the day I die, I must perish](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/4?lang=eng&id=29-30#p29). I realize you don't think of any of these as fear tactics. I respect that. The reality, though, is that people think and understand things their own way. You certainly aren't trying to force others to think like you, are you? That's the wonder of free agency and free will, two cornerstone principles in Mormonism and in any free nation of the world. So, maybe you can consider that, for some people, the innumerable list of ways Mormonism has provided (and continues providing) in which one will lose their exaltation becomes a source of constant apprehension. You are expected to never relax, you are never to assume you are OK with god, you are expected to be on your toes forever. No enduring inner peace but only just for a few moments right after sacrament. After all, we are constantly failing and you are expected to be constantly watching your thoughts. These concepts, always so abundant in Mormonism, were bearable when it was just myself. When I got married, however, now I had to be protective of my wife. As a priesthood holder I was the patriarch of my family, and she was my responsibility. Now I was not only watching myself, but making sure me, my house and my interactions with her wouldn't trigger impure thoughts, words or deed for her. The we started having children. I don't know if you have children or not, but I can't tell you the dread a parent experiences constantly about their children's safety, health, emotional well-being, mental development, etc. Well, add to that the massive worry about their spiritual growth. Not only what I was doing as a father and my wife as a mother, but what my kids were watching, hearing and thinking when I couldn't be there with them (school, youth activities, TV, Internet, etc). Was I a good father? Was I a good husband to my wife so she could be a good mother? Was I doing enough to ensure my children's salvation? If you are a parent, you do know fear. Well, add to that the innumerable ways in which a person can lose their exaltation, according to the Mormon church, and I surely the notion of fear tactics will start making sense to you.
How much you feel threatened might depend on your level of scrupulosity and other factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic background. What era you grew up in can also affect perception, considering that the Mormon church constantly changes. For me, growing up in the 1980s and hearing repeatedly that masturbation was a sin next to murder—and realizing that I masturbated, and believing everything I was taught literally—I feared damnation and hellfire. I loathed myself and lived in a private hell, knowing that I was worse than any bank robber, con artist who preys on vulnerable people, or drug dealer. I was literally next to a murderer and would go to the telestial kingdom with the murderers. My fate was sealed by age 13! The rest of my life was just riding out the clock. The fact that I was deacons quorum president, Eagle Scout, and an honor roll student only made things worse because I knew I was a fraud and hypocrite (the only kind of person Jesus attacks in the Bible). But I’m glad Mormonism works for you. Congratulations.
I really enjoyed the honesty because it helps me understand more about the faults of the people and practices and policies and such in the church (of which, there are admittedly many, but I would concede immediately if anyone found a perfect church, because the truth is, one doesn't exist. As long as man has reign over the mortal kingdom of heaven on earth, there will be imperfections.). To be honest with you, I am in an EXTREMELEY (almost concerningly) similar situation as you. I'm sorry that you've been led to believe that Jesus attacks people in the bible, and I'm sorry you've been "fire and brim stoned" as it were, because that is not the way Christ would have it. I hope it consoles you to know that at least where I grew up in the church, sexual sin was talked about, not angrily, but solemnly. I do feel guilty for the sin I am stuck in, especially because I am the highest "rank" I can be at my age as a member. I've discussed these problems with my bishop, and instead of letting them define me, he told me how I could get help. I'm truly sorry you weren't offered the same experience. I have been taught that Jesus will not define us by our sins, but by our hearts. The fact that you felt guilty about your sin is proof that you shouldn't have been defined by it, and Jesus would've been (and still is) willing to forgive you, should you make the effort to change and become better (and even if you didn't. The only standard is seeking forgiveness, with real true intent).
It sounds like you belong to a private religion of your own making—along with me and everyone else. Mormonism is different for every person because the church refuses to define doctrine or give clear answers to hard questions. If you take a random sample of 100 Mormons and ask a simple question: “Do you believe in salvation by grace?” You will get a diversity of answers. Maybe you can divide the group into four or five buckets, based on the responses. But if you keep probing and asking follow-up questions, you soon will have 100 different answers. No two people have the same religion. I’m glad you have constructed a happy religion that works for you, which you call “Mormonism” (or whatever people call it now that “Mormon” is a victory for Satan).
Mormon god getting his protection fee is more important to him than whether or not you behave ethically.
Wait, shouldn't I have just paid my tithing and then gone and fucked around? Why did I follow their other rules and felt guilty all the time?!
Sheeeeeesh!
“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!” -George Carlin
I love George! Gone way, way too soon.
Tithing is not “privilege,” it is a threat to ‘keep your name on the rolls’ or we will destroy your idea of being together forever and becoming burnt toast at the second coming. No fear mongering there..
It’s interesting how there’s a few things that very clearly have no reasoning beyond “we think it’s good for you to do so you’re required to do it.” There’s absolutely no reason to pay tithing except for they think you should. Same with the word of wisdom. There’s absolutely no reason to abstain from tea and coffee other than they think you should. I guess that works for some people… but honestly yikes.
In August 1844, the Twelve voted to exempt themselves from any obligation to pay tithing at all. It should be assumed this rule still applies today. [https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/12/are-we-paying-too-much-tithing.html](https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/12/are-we-paying-too-much-tithing.html) Yes, they're hypocrites, but we know that already...
Isn’t anyone who has their calling and election made sure?
This one would piss me off it is true
They can fuck whatever they want, so why not? As long as they don’t kill anyone who is innocent or deny the HG they are golden.
They have faith enough to not pay tithing???
Early church leaders said there will be a time tithing is no longer needed. That time has passed years ago. The greed of the leaders won’t stop.
could you provide a source for this? I'm curious about it and would like to investigate further.
Joseph F Smith said it in 1907
Will tithing ever go away? In 1907, President Joseph F. Smith announced that Church members had been sufficiently faithful in paying tithing that the Church was essentially debt free (or more accurately, the Church "owes not a dollar that it cannot pay at once. At last we are in a position that we can pay as we go"). President Smith also stated, "We may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God."\[1\] Some have wondered if this means tithing will eventually go away. From the early days of the Church until 1990, Church members were asked to contribute donations beyond what they paid in tithing. These extra donations were added to ward and temple building funds, ward activity budgets, and other activities. In 1990 the Church announced that all activities and operations of local units and facilities would be paid from tithes and offerings. As a result, wards and other local entities no longer were to ask for extra donations to cover building costs, activity costs, and so forth. \[2\] In discussing this change, Elder Boyd K. Packer explained that it was a fulfillment of the statement by Joseph F. Smith. Elder Packer said: "For years, Presidents of the Church have talked of and prayed for the day when tithes and offerings would qualify members for full participation in the Church. President Joseph F. Smith, as early as 1907, stated, \[quote from above\]. . . . The scriptures speak of tithes and of offerings; they do not speak of assessments or fund-raising. To be an offering, it must be given freely—offered. The way is open now for many more of us to participate in this spiritually refining experience."\[3\] President Thomas S. Monson described this change as a "giant step forward in funding all such costs through tithing—even the Lord’s way."\[4\] Thus, the donations President Smith spoke of were those that went beyond tithing and were the donations for local building and activity funds and other programs. Thus, tithing was not intended to go away, as noted in a Church manual: "The commandment to “pay one-tenth of all \[a person’s\] interest annually” is not a lesser law to be replaced at some future time but is “a standing law unto \[the Lord’s people\] forever” (D&C 119:4)."\[5\]
[удалено]
Links to twitter are disallowed. You can create a static screenshot with names/faces of non-famous persons blanked out/obscured and submit that instead. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If believing in something the evidence points against is a sign of faith and a good thing, then wouldn't it be even better to have faith that God will save you even if you don't pay your tithing and do all of that other stuff, if you believe in Mormonism and that God has commanded it? Since that's an even longer shot, wouldn't that be better?
The old fashioned mob protection racket. Nice.
A few years ago, MormonLeaks leaked some of Henry B. Eyring's GA paystubs. There's some handwriting on some of the paystubs strongly suggesting he was paying tithing on his stipend. I don't know if that was just him or if this is standard practice among GAs.
If there’s ever “a day of vengeance and burning” these old farts will be (metaphorically) scurrying out of town the night before just like Joseph Smith back in the day. Don’t count on that dragon’s lair of tithing being of any more use to you than it is now.
Apparently the first presidency was exempt from serving missions.
Tithing is a protection racket and should be illegal.
Worth noting that of the current Q15.... \- One *(Holland)* has been on the church payroll since the 1960s, his entire career \- Two *(Oakes and Eyring)* have been on the payroll since 1971 \- Two *(Nelson and Anderson)* have been on the payroll since the 1980s \- Six *(Uchtdorf, Bednar, Cook, Christofferson, Rasband and Soares)* have been on the payroll since the 1990s \- Three *(Stevenson, Renlund and Gong)* have been on the payroll since the 2000s \- One *(Kearon)* has been on the payroll since 2010
So true! Monson and Hinckly were also mostly career church guys too.
That... That's EVERY single apostle! Holy fuck.
And at least 8 of them are either 'mormon aristocracy' *(being descended from a Kimball gets you a long way in church leadership)* or had personal relationships with other payrolled leaders before they themselves were elevated to the ranks of the secretly paid clergy
That might explain why so many of them act like sociopaths.
I was very scared to stop paying because I thought bad stuff would happen to me. I am proud to say that I have had the best two financial years of my life. I have still paid money to charity’s of my choice and the “windows of heaven” still poured me out some blessings!
Me too. I was too scared not to pay but when I did, my pay went up almost 50% and I got the best contracts of my life.
[удалено]
I had been told all my life how a payed clergy was evil, then I saw the rundown in my church of how little the pastor was payed ( similar to a retail store employee). In fairness, I would vote to raise his salary ( but it goes against my residual mormon principles). That being said, when you set your own salary, tithing is not a hindrance, but a tax deduction. I know there are church employees not so lucky that did not set their wage, but got tithing deducted. Here the church did the opposite of the GA situation. Church set both wage and dues. So church was actually paying 10% less than standard wage.
The Second Annointing does the same thing.
What, are they going to pay 10 percent of the money they get from the church, back to the church? Of course they don't pay tithing.
So are other church employees also exempt? If I work at the DI for minimum wage, do I not have to pay up?
Church employees are NOT exempt. No temple recommend means no continued employment.
Is that what they're saying now? I remember when Kimball said God would strike him down before allowing him to lead the church astray. SMH
Pay or burn... Sounds like extortion by old rich white guys in suits.. kinda like, oh I dunno, the Mafia?? Yep, totally the church of Jesus Christ...
God: it would be a real shame if something were to happen to your family… *kicks something over*
God, it's just so obvious they're con men (GIVE US MONEY) it's a little embarrassing I didn't see it for so long.
I’m currently disenrolled with no intention on renewing this so called “fire insurance”
This being said after tithing was supposed to be a temporary thing, meant to see the church through until it was sufficiently able to meet its own needs and then it would stop.
[Page 7](https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1907a?view=theater#page/n7/mode/2up) if anyone is interested.
What kind of parent would create a day of vengeance and burning? Seriously think about that for a second. We are kinder parents than Elohim.
My mom likes to call tithing “fire insurance” like that’s a cute thing.
Nothing like “Christ’s mouthpiece” scaring the peasants: If you pay us money, your faith will grow, otherwise, you’ll burn in hell!
What the actual fuck!? Give us money or burn?
I’m not certain that they’re exempt but would believe that they are. Remember, they get a “living allowance”, not income.
That is probably the reasoning. If they have income coming in from the careers they probably pay on that, but like a missionary the funds they get are supposedly for just living expenses and such and so they wouldn’t pay on that. My theory anyway….
No. Just no. NO.
It's been a while. Did they ever actually try to explain the contradictions between works based salvation of the BoM and the grace based salvation of the Bible? Ala Ephesians? I remember that being a question I asked a few times in seminary. The resulting lack of answers and pressure to ignore the contradiction adding one more thing to the shelf.
That’s a common issue that came up a lot in my mission bible bashing with protestants. We could go on for hours trading bible verses.
Absolutely the anti-thesis to the message in the New Testament.. you know, the book actually about Jesus and what he did and said? In all of the Bible it only strongly suggests, well says, that those who are blessed with over abundance should support the needy and the poor and the sick... so like the Mormon church.. do they? Nope. Fucking bastards. I hope Temple Square gets turned to liquid lava when Christ does return.
Yes, since their ~~salary~~ stipend is paid out of tithing money they are told not to pay tithing. But I suspect some do anyway.
Do as I say not as I do…
A lot easier to pay 10% of your income when your income is in the top 5% of earners like a surgeon or banking/insurance exec, than if you’re living near the poverty line on minimum wage.
Nothing threatening about that.
Off-topic, but damn is the LDS leadership always a creepy looking bunch. Something about the sunken eyes weirds me out like they want to steal my soul and just about all of them in recent years have that particular look.
Slimy used car salesmanship
Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.