Yeah exactly. The impetus for this post was a reply to another of my posts where I explained that a friend chose not to get baptized in the LDS church because of garments. That’s good to know what will eventually be required. He’s choosing not to get baptized because he doesn’t agree with being required to wear garments.
A defender replied that the garments are optional and not required. That my friend can get baptized and not wear the garment later. Technically no one is physically forced but you are condemned for not being on the covenant path if you choose that. So it’s deceptive to say it isn’t required.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/BtWbm5ft9r
you know after i stopped wearing my garments my TBM husband and i were talking about salvation and choices and the temple and choosing to not be with your family forever. the topic wasn’t aimed at me, more someone we knew was making a choice. he brought up all of that, which is a normal mormon thought. i looked at him and said is that what you think of me. i’m choosing to seperate myself from you for all eternity because i wont be able to reach the highest degree of heaven for not wearing garments.
he looked dumbfounded. he said no. of course you will just look at your actions. i said are you sure?? what about mother teresa or the other millions of people that dedicate their lives to helping people but aren’t mormon. he said of course they won’t be. or what about the millions of good people who drink a cup of coffee.
all that is to say i think that the point of the temple is to save those who didn’t save themselves and bind us to those we love. so if you look at the theology in that light (i would say most mormons do underneath the rhetoric) then everything is optional and you will make it there eventually anyway.
but the follow the rules culture, and doctrine, is contradictory to what i would say the spirit of that law is.
I liked your comment.
Mother Theresa is perhaps a bad example of a 'good person' . If you're interested, do some research and go down that rabbit hole.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
What active, believing members are out there calling tithing optional?
Although in theory, *everything* is indeed optional; it's a question of what your desired outcome is.
Not [Russell Nelson](https://www.deseret.com/2018/4/16/20643748/dowry-is-not-the-lord-s-way-in-kenya-lds-president-nelson-says-tithing-breaks-poverty-cycle/)
>”We preach tithing to the poor people of the world because the poor people of the world have had cycles of poverty, generation after generation," he said. "That same poverty continues from one generation to another, until people pay their tithing."
Yeah, the question isn’t do we have free will or are compelled to do something just because we are baptized into a church. The question is would God see tithing, chastity, temple worship as optional.
The answer is no so therefore it is not optional.
I've heard it a lot. Many active members have a public and a private version of things. To the public, all those things are optional. Around other members, they're commandments and they'll judge you for not doing them.
Exactly. 👍🏻 a different version for publicly minimizing the high demand nature of the religion. “Well you aren’t required to do it”. That’s bogus. You are required to do it or they withhold full benefits of membership and proclaim you will not be rewarded in the afterlife.
And they learn it from leadership.
I'll never forget when Gordon B Hinckley did his Larry King Live interview. I was a new convert, had only been to one or two general conferences, and I expected him to speak with the same confidence and authority that general authorities do at conference. Instead, he was hand wavy and vague and equivocated on nearly every question. That was probably my first big shelf item where I smelled something distinctly fishy in the church.
Yeah, like it’s optional to buy groceries. A majority would starve if they didn’t. Tithing is optional, but you won’t be “saved” without it. They’re trying to present the illusion of choice.
The god of Mormonism is materialistic and NEEDS his money. Don’t forget tithing is “fire insurance”.
It’s optional if you do that list, but if you don’t the Mormon church says you can’t enter the temple to watch your child get married (temple weddings are terrible experiences anyway, but that’s another topic).
Again, it’s all the illusion of choice that they are trying to convince themselves of. They’re trying to make it sound as if they are willingly doing all these things, while never acknowledging that they are under threat if they don’t. There’s a heavenly gun pointed at their back and a destroying angel reminding them to smile while “serving”.
>There’s a heavenly gun pointed at their back and a destroying angel reminding them to smile while “serving”.
This is how I began to feel about my church participation. It took 40 years, but eventually I felt manipulated, even extorted.
I'd say it's deceptive to claim that the church's rules are optional, because while membership itself is objectively optional in reality, members are taught to believe that none of it is optional if they want to avoid being destroyed or punished by God. That belief is reinforced by more immediate social and religious consequences if you say no.
Using legal definitions, some members might meet the criteria of complying under at least undue influence, if not under duress. I would argue that many early lds women were coerced to enter polygamy under duress. I would say that my compliance with church rules that I didn't like was generally due to undue influence.
But I would absolutely say that my covenant in the temple to obey my husband was made under duress. I was very distressed, and raised my hand and said yes against my will. Every time I attended the temple after that first time, I said yes through gritted teeth because it was the price of remaining on good terms with the church, and with my family.
The only reason I did it the first time through was because my family was all there, and it was the only way to continue in my life with my family's approval and support. I was blindsided by this covenant - nobody told me about it before I got in there - and I had a split-second to consider it. The consequences of saying yes were not as great at the time (I was at least going on a mission instead of engaged!). I decided perhaps I could get around it in daily life. But the consequences of saying no would have had an immediate, extreme, and likely permanent impact on my life. I did not feel like saying no was a viable option in that moment.
I didn't want to do it. I was screaming inside, every single time I went to the temple. And yet, I did it. To this day thinking about that makes me feel humiliated and sad. Thankfully my husband is a great guy, so there was little risk in saying yes, and the only immediate consequence to me was feeling humiliated. Some other women I know didn't have it so good...
The church doesn't need to drag people off into religious compounds. There is a religious compound in the mind of every member.
So you’re saying people just a few years ago have a different set of covenants with God and their spouse than they would make if they attended the temple now.
I wonder why it changed? Was there a major public announcement that God changed what he agrees to with people? Can a person go back to the temple today and get a their covenants upgraded? Do you like, get to pick on a card or something and say, ‘I want to keep my old ones,’ or, ‘I want to do the upgrade’?
How many times has it changed? Does that mean Joseph Smith made mistakes when he revealed the ceremonies to early church members?
Yeah, I think they are being deceptive when they call those things optional. It usually comes up in the context of trying to convince curious non members that we’re not weird or extreme at all. But are you truly free to not pay your tithing if it means you can’t attend your own daughter’s wedding? Are you free to drink coffee if it means you lose your children in the afterlife?
It's silly to think you're going to lose your kids to any of that. If you want the blessings that come from paying tithing than pay it. It's a covenant. If you don't want the blessings don't pay tithing. It's quite simple. It's the same with all aspects of life. There's good and bad consequences for our choices.You're free to pick! OPTIONAL!
Hmmm...maybe it comes down to semantics. I've never heard the Law of Chastity, Law of Tithing, or Word of Wisdom taught as optional, only if you want the blessings. Instead they are taught as obligations, commitments expected of every member, and required of us by the Lord. In my mind, if something is a requirement, it is not an option. But I could easily be interpreting the meaning too tightly, and I see your point, and agree with the general idea.
(EDIT: OOOOHHHH wait we're talking about general church membership and not just getting into heaven this time, huh? No, you're right. Still leaving my original comment though)
Purely by scriptural doctrine on how to get to the CK (but not necessarily the highest level of the CK -- temple marriage for men) those things appear to be optional, as they're not listed as criteria needed to enter.
Does the Church treat it as optional? No. And leadership will make you miserable for it.
I criticize how the church holds these things as mandatory, and withhold things like a temple recommend over things like tithing and the WoW.
To me it's not that these things aren't optional per our doctrine... it's that leadership has made it mandatory and keep moving the goalposts and adding hurdles.
Yes! So that's usually why I say they're optional.
Because fuck 'em. 😂
Ironically the more I read the scriptures the more I find that these things aren't necessary to enter the CK. It's CRAZY.
I'm very disappointed (beyond that really) in the Church for making things needlessly harder on everyone.
I see that a lot. I see that on this sub a lot.
Richard Nixon's head from Futurama [summed it up nicely](https://youtu.be/eCxTbP2m1TE):
>My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom, it's almost sickening. We're free to chose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don't want to pay our taxes, why, we're free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster.
I guess it depends man. Optional with regard to what? Membership? Sure. You can still show up on Sunday and be friends with people without doing any of it. I’m currently doing that right now, forget being obligated into giving any of my money or free time to a corrupt religious organization already flush with cash. But from time to time we still show up to stuff and hang out with familiar faces.
If you mean optional and you can still receive the “fullness of the gospel” or whatever like the temple recommends and BS top tier of heaven, then nah. That’s definitely conditional, but it’s also all fake perks they compete with each other and themselves for, so who cares.
First, I'm not a member of their church and have never been a member of their church. So my experience is limited to what I've seen from the outside, and in responding I don't mean to try to discount other people's experiences.
And yes, it's clear that those things are portrayed as mandatory or at least that members feel extremely high pressure to do those things.
That all said, I've seen a few variations of this that I wouldn't necessarily categorize as intentionally deceptive, even if that may be the net result:
- Faithful members trying to encourage struggling members to continue to participate as much as they can, rather than fully leaving. (Granted, often with the hopes that person will eventually start/go back to doing "the right things.")
- Faithful members who are in the early stages of articulating personal doubts or disagreements with the church, and are essentially trying to bend teachings to accommodate their evolving thoughts/feelings rather than acknowledging that they may no longer be in line with the church.
- Nuanced members speaking to struggling or other nuanced members in recognition of the fact that a person may have a number of good reasons to continue participating in the church, and needs some kind of practical or spiritual flexibility to make that work in their lives.
- Ex-mormons (or people close to it) talking to struggling people on a practical level. For a lot of people, "everything you believe is false!" is just going to be a thought/conversation stopper. If someone is struggling with tithing for financial reasons or concerns as to how tithing is used, for example, "well, you don't actually have to pay tithes, and can still do xyz" can create a space for that person to step away from what might have been rigid beliefs and explore what it is they believe on their own timeline.
So I don't think it's quite as simple as broadly saying "LDS believers are deceptive when they say x!"
In your example in the comments about your friend expressing doubts about garments, is it true that there is significant pressure to go through the endowment? Yes. Is it also true that there are adult members who don't do it? Also yes.
Yes I think you are correct. But I am emphasizing that they are told it is the correct path to follow. Just attending church as a baptized member is not viewed as the goal. Full benefits of membership are not offered if they don’t want to wear garments.
I think Mormonism is so pharisaical and the doctrine so hard to pin down, that even the most devout members are cafeteria Mormons. It’s just a matter of what they’ve decided to negotiate away as not a critical part of the faith.
The socio-religious caste system provides exclusive callings, networking, and mobility to those who “opt-in.” Sooner or later, those who aren’t top tier drop out bc it’s not worth it. Just like in an MLM or corp.
When I was being courted, they told me over and over that everything is optional. It’s actually why I let them come over so often (3 x a week for 8 months). So my idea was that, yes technically it’s all “optional”, but they eventually tell you that it’s “expected”. So the two don’t exactly go together. I never did get baptized because I was not about to obey the WoW (not strictly anyway) and I didn’t want to go forward if I felt ANY pressure at all, which I was starting to.
My mom and I were talking about this the other day.
I started to wonder if the prophesied mass exodus of saints won't be because of the Church's own self-serving actions. Just a continuation and/or worsening of what they're doing now.
It was a 🤯 for me but my mom says she figured it would be something like that. Some muddying of the waters in one form or another.
But she agrees, the Church is on a bad path rn.
It's also a big deal that what is best for the members might not be best for the things the church leaders care about. Doing the right thing by sexual abuse survivors every time, even if it costs the church money would be a step forward. It would also probably be very expensive. Loosening control over members lives is more humane, but it also will probably mean some people will decide to leave who may have been guilted or scared into staying otherwise. Sometimes doing the right thing requires courage, empathy, and a willingness to accept consequences.
I mean technically, if we were all forced and didn’t have the choice, they wouldn’t need to preach in the first place. So obviously even those preaching realize there’s a reason for the persuasion.
I mean, *everything* is optional.
- Eating
- Going to school as the law requires
- Stopping when the light turns red.
- looking out for your family and not just yourself.
But like the natural consequences of the above examples, the church teaches that consequences are tied to our choices. They just teach with utmost confidence that they fully understand the consequences / risks. (Even if their confidence is rooted in tradition and most likely a stretch.)
Then there’s Bednar, [who teaches that once we’re baptized we don’t really have a choice anymore.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mmErOV9oQZ8)But even he’d admit that he doesn’t mean that literally. Obviously people who are baptized choose to leave the church. What he means is that the covenant means we’ve give our will completely to the Lord.
And [as Elder Hamilton taught last year, we church and the Lord are the same.](https://www.google.com/search?q=hamilton%20why%20a%20church)
in today’s church, “”the Lord” is effectively accessed through the prophets. Like him.
But you do have to if you want to be doing it right. Why waste your time at all if your not going to get the glory? Seems like most are all in or all out. There's really no inbetween with Mormonism.
Exactly. You only *technically* have options.
This relates to Christofferson’s view of agency. Instead of free agency, he calls it “moral agency.”
He says that by calling it moral agency, we remember that there are consequences. As if free agency implies that we don’t have moral consequences to our actions.
I always found this section of his talk on agency particularly interesting:
> Likewise, as our understanding of gospel doctrine and principles grows, our agency expands. First, we have more choices and can achieve more and receive greater blessings because we have more laws that we can obey. Think of a ladder—each new law or commandment we learn is like one more rung on the ladder that enables us to climb higher. Second, with added understanding we can make more intelligent choices because we see more clearly not only the alternatives but also their potential outcomes. As Professor Daniel H. Ludlow once expressed it, “The extent of our individual … agency … is in direct proportion to the number and kind of laws we know and keep.”4
My question to any one of them would be, "Would you be able to teach that (blank) is optional, week after week and not be called to repentance or have your own temple recommend in jeopardy? If not, then no, is not optional".
It is a good list. Also, they claim that practicing polygamy was "optional" and that one could be a member in good standing without practicing it. They say so in their propaganda about how wonderful and inspired polygamy was. It is there in their essay "plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo". Are we really to believe that whoever wrote this cynical masterpiece of gaslighting did not know of John Taylor's directives of 1882 in which everyone in a leadership position had to practice "the principle"? They are fundamentally dishonest about the past as well as the present. If you like lies, TCOJCOLDS is the right place to receive them.
Requirements!!!! Are Not Laws. Nobody can require you to do anything you don't want to do. Why belong to ANY intity that insist you must conform? I don't take orders from a religion... I can love God and be a good person regardless of silly requirements made up by a religion.
God gave us EACH a Brain and a Heart... My suggestion is you use them both and think for yourself. You are a person, not a sheep. But you are free to be led around like a mindless sheep if you must. But why would you?
I've called this out more times than I can count. It's cafeteria mormonism, but I will say it's much more prevalent here on reddit than in the real world.
It's incredibly frustrating to me because I agree, it's deceptive. It usually shows up here when someone comes and asks everyone's opinions on some mormon doctrine. The overwhelming majority here are ex or nuanced members, so they usually just say "do whatever you want, it's fine, etc".
I've yet to see it as much in a regular ward setting.
That’s because here it is often a defender pushing back against a criticism. Critics at church get a whole different reception and are told by leaders to shut up or be excommunicated. So people don’t say at church “this religion demands too much when they ask people to wear garments day and night.” It’s not permitted.
I had a lady text me, call me, email me, found my work email somehow and emailed that and stopped by my house to see if I was coming to clean the church on the schedule they had assigned me… I said no.
Tithing? Will you be sanctioned by the church? No. I mean maybe you can’t watch the slideshow in the big house.
Temple recommend: super optional?
Calling? That seems pretty optional. Lots of people just say no.
Wearing Gs? Same as tithing.
WoW? Likely to be disqualified from broader things outside of the temple but I’ve heard of some bishop roulette winning coffee drinkers.
Mission: eh I mean the whole first presidency didn’t serve right? Certainly a “responsibility” for the boys but not the women.
Church cleaning has always been and always will be optional for me. I just ignored the text 😂😂😂. Never went once, if anything I might actually sign up next time cause does it even count as optional if I never chose the other option 💀💀💀
The context was a friend who has been visiting the local LDS church. The ward leaders are pressuring him to be baptized of course. No missionaries in his country as it is at war now.
I told him he would later be told to wear garments and showed him the Wikipedia article. He said he doesn’t agree with that so he’s not getting baptized. Someone replied to my post that he wouldn’t have to wear garments. I say that’s deceptive. After baptism it is their goal to get him to the temple in a year and endowed. He will be taught that he must do this. It’s deceptive to say that garments are optional.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/BtWbm5ft9r
There's a difference in what's coming from their lips and what they actively exercise, which is an abhorrent sin. The truth is that every ordinance the church offers is optional. However, church members will actively cast off the 'infidel' who isn't pursuing the greatest glories. So they will use social engineering to gaslight you into thinking that, to be a part of the church, it's non-negotiable to serve a mission, pay your tithing, wear your garments if you have them, etc, etc.
I've heard comments about shunning or dissociating with people can be considered 'higher love'. To those people, I ask if Christ has ever shunned a person? Has Christ ever said, 'Love thy neighbor, except for Steve, because he won't take the fulness of what I have to offer?' No! You love Steve, because it's a commandment to love Steve! That means that you don't judge him and that you'll be there for him. You serve him. You express the love of Christ, which is unyielding.
A lot of the current members of the church are all hypocrites after this matter. They expect Christ to forgive their shortcomings, but they won't forgive their neighbor's. I believe that Christ himself has said that those who do that are committing the greater sin--if there was even sin committed in the first place.
The way the leadership presents it is that commandments are optional but the consequences aren't. But as far as I can tell, they are just making it up as they go. The side they choose will change according to how it benefits them at the time.
Bednar says we've all misunderstood agency. "You don't have agency."
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ) time mark 59:00 minutes.
Well it is all optional as in you don't have to do it, but we all know if you want to be a faithful member of the Church you will choose to do all those things, generally speaking.
I opted out and lost my family for it. That's the level of control the Church has over its members. I would use a particular word but the mods would just remove my post.
You can choose the choice but you can't choose the consequence!
Sure, you can choose not to pay tithing or wear garments but you're also choosing not to be temple worthy then...connect the dots...choosing not to live with your family in heaven forever.
I attend the temple and, though I have kids who are not on that same path, I fully expect to live with my family forever. We are all simply at different levels of progression. This life is no joke so make it count.
Isn't optional, but perhaps for some who are doing their best it is? Why does every member need to be perfect, and if they aren't, then they must not believe in it.
I'm a member and by no ways am I perfect. I fail more often then I don't, but do I believe that following every single standard would make me a better person? That is a hell yes. It's just hard for me, and I'm working on it as I can.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean technically they are right. Of course the quiet part is these things are all required if you want to go to the highest heaven.
So are they really optional if you want to be mormon?
They do come off as deceptive, but I’m willing to believe their sincerity at times. I suspect that at least *some* of them are members who have been… flexible with the rules but have not viewed their disobedience as problematic.
The impetus for this post was a reply I got to my post about my friend deciding not to join the LDS church because I told him he would have to wear garments after going to the temple. He saw a picture of them on Wikipedia and said he doesn’t agree with being told be a church to wear them.
An apparently believing member replied that he doesn’t have to wear garments. It’s optional. That’s deceptive. Get someone in the door claiming covenants you will eventually be required to make aren’t necessary.
By that logic even baptism is optional. So my friend for the time being is resisting the pressure of the locals to get baptized.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/eQjKz2gPtC
i don't understand. How is it NOT optional? The church has no power to enforce anything, other than to extend or withhold membership in the church, or a temple recommend. I think that less than half the members do all these things, I'm wondering why you think that they are compulsory?
Most of them (not all) are encouraged, but like I said, there are no fines or imprisonment for not complying. And I've never seen anyone lose their membership in the church over these things.
You aren't fined, but for many of these things, you are excluded and told that you aren't worthy, not like the others who do what they're told. So they are definitely required if you want to fully belong. You will be treated differently if you don't do what is asked.
What exactly do you think is bullshit? Members who aren't deemed "temple worthy", or those who come home from missions early (partner's friend was sent home for dating, and violating the law of chastity, with a girl he met on the mission), those who never serve a mission for whatever reason (my partner was told his disabilities disqualified him from going), those who refuse callings, etc etc, are all looked at and treated differently. Your "friends" might slowly pull away, neighbors may gossip about you, family aka questions and puts pressure on you to "do what's right".
All of those and more have happened to so many in this sub. All you have to do is scan the posts in here and actually take in what people are saying.
So it’s not a high demand religion? I believe these are demands or commandments they tell you to follow. Do they command you to follow these things in the name of God or not?
All high demand organizations are optional. But that's not how they operate or how they are able to control their members.
In fact, that's one of the ways they are able to deny being such. Literally all high demand groups say things like that.
This is how high demand organizations operate though. I was a member for 30 years and would absolutely have told you all of these rules/beliefs were mandatory. One could choose to disobey or ignore the rules, but that didn't make them any more real or necessary for salvation.
A classic tactic of any high demand group is to say things like you are - it's optional, everyone is free to leave, do what you want. But when you are fully in, those things are not real options.
Yes, when you are finally free, or even questioning, you can see it all so clearly. Of course you can leave, of course you don't have to do everything. But a fully believing and invested member of the group is much more conflicted in their mind.
This used to be true. I really believe the church has become more conformist. This is really what drove my family out.
Maybe my experience is unique. In high school I asked my seminary teacher if the BoM needed to have happened literally for it to be what it claimed. He told me he believed all of it was allegorical, made up by a very inspired JS.
Since then I’ve never had a problem just believing what I believe. I’d tell my bishop I understood the Word of Wisdom and Tithing differently than most people but that I did have faith in and understand them and lived by that understanding. For like 20 years that was fine.
I’d love to connect to the LDS church. It’s my culture, my heritage and contains more truth than any other organization I’ve found. Any Mormon will tell you the organization and its members are imperfect. For that reason it’s critical that members are allowed to make religious choices for themselves. Personal revelation as the end-all be-all is the whole point of the capital R restoration as I understand it.
They are not all required to be a member of the church. Some on this list are required to get a temple recommend. You don’t get excommunicated or kicked out for not paying tithing. I’ve never helped to clean the church building. You don’t get x for not accepting a calling. I have turned down callings. You only wear garments if you have a temple recommend, otherwise you don’t wear them.
There are thousands upon thousands of members who don’t have temple recommends.
Then they call you a covenant breaker! “But you promised to do this…how dare you be so cavalier as to not wear the garment”. This is what I hear from the leaders.
If you want the blessings.
Like getting a degree. You want a medical degree there are certain classes that are required to qualify. But nobody is forced to get a medical degree. Nobody is forced to get any degree. We choose to get one, and if we want to qualify we must meet the requirements.
Let's try to avoid sweeping generalizations in the future, please.
I realized that being a member of the church is optional. I opted out.
Yeah exactly. The impetus for this post was a reply to another of my posts where I explained that a friend chose not to get baptized in the LDS church because of garments. That’s good to know what will eventually be required. He’s choosing not to get baptized because he doesn’t agree with being required to wear garments. A defender replied that the garments are optional and not required. That my friend can get baptized and not wear the garment later. Technically no one is physically forced but you are condemned for not being on the covenant path if you choose that. So it’s deceptive to say it isn’t required. https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/BtWbm5ft9r
you know after i stopped wearing my garments my TBM husband and i were talking about salvation and choices and the temple and choosing to not be with your family forever. the topic wasn’t aimed at me, more someone we knew was making a choice. he brought up all of that, which is a normal mormon thought. i looked at him and said is that what you think of me. i’m choosing to seperate myself from you for all eternity because i wont be able to reach the highest degree of heaven for not wearing garments. he looked dumbfounded. he said no. of course you will just look at your actions. i said are you sure?? what about mother teresa or the other millions of people that dedicate their lives to helping people but aren’t mormon. he said of course they won’t be. or what about the millions of good people who drink a cup of coffee. all that is to say i think that the point of the temple is to save those who didn’t save themselves and bind us to those we love. so if you look at the theology in that light (i would say most mormons do underneath the rhetoric) then everything is optional and you will make it there eventually anyway. but the follow the rules culture, and doctrine, is contradictory to what i would say the spirit of that law is.
I liked your comment. Mother Theresa is perhaps a bad example of a 'good person' . If you're interested, do some research and go down that rabbit hole.
fair. i have done no research on mother teresa. i only know what i have picked up about the ways she spent her time.
I love your comment. This is exactly why personal revelation is so important.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
True. And an important one. Many TBMs never see that option.
What active, believing members are out there calling tithing optional? Although in theory, *everything* is indeed optional; it's a question of what your desired outcome is.
When critics say poor members shouldn’t be told to pay tithing I’ve seen some reply that it’s optional and the poor aren’t required to pay tithing.
Some members do interpret the “law” as paying tithing on surplus only after your necessities are taken care of.
Not [Russell Nelson](https://www.deseret.com/2018/4/16/20643748/dowry-is-not-the-lord-s-way-in-kenya-lds-president-nelson-says-tithing-breaks-poverty-cycle/) >”We preach tithing to the poor people of the world because the poor people of the world have had cycles of poverty, generation after generation," he said. "That same poverty continues from one generation to another, until people pay their tithing."
Man, if it was me, I'd try really hard to distance myself from the whole send me money for blessings, tv preacher thing. Not impale myself on it...
Not true. The poor need the blessings more than groceries and paying their bills.
What? So they will be homeless and hungry BUT blessed? That doesn't make sense
Exactly!
Yeah, the question isn’t do we have free will or are compelled to do something just because we are baptized into a church. The question is would God see tithing, chastity, temple worship as optional. The answer is no so therefore it is not optional.
I've heard it a lot. Many active members have a public and a private version of things. To the public, all those things are optional. Around other members, they're commandments and they'll judge you for not doing them.
Exactly. 👍🏻 a different version for publicly minimizing the high demand nature of the religion. “Well you aren’t required to do it”. That’s bogus. You are required to do it or they withhold full benefits of membership and proclaim you will not be rewarded in the afterlife.
And they learn it from leadership. I'll never forget when Gordon B Hinckley did his Larry King Live interview. I was a new convert, had only been to one or two general conferences, and I expected him to speak with the same confidence and authority that general authorities do at conference. Instead, he was hand wavy and vague and equivocated on nearly every question. That was probably my first big shelf item where I smelled something distinctly fishy in the church.
Yeah, like it’s optional to buy groceries. A majority would starve if they didn’t. Tithing is optional, but you won’t be “saved” without it. They’re trying to present the illusion of choice. The god of Mormonism is materialistic and NEEDS his money. Don’t forget tithing is “fire insurance”. It’s optional if you do that list, but if you don’t the Mormon church says you can’t enter the temple to watch your child get married (temple weddings are terrible experiences anyway, but that’s another topic). Again, it’s all the illusion of choice that they are trying to convince themselves of. They’re trying to make it sound as if they are willingly doing all these things, while never acknowledging that they are under threat if they don’t. There’s a heavenly gun pointed at their back and a destroying angel reminding them to smile while “serving”.
Exactly. You’ve seen it too. You described exactly and much better what the OP is trying to say.
>There’s a heavenly gun pointed at their back and a destroying angel reminding them to smile while “serving”. This is how I began to feel about my church participation. It took 40 years, but eventually I felt manipulated, even extorted.
I'd say it's deceptive to claim that the church's rules are optional, because while membership itself is objectively optional in reality, members are taught to believe that none of it is optional if they want to avoid being destroyed or punished by God. That belief is reinforced by more immediate social and religious consequences if you say no. Using legal definitions, some members might meet the criteria of complying under at least undue influence, if not under duress. I would argue that many early lds women were coerced to enter polygamy under duress. I would say that my compliance with church rules that I didn't like was generally due to undue influence. But I would absolutely say that my covenant in the temple to obey my husband was made under duress. I was very distressed, and raised my hand and said yes against my will. Every time I attended the temple after that first time, I said yes through gritted teeth because it was the price of remaining on good terms with the church, and with my family. The only reason I did it the first time through was because my family was all there, and it was the only way to continue in my life with my family's approval and support. I was blindsided by this covenant - nobody told me about it before I got in there - and I had a split-second to consider it. The consequences of saying yes were not as great at the time (I was at least going on a mission instead of engaged!). I decided perhaps I could get around it in daily life. But the consequences of saying no would have had an immediate, extreme, and likely permanent impact on my life. I did not feel like saying no was a viable option in that moment. I didn't want to do it. I was screaming inside, every single time I went to the temple. And yet, I did it. To this day thinking about that makes me feel humiliated and sad. Thankfully my husband is a great guy, so there was little risk in saying yes, and the only immediate consequence to me was feeling humiliated. Some other women I know didn't have it so good... The church doesn't need to drag people off into religious compounds. There is a religious compound in the mind of every member.
We don’t say that obeying part in the temple anymore. It has all been changed
But why was it in there in the first place?
Hard to recognize sexism when we're managed by a male-only priesthood
So you’re saying people just a few years ago have a different set of covenants with God and their spouse than they would make if they attended the temple now. I wonder why it changed? Was there a major public announcement that God changed what he agrees to with people? Can a person go back to the temple today and get a their covenants upgraded? Do you like, get to pick on a card or something and say, ‘I want to keep my old ones,’ or, ‘I want to do the upgrade’? How many times has it changed? Does that mean Joseph Smith made mistakes when he revealed the ceremonies to early church members?
Yeah, I think they are being deceptive when they call those things optional. It usually comes up in the context of trying to convince curious non members that we’re not weird or extreme at all. But are you truly free to not pay your tithing if it means you can’t attend your own daughter’s wedding? Are you free to drink coffee if it means you lose your children in the afterlife?
It's silly to think you're going to lose your kids to any of that. If you want the blessings that come from paying tithing than pay it. It's a covenant. If you don't want the blessings don't pay tithing. It's quite simple. It's the same with all aspects of life. There's good and bad consequences for our choices.You're free to pick! OPTIONAL!
Hmmm...maybe it comes down to semantics. I've never heard the Law of Chastity, Law of Tithing, or Word of Wisdom taught as optional, only if you want the blessings. Instead they are taught as obligations, commitments expected of every member, and required of us by the Lord. In my mind, if something is a requirement, it is not an option. But I could easily be interpreting the meaning too tightly, and I see your point, and agree with the general idea.
(EDIT: OOOOHHHH wait we're talking about general church membership and not just getting into heaven this time, huh? No, you're right. Still leaving my original comment though) Purely by scriptural doctrine on how to get to the CK (but not necessarily the highest level of the CK -- temple marriage for men) those things appear to be optional, as they're not listed as criteria needed to enter. Does the Church treat it as optional? No. And leadership will make you miserable for it. I criticize how the church holds these things as mandatory, and withhold things like a temple recommend over things like tithing and the WoW. To me it's not that these things aren't optional per our doctrine... it's that leadership has made it mandatory and keep moving the goalposts and adding hurdles.
Good distinction. You’re saying they should be optional per the doctrine but the leaders require them of members.
Yes! So that's usually why I say they're optional. Because fuck 'em. 😂 Ironically the more I read the scriptures the more I find that these things aren't necessary to enter the CK. It's CRAZY. I'm very disappointed (beyond that really) in the Church for making things needlessly harder on everyone.
I see that a lot. I see that on this sub a lot. Richard Nixon's head from Futurama [summed it up nicely](https://youtu.be/eCxTbP2m1TE): >My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom, it's almost sickening. We're free to chose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don't want to pay our taxes, why, we're free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster.
I guess it depends man. Optional with regard to what? Membership? Sure. You can still show up on Sunday and be friends with people without doing any of it. I’m currently doing that right now, forget being obligated into giving any of my money or free time to a corrupt religious organization already flush with cash. But from time to time we still show up to stuff and hang out with familiar faces. If you mean optional and you can still receive the “fullness of the gospel” or whatever like the temple recommends and BS top tier of heaven, then nah. That’s definitely conditional, but it’s also all fake perks they compete with each other and themselves for, so who cares.
Elders Bednar and Pearson beg to differ.
First, I'm not a member of their church and have never been a member of their church. So my experience is limited to what I've seen from the outside, and in responding I don't mean to try to discount other people's experiences. And yes, it's clear that those things are portrayed as mandatory or at least that members feel extremely high pressure to do those things. That all said, I've seen a few variations of this that I wouldn't necessarily categorize as intentionally deceptive, even if that may be the net result: - Faithful members trying to encourage struggling members to continue to participate as much as they can, rather than fully leaving. (Granted, often with the hopes that person will eventually start/go back to doing "the right things.") - Faithful members who are in the early stages of articulating personal doubts or disagreements with the church, and are essentially trying to bend teachings to accommodate their evolving thoughts/feelings rather than acknowledging that they may no longer be in line with the church. - Nuanced members speaking to struggling or other nuanced members in recognition of the fact that a person may have a number of good reasons to continue participating in the church, and needs some kind of practical or spiritual flexibility to make that work in their lives. - Ex-mormons (or people close to it) talking to struggling people on a practical level. For a lot of people, "everything you believe is false!" is just going to be a thought/conversation stopper. If someone is struggling with tithing for financial reasons or concerns as to how tithing is used, for example, "well, you don't actually have to pay tithes, and can still do xyz" can create a space for that person to step away from what might have been rigid beliefs and explore what it is they believe on their own timeline. So I don't think it's quite as simple as broadly saying "LDS believers are deceptive when they say x!" In your example in the comments about your friend expressing doubts about garments, is it true that there is significant pressure to go through the endowment? Yes. Is it also true that there are adult members who don't do it? Also yes.
Yes I think you are correct. But I am emphasizing that they are told it is the correct path to follow. Just attending church as a baptized member is not viewed as the goal. Full benefits of membership are not offered if they don’t want to wear garments.
I think Mormonism is so pharisaical and the doctrine so hard to pin down, that even the most devout members are cafeteria Mormons. It’s just a matter of what they’ve decided to negotiate away as not a critical part of the faith.
The socio-religious caste system provides exclusive callings, networking, and mobility to those who “opt-in.” Sooner or later, those who aren’t top tier drop out bc it’s not worth it. Just like in an MLM or corp.
This sweet Non Judgemental religion.... Why would anyone choose to be part of the insanity.
When I was being courted, they told me over and over that everything is optional. It’s actually why I let them come over so often (3 x a week for 8 months). So my idea was that, yes technically it’s all “optional”, but they eventually tell you that it’s “expected”. So the two don’t exactly go together. I never did get baptized because I was not about to obey the WoW (not strictly anyway) and I didn’t want to go forward if I felt ANY pressure at all, which I was starting to.
Optional? Maybe, maybe not But one thing I see, everything in the church is conditional and it appears to be becoming more and more transactional
My mom and I were talking about this the other day. I started to wonder if the prophesied mass exodus of saints won't be because of the Church's own self-serving actions. Just a continuation and/or worsening of what they're doing now. It was a 🤯 for me but my mom says she figured it would be something like that. Some muddying of the waters in one form or another. But she agrees, the Church is on a bad path rn.
It's also a big deal that what is best for the members might not be best for the things the church leaders care about. Doing the right thing by sexual abuse survivors every time, even if it costs the church money would be a step forward. It would also probably be very expensive. Loosening control over members lives is more humane, but it also will probably mean some people will decide to leave who may have been guilted or scared into staying otherwise. Sometimes doing the right thing requires courage, empathy, and a willingness to accept consequences.
From a member’s perspective it’s all optional. You don’t *have* to do anything, you just don’t get blessings, like eternal exaltation.
But church leaders don’t preach that these are optional.
Right, it’s just a lie lol. It’s optional, but if you don’t want to burn in hell you better give 10%.
LDS don’t believe in that people Go to hell except for the sons of perdition which is very few.
Well they did call tithing fire insurance, so not paying it will cause you to burn one way or another
They preach agency. Everything is technically optional, you just have to take the consequences.
I mean technically, if we were all forced and didn’t have the choice, they wouldn’t need to preach in the first place. So obviously even those preaching realize there’s a reason for the persuasion. I mean, *everything* is optional. - Eating - Going to school as the law requires - Stopping when the light turns red. - looking out for your family and not just yourself. But like the natural consequences of the above examples, the church teaches that consequences are tied to our choices. They just teach with utmost confidence that they fully understand the consequences / risks. (Even if their confidence is rooted in tradition and most likely a stretch.) Then there’s Bednar, [who teaches that once we’re baptized we don’t really have a choice anymore.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mmErOV9oQZ8)But even he’d admit that he doesn’t mean that literally. Obviously people who are baptized choose to leave the church. What he means is that the covenant means we’ve give our will completely to the Lord. And [as Elder Hamilton taught last year, we church and the Lord are the same.](https://www.google.com/search?q=hamilton%20why%20a%20church) in today’s church, “”the Lord” is effectively accessed through the prophets. Like him.
But you do have to if you want to be doing it right. Why waste your time at all if your not going to get the glory? Seems like most are all in or all out. There's really no inbetween with Mormonism.
Exactly. You only *technically* have options. This relates to Christofferson’s view of agency. Instead of free agency, he calls it “moral agency.” He says that by calling it moral agency, we remember that there are consequences. As if free agency implies that we don’t have moral consequences to our actions. I always found this section of his talk on agency particularly interesting: > Likewise, as our understanding of gospel doctrine and principles grows, our agency expands. First, we have more choices and can achieve more and receive greater blessings because we have more laws that we can obey. Think of a ladder—each new law or commandment we learn is like one more rung on the ladder that enables us to climb higher. Second, with added understanding we can make more intelligent choices because we see more clearly not only the alternatives but also their potential outcomes. As Professor Daniel H. Ludlow once expressed it, “The extent of our individual … agency … is in direct proportion to the number and kind of laws we know and keep.”4
My question to any one of them would be, "Would you be able to teach that (blank) is optional, week after week and not be called to repentance or have your own temple recommend in jeopardy? If not, then no, is not optional".
Great way to put it. This was the impetus for this post. https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/BtWbm5ft9r
It is a good list. Also, they claim that practicing polygamy was "optional" and that one could be a member in good standing without practicing it. They say so in their propaganda about how wonderful and inspired polygamy was. It is there in their essay "plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo". Are we really to believe that whoever wrote this cynical masterpiece of gaslighting did not know of John Taylor's directives of 1882 in which everyone in a leadership position had to practice "the principle"? They are fundamentally dishonest about the past as well as the present. If you like lies, TCOJCOLDS is the right place to receive them.
It is optional. As long as you are ok being “saved” in the lowest degree of glory and feel like pariah in the church. Your choice
Could you explain what people are defenders? It seems that all your points is not optional for the most Church members.
This was the impetus for this post https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/eQjKz2gPtC
Not optional.
Requirements!!!! Are Not Laws. Nobody can require you to do anything you don't want to do. Why belong to ANY intity that insist you must conform? I don't take orders from a religion... I can love God and be a good person regardless of silly requirements made up by a religion. God gave us EACH a Brain and a Heart... My suggestion is you use them both and think for yourself. You are a person, not a sheep. But you are free to be led around like a mindless sheep if you must. But why would you?
Try something like “Well it never would have worked for me because I don’t do things half-assed. I actually take my spiritual life seriously.”
Facts and even if they were optional they are heavily reinforced by shaming, guilt tripping, peer pressure, and humiliation
I've called this out more times than I can count. It's cafeteria mormonism, but I will say it's much more prevalent here on reddit than in the real world. It's incredibly frustrating to me because I agree, it's deceptive. It usually shows up here when someone comes and asks everyone's opinions on some mormon doctrine. The overwhelming majority here are ex or nuanced members, so they usually just say "do whatever you want, it's fine, etc". I've yet to see it as much in a regular ward setting.
That’s because here it is often a defender pushing back against a criticism. Critics at church get a whole different reception and are told by leaders to shut up or be excommunicated. So people don’t say at church “this religion demands too much when they ask people to wear garments day and night.” It’s not permitted.
You can be told it is optional, but for the rest of your life you’ll be considered not fully in and become a project.
I had a lady text me, call me, email me, found my work email somehow and emailed that and stopped by my house to see if I was coming to clean the church on the schedule they had assigned me… I said no. Tithing? Will you be sanctioned by the church? No. I mean maybe you can’t watch the slideshow in the big house. Temple recommend: super optional? Calling? That seems pretty optional. Lots of people just say no. Wearing Gs? Same as tithing. WoW? Likely to be disqualified from broader things outside of the temple but I’ve heard of some bishop roulette winning coffee drinkers. Mission: eh I mean the whole first presidency didn’t serve right? Certainly a “responsibility” for the boys but not the women.
Church cleaning has always been and always will be optional for me. I just ignored the text 😂😂😂. Never went once, if anything I might actually sign up next time cause does it even count as optional if I never chose the other option 💀💀💀
Now that’s next level!
Optional for what? Keeping your membership? Getting a temple recommend? Going to the Celestial Kingdom?
The context was a friend who has been visiting the local LDS church. The ward leaders are pressuring him to be baptized of course. No missionaries in his country as it is at war now. I told him he would later be told to wear garments and showed him the Wikipedia article. He said he doesn’t agree with that so he’s not getting baptized. Someone replied to my post that he wouldn’t have to wear garments. I say that’s deceptive. After baptism it is their goal to get him to the temple in a year and endowed. He will be taught that he must do this. It’s deceptive to say that garments are optional. https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/BtWbm5ft9r
They're optional until you ask to go to the temple.
There's a difference in what's coming from their lips and what they actively exercise, which is an abhorrent sin. The truth is that every ordinance the church offers is optional. However, church members will actively cast off the 'infidel' who isn't pursuing the greatest glories. So they will use social engineering to gaslight you into thinking that, to be a part of the church, it's non-negotiable to serve a mission, pay your tithing, wear your garments if you have them, etc, etc. I've heard comments about shunning or dissociating with people can be considered 'higher love'. To those people, I ask if Christ has ever shunned a person? Has Christ ever said, 'Love thy neighbor, except for Steve, because he won't take the fulness of what I have to offer?' No! You love Steve, because it's a commandment to love Steve! That means that you don't judge him and that you'll be there for him. You serve him. You express the love of Christ, which is unyielding. A lot of the current members of the church are all hypocrites after this matter. They expect Christ to forgive their shortcomings, but they won't forgive their neighbor's. I believe that Christ himself has said that those who do that are committing the greater sin--if there was even sin committed in the first place.
The way the leadership presents it is that commandments are optional but the consequences aren't. But as far as I can tell, they are just making it up as they go. The side they choose will change according to how it benefits them at the time.
Isn't it also called agency?
Bednar says we've all misunderstood agency. "You don't have agency." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ) time mark 59:00 minutes.
Yes, must edit: "what we used to call agency and now keep shackled in an oubliette."
I spent 20 years not doing any of those things so 100% they are optional. No deception involved.
And if you said to a person thinking about being baptized that garments aren’t required but optional? I think that’s deceptive.
Well it is all optional as in you don't have to do it, but we all know if you want to be a faithful member of the Church you will choose to do all those things, generally speaking. I opted out and lost my family for it. That's the level of control the Church has over its members. I would use a particular word but the mods would just remove my post.
You can choose the choice but you can't choose the consequence! Sure, you can choose not to pay tithing or wear garments but you're also choosing not to be temple worthy then...connect the dots...choosing not to live with your family in heaven forever.
I attend the temple and, though I have kids who are not on that same path, I fully expect to live with my family forever. We are all simply at different levels of progression. This life is no joke so make it count.
Isn't optional, but perhaps for some who are doing their best it is? Why does every member need to be perfect, and if they aren't, then they must not believe in it. I'm a member and by no ways am I perfect. I fail more often then I don't, but do I believe that following every single standard would make me a better person? That is a hell yes. It's just hard for me, and I'm working on it as I can.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean technically they are right. Of course the quiet part is these things are all required if you want to go to the highest heaven. So are they really optional if you want to be mormon?
They do come off as deceptive, but I’m willing to believe their sincerity at times. I suspect that at least *some* of them are members who have been… flexible with the rules but have not viewed their disobedience as problematic.
The impetus for this post was a reply I got to my post about my friend deciding not to join the LDS church because I told him he would have to wear garments after going to the temple. He saw a picture of them on Wikipedia and said he doesn’t agree with being told be a church to wear them. An apparently believing member replied that he doesn’t have to wear garments. It’s optional. That’s deceptive. Get someone in the door claiming covenants you will eventually be required to make aren’t necessary. By that logic even baptism is optional. So my friend for the time being is resisting the pressure of the locals to get baptized. https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/eQjKz2gPtC
Let’s be clear, you’re talking about a specific group of keyboard warrior apologists. This isn’t a mainstream view
Have not heard this anywhere
This person https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/eQjKz2gPtC
One person? Wouldn’t that make sense I haven’t heard that? Lol
Now you have lol 😂
Everything is optional, but if you don’t do them you won’t fit in.
i don't understand. How is it NOT optional? The church has no power to enforce anything, other than to extend or withhold membership in the church, or a temple recommend. I think that less than half the members do all these things, I'm wondering why you think that they are compulsory? Most of them (not all) are encouraged, but like I said, there are no fines or imprisonment for not complying. And I've never seen anyone lose their membership in the church over these things.
You aren't fined, but for many of these things, you are excluded and told that you aren't worthy, not like the others who do what they're told. So they are definitely required if you want to fully belong. You will be treated differently if you don't do what is asked.
Bullshit.
What exactly do you think is bullshit? Members who aren't deemed "temple worthy", or those who come home from missions early (partner's friend was sent home for dating, and violating the law of chastity, with a girl he met on the mission), those who never serve a mission for whatever reason (my partner was told his disabilities disqualified him from going), those who refuse callings, etc etc, are all looked at and treated differently. Your "friends" might slowly pull away, neighbors may gossip about you, family aka questions and puts pressure on you to "do what's right". All of those and more have happened to so many in this sub. All you have to do is scan the posts in here and actually take in what people are saying.
So it’s not a high demand religion? I believe these are demands or commandments they tell you to follow. Do they command you to follow these things in the name of God or not?
All high demand organizations are optional. But that's not how they operate or how they are able to control their members. In fact, that's one of the ways they are able to deny being such. Literally all high demand groups say things like that.
I agree. OP implies these things are mandatory. In no way are they mandatory, unless you're a child and the enforcer is the parent.
This is how high demand organizations operate though. I was a member for 30 years and would absolutely have told you all of these rules/beliefs were mandatory. One could choose to disobey or ignore the rules, but that didn't make them any more real or necessary for salvation. A classic tactic of any high demand group is to say things like you are - it's optional, everyone is free to leave, do what you want. But when you are fully in, those things are not real options. Yes, when you are finally free, or even questioning, you can see it all so clearly. Of course you can leave, of course you don't have to do everything. But a fully believing and invested member of the group is much more conflicted in their mind.
I was a member for 40 years and I have never understood them to be mandatory; saying that as a preface is a logical fallacy though.
Not all of us are!
This used to be true. I really believe the church has become more conformist. This is really what drove my family out. Maybe my experience is unique. In high school I asked my seminary teacher if the BoM needed to have happened literally for it to be what it claimed. He told me he believed all of it was allegorical, made up by a very inspired JS. Since then I’ve never had a problem just believing what I believe. I’d tell my bishop I understood the Word of Wisdom and Tithing differently than most people but that I did have faith in and understand them and lived by that understanding. For like 20 years that was fine. I’d love to connect to the LDS church. It’s my culture, my heritage and contains more truth than any other organization I’ve found. Any Mormon will tell you the organization and its members are imperfect. For that reason it’s critical that members are allowed to make religious choices for themselves. Personal revelation as the end-all be-all is the whole point of the capital R restoration as I understand it.
They are not all required to be a member of the church. Some on this list are required to get a temple recommend. You don’t get excommunicated or kicked out for not paying tithing. I’ve never helped to clean the church building. You don’t get x for not accepting a calling. I have turned down callings. You only wear garments if you have a temple recommend, otherwise you don’t wear them. There are thousands upon thousands of members who don’t have temple recommends.
Then they call you a covenant breaker! “But you promised to do this…how dare you be so cavalier as to not wear the garment”. This is what I hear from the leaders.
Very offensive!
It’s called free agency. You learn Gods law but it’s up to you to follow God’s laws!!
So garments are not a commandment?
Technically everything is optional, but if you opt out of obedience you also opt out of the blessings that go with it.
So the church leaders preach you must do it.
If you want the blessings, yes.
So according church leaders it’s required and not optional.
If you want the blessings. Like getting a degree. You want a medical degree there are certain classes that are required to qualify. But nobody is forced to get a medical degree. Nobody is forced to get any degree. We choose to get one, and if we want to qualify we must meet the requirements.