#converted to (a sect of) mormonism in part by ex-mormons is wild

[not-so-superheroine]

how did you come to join rlds/coc?

Sorry it took me so long to get to this question. I just knew it was a long answer.

I think my testimony gives a good idea, and i'll include . Because I felt the presence of God calling me to go join them is the overarching answer, but I can also give points that drew me in.

But in a few some points: 

I fell in love with the modern RLDS version of zion (and some of the old one too. nothing to do with israel.)

I saw they strived to be an inclusive place.

The Community of Christ's Enduring Principles are things I want to strive to live my life by.

The community made me feel very welcome and I saw people conduct themselves in a Christ-like manner

The community is very tight knit. society needs more of that.

Like, there is a certain behavioral affect (? cultural distinction?) that many members have that i thought was strange at first but it’s lovely. It’s kind, loving, and welcoming, and you adjust to it very quickly imo. Even to the lingo, which was a fun process. 

Continuing Revelation. Saw evidence of fulfilled prophecy in the Doctrine and Covenants and the spiritual growth in the church over the years

Continuing Revelation in general. I like that my faith is alive like that. We have prophets, God could reveal new truths for new scripture tomorrow. We are encouraged to be prophetic ourselves and discern the future together, i like that.

Also, no new scripture allowed in the mainstream? why not? does God still not talk in this way? great points in my head.

The communal aspect to everything is good. Just like how any sect of mormonism should imo The people i reached out to while seeking (investigating) were very kind to me and open to my questions. They were also there for me spiritually, and became friends. 

I could email leadership with questions and get responses. At one point, one of the church Presidents reached out to me. 

It’s academically welcoming. I was able to accept the book of Mormon as scripture when taught from a 19th century point of view. This, in turn, made me much more comfortable with the Bible. Community of Christ has an official statement on how to read scripture and there is scripture on how to think about and use scripture too.

I can even acknowledge when the history and the religious text don’t match. Because scripture doesn’t need to be historically correct to be sacred and hold an important message from the Lord.

Not really a reason but it is there: Joseph Smith III rocked and was intended to be next. It shouldn’t matter. But what does matter is that he set the church on a good path imo. Emma too. Out of all the early schisms of mormonism I would have to go RLDS belief wise, because Nauvoo era theology isn’t something I believe in. I think Smith got caught up in his own head and desires for much of it. No offense meant to post Nauvoo mormon sects.

This does not mean I haven’t picked some things up from Brighamites. For example, Trinity doesn’t work for me. And I pray to Heavenly Mother. I believe in one Divine source with many expressions. But that doesn’t mean “anything goes” and I accept it, just knowing that God speaks to people of many cultures all over, as the good book (of mormon) says.

But yes. This is why Community of Christ. Not that there are all common Community of Christ beliefs, but I thrive here spiritually and am encouraged to grow all the same.  Older testimony under cut that gives detail

I encourage y'all to watch this on video rather than just the text edited version i put here. not to be like "watch my talk on it" but please, watch my talk on the subject. I also talk about unity of the saints and what i have learned from other christians including other groups of latter day saints. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8w2M6PEKfg

I start giving my testimony and talk at 26:36

____________

I am Wednesday. Here I share a portion of myself and my testimony. At the time of this writing, I have lived 26 years. I am a Black woman of Gullah/Geechee ethnicity. I was raised in the African Methodist Episcopal church, which I am extremely grateful for. My nascent spirituality was nurtured here. I learned the meaning of community and was immersed in my culture. I was taught to love and respect my Black self, in a society that would not be inclined to show me the respect and love any human deserves. I may have converted, but I was meant to be nurtured here. I am a Lesbian, and have experienced discrimination in faith communities due attitudes towards LGBTQ+ persons. I despaired over thoughts that God didn’t love me, and wondered if I would be condemned to Hell. In part because of this and being scolded for my questioning nature regarding God and church doctrines, I fell away from faith. I grew a lot in this away time, but didn’t really deconstruct my faith until 2021. My isolation in the pandemic gave me time for introspection. I would watch content from mainly atheist ex-christians who discussed their deconstruction journey. They were usually ex-evangelical or ex-mormon, and were really helpful to me for unpacking the mess that was my faith. Then something peculiar happened that changed the path of my life. Through the ex-mormons, I encountered the Restoration. There was something intriguing about it, and I wanted to learn more, so I did. I learned history, and the doctrine of different Latter Day Saint sects. I loved how innovative and “of the people” the early church was and how alive the faith seemed to be. I listened to members and ex-members, past and present, talk about their experiences within their faith communities and how they experienced the Divine. These were some of the worst years of my life, but there was something here that gave me hope. 

I came across an interview featuring John Hamer, in which he talked about Community of Christ as a home for those in faith transition. Many of the concerns I had about Christian faith communities were addressed. I craved such a spiritual home and became a seeker.

I asked many questions of missionaries, and my inquisitiveness was welcomed. I got myself an Inspired Version of the Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, and Book of Mormon. I was very impressed by the Doctrine and Covenants and found the contents to be Inspired and even prophetic, so I started attending Beyond the Walls services online.

One Sunday, the service was centered on the Worth of all Persons, Christian acceptance of LGBTQ+ persons, and the church in Tahiti. I listened to the members talk about their acceptance, their being guided by faith in Christ in the process, and how those things were compatible and complementary. The speakers affirmed God’s love and mercy for all. Their faith was strong, and they spoke with authority. Their Christ-like compassion was palpable. I felt what I now recognize as the Holy Spirit, come over me. After the message, the choir sang “Spirit of God like a fire is Burning” and I felt that fire burning in my chest and cried and praised the Lord for hours after.

My faith in God is stronger than ever. And my passion and belief in the Restoration bloomed.

[drunkexmormonsexplain-blog]

So my dad posted an infuriating article on facebook...

Here's the link: https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-01-22/what-to-do-with-your-questions-according-to-1-general-authority-whos-an-expert-on-anti-church-materials-48843

After reading this absolute garbage, I was so infuriated that in the height of pettiness I decided to write a 3 page rebuttal essay. Then I realized that as much as I want to stir shit with the Mormons, I don't actually want my dad to disown me. So I'm gonna post it here instead of on my dad's facebook. It's extremely rough and overwritten, but since I have no plans to revise it I'm just gonna let it into the wild. There are a few paragraphs where the wording is too poor to convince real diehards, but it should be convincing enough for my fellow exmos at least! LONG POST AHEAD

---

Valerie Johnson’s piece, “What to do with your questions”, covers LDS leader Elder Corbridge’s visit to a BYU campus and outlines his response to concerns many members of the church have about unsavory parts of its history and current practices. It’s an effective piece of LDS propaganda: a piece of media that obscures or inflates the truth in order to advance the beliefs of an organization. As we’ll see below, not only does the piece fail to address the valid concerns of many latter-day saints, but it also uses familiar techniques to undermine the importance of those concerns in the first place. The following outlines both the inaccuracies in Corbridge’s arguments and the subtle ways in which the article discourages LDS readers from thinking critically about the issues at hand.

Let’s start with the first question in the article. “The kingdom of God is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as described in the book of Daniel as standing forever. The question is, will you and I stand?” Corbridge/Johnson asks. While claims about the longevity of “God’s kingdom” are unprovable, it’s evident to any non-church-funded source that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least, is dwindling. Church sources commonly claim that membership numbers are increasing, because they count all individuals who have been baptized but not ex-communicated. On the other hand, counting only active, financially-contributing members reveals that membership is declining sharply. Teens and adults who were raised in the church are leaving at a higher rate than ever. A large portion of the membership inflation reported by the church consists of individuals converted by missionaries as adults, who are counted as members until death although they often stop attending within a year.

From there, Johnson moves on to claim that attacks on the church are broad, including church doctrine that conflicts with “shifting attitudes of today”. This is a common phrase in LDS writing, used to encourage but not specifically state the idea that church doctrine, unlike the rest of the world’s social values, is permanent and unchanging. This is untrue, as many church teachings have changed with time, often shifting to become more in line with North American social norms. A famous and relatively recent example, alluded to in Johnson’s article, is the fact that black men were not allowed to receive the priesthood until 1978. Though there have been many apologetic explanations for this overdue change in doctrine, it’s hard to ignore the fact that its introduction coincided with a government warning that the church would only be able to keep its tax-free status if it got rid of its racist policies. With this and other examples, it’s clear that the church does have a historical precedent to alter teachings in order to keep up with society’s “shifting attitudes.” However, the way it’s phrased in the article contributes to the subconscious idea among many church members that society is at fault for becoming more progressive, not the church for its inability to keep up.

Changing church policy, a history of immoral doctrine, and dwindling membership statistics are only a few of the concerns plaguing modern Mormons. Corbridge and Johnson attempt to address this huge umbrella of issues with a simple response: “Answer the primary questions.” According to Corbridge, these fundamental questions about the church include: “Is there a God who is our Father? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Savior of the World? Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth? Was Joseph Smith a prophet?”

The first three questions refer to the existence God, which is unprovable, and the role of Jesus Christ, a distant historical figure whose true actions in life are hard to discern. In contrast, the last question refers to Joseph Smith, a man who lived in America in the 1800s, whose life is well documented and researched. Was he, as Corbridge asks, a prophet? Researching his life, the answer is clear: hopefully not.

There’s a well of damning evidence on Joseph Smith available with some quick research. He scammed people with his treasure-hunting business, was often jailed for his crimes, and even killed others during his escape attempts. Although the church tried to cover it up for years, he is most well known for his polygamy: by the time he died in 1844, he was married to at least 27 women. The youngest of these, Helen Mar Kimball, was 14 years old. Joseph Smith was 37, which makes him a pedophile on all counts – even in 1843, when they were married, the average marriage age for women was between 20 and 22. If such a man was chosen as a prophet of God, we should question what type of God would choose him, and what type of church would follow his teachings. The church itself has not addressed these concerns, sweeping them under the rug as “lies and deception”, despite multiple sources proving their accuracy. Predictably, Johnson and Corbridge do not mention anything else about Joseph Smith in the article.

Corbridge then moves on to what he calls the “secondary questions,” which Johnson broadly generalizes as “questions about Church history, polygamy, black people and women and the priesthood, how the Book of Mormon was translated, DNA and the Book of Mormon, gay marriage, different accounts of the First Vision and so on,” not going into specifics on any of these topics. Corbridge follows this up with the most bizarre claim in the entire article: “If you answer the primary questions, the secondary questions get answered too or they pale in significance and you can deal with things you understand and things you don’t understand, things you agree with and things you don’t agree with without jumping ship.”

There’s a lot to get into with this statement. Firstly, the article attempts to trivialize many valid concerns about the church. For example, “Gay marriage” is used as a buzzword to cover an array of questions about the church and the LGBT+ community such as why same-sex couples aren’t allowed to be married in the church, if it’s possible for LGB members to be happy even though they’re forced to be celibate, if trans and gender non-conforming individuals are allowed to present their true identity and be fully accepted into the congregation, why children of LGB parents aren’t allowed to be baptized into the church without cutting contact with their family, and so on. These topics are trivialized by presenting them so broadly and following them up with the statement that they “pale in importance” to the primary questions. This is not the case for the LGBT+ individuals in question, or other individuals whose happiness is directly affected by any of the issues mentioned.

Secondly, the idea that some of these secondary questions are also answered by the primary questions is a bold and frankly false statement. Knowing the “correct” answers to the primary questions does nothing to answer the far more nuanced subjects of the secondary questions. A devout Mormon who firmly believes in God and knows that Joseph Smith is a prophet can still easily have questions about why God wouldn’t allow women to hold the priesthood, or how the Book of Mormon can be a historically accurate account of pre-colonial America when DNA evidence proves otherwise. It’s clear that most of these questions fall into Corbridge’s “pale in importance” category, which minimizes the real struggles that even faithful members can experience in the church.

The last part of this statement is the most telling to Corbridge’s, and more broadly the church’s response to criticism and questioning members. He says that it’s important members deal with these controversial subjects, with “things you understand and things you don’t understand, things you agree with and things you don’t agree with, without jumping ship.” According to Corbridge, Mormons should stay active in the church if they believe in the “primary questions”, even if they have doubts about the “secondary questions.” Historically, many religious groups have been formed by those who share the same primary beliefs as another sect – belief in God and Jesus Christ, for example – but differ on how the church should be run or the details about God’s doctrine. There is even history within the Mormon faith of separate factions who have split off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on their different answers to the “secondary questions”, even though they share belief in God, Jesus Christ, and Joseph Smith with the mainstream branch of LDS faith. It doesn’t make sense for LDS members who disagree with or don’t understand controversial church doctrine to remain members, even if they believe in God, Jesus Christ, or Joseph Smith, as they can seek out other denominations that are more in line with their personal beliefs. Remaining in the church is not beneficial to their spiritual well-being or happiness. Non-believing or disillusioned members can create disharmony within the church, so it isn’t good for the health and harmony of a congregation for leaders like Corbridge to encourage those members to stay. What it is good for, though, is the church’s finances, since LDS members who want to access all the benefits of Mormonism must pay 10% of their income to the church. Therefore, it’s unsurprising that the purpose of this article is to suggest doubting members ignore their concerns and stay active, tithe-paying members.

Johnson’s section on the methods of learning is familiar to anyone experienced with religious anti-science rhetoric. Though it references the scientific method and “analytical learning” (research), those mentions are meaningless as Corbridge states “the divine method of learning ultimately trumps everything else by tapping into the powers of heaven.” This is echoed often in fundamentalist religious writing, and means that whenever scientific evidence, academic research, or social values clash with religious beliefs, believers are to ignore the facts and trust “God”, or the teachings of their church. It’s a way to shut down logical arguments from doubters or non-believers without having to think critically about church doctrine and has been discussed at length in other writing.

A somewhat amusing and unique addition to this article is the concept of “academic learning” as separate from scientific or analytical. The idea that simply reading a text can provide the reader with truth without the “analytical” step of fact-checking and resource gathering is false. After all, anyone can write a piece (such as Johnson’s) and fill it with lies. Without multiple opinions and validations, a text on its own has no truth value.

The final two sections of “What to do with your questions” move away from laughable pseudo-academic claims and give us insight into the far more insidious psychological methods the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious groups use to keep their members in order. The first section is entitled “The Presence or Absence of the Holy Ghost.” Generally, most LDS members and leaders assume the “presence of the Holy Ghost” to mean a happy, warm, and comfortable feeling. This type of feeling commonly occurs in familiar, safe settings such as churches and homes. Corbridge goes on to state that “the gloom I experienced as I listened to the dark choir of voices raised against the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ… is the absence of the Spirit of God.” In other words, if members who read about controversial church history and practices feel bad or uncomfortable while doing so, it must mean these claims are false.

The truth is that anyone who learns about information that radically disrupts their current worldview will be uncomfortable. In the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, leaders have so effectively hidden parts of its history from its members and lied about doing so that the discovery of things like Joseph Smith’s history of polygamy and multiple accounts of the First Vision can be shocking and upsetting. Issues dealing with the happiness of LGBT+, women, and black members of the church make many members feel guilty and sad, as they feel empathy for those who have been wronged by the church’s present or past teachings. By equating the natural and understandable feelings of sadness, guilt, and discomfort with the absence of the spirit and therefore falsehood, Corbridge convinces questioning members that they should bury those feelings and ignore their questions. This is not an acceptable way to address controversial church topics, nor is it healthy to encourage members to suppress their emotions.

The final section of the article, “Elimination”, is the final nail in the coffin telling LDS members to keep their doubts private and unanswered. Corbridge reiterates that he and God can’t answer all the member’s doubts – obvious, since he and Johnson have done nothing to address any concerns in this article – and that those who truly answer the “primary questions” will not even need answers to their further questions. This effectively combines the church’s policy of repression and communal guilt: if you are bothered by unsavory aspects of the church’s doctrine, you probably don’t believe in God or Joseph Smith. LDS doctrine already encourages a heavy amount of personal guilt for members who don’t feel they are perfectly living up to the church’s expectations, but if they voice their concerns, they now face the shame of their peers. Nobody in a faith setting wants to be known as the unfaithful member, and Corbridge’s statement is clear: if you want to be respected by your religious peers, keep those questions in.

-North