A discussion in an online forum asked participants the question: “How do you explain that you no longer believe without offending people who do believe?” It’s an important question, and one that many people really struggle with. As church members, we aren’t just believers or non-believers, but members of a community that socializes together, whose kids are friends, who share (to some extent) similar values, and we are also literal family in many cases. So when someone chooses to leave that community, to move on, the narrative can rankle.
Two versions of the exit narrative that I can think of that impugn the believers are:
- The Graduate. This narrative implies that those who haven’t left are uneducated or less developed.
- The Abused. This narrative implies that those who haven’t left are either masochists or that they tolerate the abuse of others. Or possibly that some of them are abusive.
As a former expat, I sometimes think of disaffiliation in terms of citizenship. How would you explain to an American citizen why you’ve renounced your citizenship? [1] This is the same question, basically. It really depends how strongly they feel about being an American. Sam the Eagle will take offense no matter what you say. It also matters on how much your reasons for renouncing citizenship reflect poorly on them (e.g. Americans are fat, lazy, uneducated, gun-toting embarrassments to humanity) vs. allowing them space for disagreement (e.g. renouncing due to a political difference about war or nuclear arms).
And yet, it’s an impossible standard. Nobody renounces their citizenship over something silly like “American cheese is processed and tastes like garbage.” [2] Changing one’s citizenship is a big deal. Leaving one’s religion is also a big deal, but to a lesser extent. No government agencies or fees are involved. The barriers to entry and the barriers to exit are much lower. You don’t even have to officially leave. You can just quit attending and stop paying tithing. If you quit paying taxes, the government will probably take a stronger stance than your bishop will.
Why do these exit narratives emerge? It’s probably for a few reasons. First, there’s some defensiveness as a result of the narratives that are told about people who leave:
- They were offended.
- They want to sin.
- They have a character flaw.
Because these are all attacks on the person who left, some defensiveness is natural. Another reason these narratives occur is that people need to frame the events of their lives to make sense of their life choices, to try to explain to themselves (primarily) and others (secondarily) why they have done what they have done. This is human nature.
Jonathan Haidt talks about this phenomenon as being like an elephant and a rider. The elephant goes where it wants to go, and the rider acts as a PR person, explaining where the elephant went. [3] The rider isn’t really telling the elephant where to go and doesn’t in fact know why the elephant went where it did. Likewise, our emotions go where they go, and we are left to explain to ourselves, and occasionally to others, why they went there. To some extent, we can hear this in Fast & Testimony meeting as people explain why they believe. Likewise, in online discussion forums, we hear people’s exit narratives. The story matches the elephant’s movements. Let’s say the elephant flattened a village on its way. Well, the rider’s got a story for that. Or the elephant ends up at a water source. Or the other elephants are pushing the elephant in a direction. All of these are stories about why the elephant did what it did, but we really don’t know. We don’t control the elephant. We sometimes imagine we do, or that we understand it. Haidt would say that’s an illusion.
So how do we explain an exit narrative without offending those who choose to stay? Perhaps the best thing to do is to realize that our story may not be the whole story, and that our elephants don’t always go the same places as other people’s elephants.
[1] I didn’t renounce my citizenship, but I was called on many times to defend the actions of private citizens or our government. I was basically making crap up.
[2] If so, there’d be a mass exodus. Here we come, Canada!
[3] Suddenly I feel some empathy for Bro. Otterson. He’s not even explaining his own elephant’s movements.
A personally sensitive topic for me. I am one who has a very strong feeling of betrayal about having been lied to so extensively.
The extent of my “disbelief” (and disagreement) has not caused me to exit the church. I subscribe (wholeheartedly) to the “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water” perspective. I am, actually, shocked by how many that leave don’t see the baby–especially with regard to those wherein the dirty bath water that shocked them is primarily with regard to Church “history.”
While I choose not to attend SS or priesthood classes, so as not to offend the weak testimonies (I Corinthians 8) and so as not to be driven up the wall by those among my fellows that are vapid, unquestioning believers, the church is my life-long culture/community. So very many of my “brothers and sisters” in the church are truly outstanding, kind, etc. people–especially if you don’t talk religion with them 😉
When I first stopped attending priesthood I received a couple of official visits. I was careful not to spell out any of the details of what I no longer “believed.” In that way they were not motivated to attempt to convince me I was wrong–with the ensuing arguments and direct or indirect offense regarding how could they continue to believe. Thereby I have never been in the position of “impugn[ing] the believers.”
I felt this exact tension after my deconversion. Since I left for intellectual reasons, I couldn’t figure out how to give reasons for my leaving without also giving reason for the listener to leave as well… which is not at all something that I wanted.
Of course my hesitancy to go into the details kind of backfired on me a bit. My bishop (I had moved to a new ward a couple months prior) was a good man, but he and I just did not understand each other. When he called me in to discuss my issues, he asked if I believed in Darwin. I said I did, but that wasn’t the issue. He then spent the next hour trying to show me how Darwin was wrong. I can see how if Darwin was wrong, that this would probably be a decent reason to believe, but I had made peace with Darwin long before I deconverted. Furthermore, it was clear that his understanding of Darwin was so poor that he was never going to convince me, let alone in one sitting. I know he meant well, and that he had my interests in mind, but it wasn’t a very pleasant experience.
Very insightful Hawkgrrrl and as always terrific GIFs to go along!
Members have a hard time understanding that people might leave for good reasons, or that even God Himself might lead them away. But it’s right in the scriptures: God says “I will shut their eyes and stop their ears that they see not and hear not and be not converted.” “You have not chosen me, I have chosen you.”
If members could only embrace this reality it would take so much angst out of their life. Its hard to be members of “the only true church” when 99.9% of humanity thinks you are crazy. But if we can just take the scriptures at face value, that God made this “a strait and narrow way that few find” we can stop being so conflicted about our inability to connect with most people.
And as Hawkgrrrl says, apostates often take this “only true way” with them out of the church, thinking of themselves as “Graduates” superior in their understanding to the blind sheep in the church. They haven’t stopped to consider that maybe both apostates and believing members are merely following paths dictated by God’s “elephant.” In the case of members it is the elephant of spiritual direction. In the case of apostates it is the elephant of “lack of spiritual direction” and God-given intellect and reason.
I never bring up my feelings about the church unless I am asked, which isn’t very often. I have no interest in bothering someone’s testimony, but if they ask, I agree with J Reuben Clark, i.e. “it ought to be harmed”, so I don’t hold anything back. I express most of my feelings on the internet. I feel that if someone is talking about religion on the internet, they are open to discussion and are not fragile petals on a flower.
My last calling was gospel doctrine teacher and I taught the company line, even though it was a very hollow message coming from me. I called on a member of the class to give a closing testimony to each lesson. No one had a clue when I resigned from the church straight from that calling.
It would probably help if those of us who choose to believe were more frank with our own doubts and spiritual process.
The nature of spirituality is that it can’t really be shared, but we could still do more. That way, those who no longer choose to believe can realize that they aren’t a strange as they think they are. It’s a much finer line that we suppose between faith and disbelief.
*than we suppose…
Loved the picture of the reporter having the two women try to kiss him. Had to search for the video. He even had the presence of mind to tell them, “Please don’t do that.”, as he pushed them away. Funny stuff.
I think Silverrain is correct about the thin line. I’ve seen the most fervent believers become the most fervent unbelivers, trying to de-convert others.
We have millions who have left the church for one reason or another. We call them less-actives. Most of the time, they just want to be left alone.
If it were me, I just say I was no longer interested and leave it at that. I would have no desire to hurt anyone less with what Imight say otherwise.
There is also this thing that you see with weight loss: A woman walks past who is a healthy weight, and people say things like: “She can eat whatever she wants! She is so lucky! Good genes to look like that! She would never understand what we go through!”
Because they only see the finished product, not the struggle. They don’t see her in the gym at 5:45 a.m., or sobbing from the pan of liposuction. They don’t see her eating an unsatisfying salad for lunch, or turning down dessert for years at a time.
I know a lot of bishops who didn’t attend church for a season of their life, who have serious doubts or do not know the gospel is true (they only have a gift to believe on the words of other). But when they try to express compassion and understanding to a struggling sister or brother, their overtures are slapped away: “You don’t understand! My case is unique!”
So I am dubious about how much it would help to share our own doubts and struggles.
“Likewise, our emotions go where they go, and we are left to explain to ourselves, and occasionally to others, why they went there.” I’m not sure I agree with this statement. It implies we have no agency, no control of our thoughts. I think it is just as easy to explain an exit as it is to explain a stay. The explainer needs to keep the reasons personal and confined to his or her experience.
Jeff G – that story is an excellent example of casting one’s pearls before swine. In this case, the bishop was the swine unable to comprehend basic science (that is taught at BYU, natch). The problem is that everyone in these situations thinks the other person is the swine, and that’s probably not a great starting point for understanding.
I tell people the truth–hubby lost his testimony and since my marriage was a covenant prior to my baptism, I believe God wants me to stay by hubby on his spiritual journey.
To non believers I also tell this truth: HF is too big to put in one religion. I believe he can be found in many places and peoples. My preference is LDS but since it would cause marital discord, I do not attend.
I do believe LDS is ordained by God, I just also believe other religions are too and I don’t think HF ever intended for us all to believe the same thing. Just like he mixed up our languages, he mixed up our religions too. He wants separate groups. I honestly believe HF experiences everything through us and that is why we are here. To experience for him. He wants the full range. We are like the cells of God’s body. Countries are like the organs. Sometimes the body attacks itself. We feed it junk because we want the pleasure of the food for instance. We are made in the image of our creator–as creators ourselves. Everything we do is a creation. Our reactions are creations.
Church members evolve when it comes to dealing with those who exit church activity.
Nowadays, I view those who exit church activity with little concern. I respect their decision. In former days, I wanted to know why and was willing to challenge their decision if the opportunity presented itself.
We have agency and everyone needs to respect one another’s right to choose their path.
In D&C 82:3 there is an important teaching that gives insight into the topic of this post. “Where much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.”
The corollary to this verse is that where much isn’t given not much is required; and so forth.
I believe the vast majority of those who exit church activity never received much “light”. The Lord knows how to deal with them in perfect love and kindness (this could include those who have received high callings in the church).
The ones to worry about are those few who sins against greater light.
Jared-Joseph Smith’s god does not exist. Please don’t worry on my behalf. I believe the vast majority exit church activity because they realize nothing like “light” from an anthropomorphic God exists.
Brian-I think by now we have an understanding of one another’s perspective.
I wouldn’t attempt to change your perspective, that is, unless I was invited to do so.
Many people I love share a perspective similar to yours. We have mutual respect. By the way, we also have a lot of good times hanging out together.
“The barriers to entry and the barriers to exit are much lower. You don’t even have to officially leave. You can just quit attending and stop paying tithing.” This is a huge overstatement. In some ways, I would consider changing my citizenship much easier, and less emotionally involved. The government is not going to look at me with hurt in their eyes and say, “Please, no empty chairs.”
Many of us live in Mormon communities, have Mormon families and have many Mormon friends. I wish more people understood that “our elephants don’t always go the same places as other people’s elephants.” Or they would at least refrain from telling me that my elephant is led by Satan.
Wow! This is the first time I’ve agreed with SilverRain in years but I think #5 is spot on!
This can be a problematic issue. Generally speaking, family members and friends want to know what’s happening in the lives of those they care about. My family has made it pretty clear, however, that they don’t want to know why I left the church or any issues I have with it. This creates an odd situation for the person who has left, and who may have perfectly natural and normal desires to discuss big life events with those they’re close to. The thing that bothers me most is when members, who are an openly proselytizing people, become upset when those who have left try to share their feelings. I’ve found that many people think proselytizing is fine when they’re doing it, but they find it offensive and inappropriate when an ex-member does the same thing.
As a rule, I not only don’t ever bring up the subject of my feelings about the church unless I’m asked, I’m very deferential and non-confrontational when it does come up. Again, though, my desire not to step on the toes of family and friends has caused it own problems. I recently asked my dad how he reconciled questions and issues of logic and history with his faith. I wasn’t trying to start trouble; it was something I genuinely wondered about. The conversation was non-combative, if generally unhelpful. But about a week later, I heard from a cousin that my dad had excitedly told his siblings that I was asking questions about the church, and he thought maybe I was getting ready to come back. If I had been totally honest, I would undoubtedly have offended my dad, but by being deferential, it created a situation where he has false perceptions about where I stand.
I think these are issues that are not easily solvable, if at all.
My husband told me on Sunday that there is “never a good reason” to, in his words, “abandon” the church. I guess in a lot of cases it’s easier simply to refuse to see any perspective other than your own. It saves you from having to consider the possibility that there may be more than one right answer.
No parent likes to have someone tell them their baby is ugly.
And yet, some babies are ugly.
Let’s be honest folks. Those who stay in the Church and accept its teachings are not as smart as those who reject such silly notions. I could use a lot of other adjectives to explain their lack of intelligence but that would not be nice in a comment. I know this is true because I have been reading the blogs like wheat & tares for several months and a lot of smart people, smarter than I am, have shown by clear and convincing evidence this is true. For example that bishop of Jeff G see comment 11. TBM believe in the historicity of the BOM, angels, gold plates and even that Facsimile 2 is dated to Abraham’s time (if there ever was an Abraham). Then the betrayal be the Church in hiding its history. Oh my hell Joseph practiced polygamy and lied about it.
Even if I did believe I wouldn’t admit it. I mean I have an advanced professional degree and I don’t want to labeled as dumb. I would never express the comfort and joy I felt in teaching young adults in Sunday School about Jesus and the Restoration. I use to love to home teach and try to build testimonies. Not anymore. I don’t want to be dumb. Thanks to the Mormon blogosphere.
Chances of being accepted — 5%. Why, because smart people do not accept difference in opinion. 🙂
this is so tricky bc everyone has defenses up and if either side goes on offense it only ends badly.
I didn’t leave the church, but I left orthodoxy. To my family that’s almost the same thing. I spent two years of a transition of first, telling my family all the things I’d learned (this doesn’t work well); second, trying to build bridges and tell my story (always misunderstood and misconstrued); and finally, drop the boundary my faith and feminism are topics I choose to no longer discuss.
In church I don’t go or comment to score points or make a statement, I try to be in tune with the spirit and listen for what the HG has to remind me of every week. Sometimes there’s a prompting for comments. Recently I bore my testimony and included my faith transition and described my faith as “choosing to believe” . . . fwiw I was complimented afterwards a bit in my orthodox ward.
Robert60–your sarcasm clearly shows you are not reading W&T with a sincere heart and real intent.
“I try to be in tune with the spirit and listen for what the HG has to remind me of every week.” HG = Hawkgrrrl, right?
Brain – I agree I do not read W&T with a “sincere hear and real intent”. And I agree my remarks were sarcastic. And I appreciate your observation. Generally it is best not to call anyone a “swine” particuarlly if you have never met the person and you know virtually nothing about him or his heart. I do enjoy some of W&T but am guilty of observing pseudointellectualism and hyperjudmental attitudes occasionally by some moderators and commentators.
robert60: Jesus is the one whose analogy “pearls before swine” is. It’s an analogy that works anytime one shares something they value with someone who does not. Perhaps you missed the point of that parable. It’s not about name calling, but about the disparity between how two people value the same thing differently. As to the pseudointellectualism, I’m rubber, you’re glue.
Robert60—It’s probably best that my comment goes unapppreciated since I really was poking fun at Moroni 10:4. I am probably one of those guilty of a hyperjudgmental attitude and am most assuredly “swinish”. Either way, welcome to Wheat and Tares.
Nate,
I appreciate your perspective. Where is the scripture reference to;
“I will shut their eyes and stop their ears that they see not and hear not and be not converted”
Nate,
I know of john 12:40, where he says he will not appeal to thier secural senses, but thier spiritual. I don’t think he was trying to de-convert them; rather, he was teaching with the spirit and those that are in tune will understand by the spirit.
re 29, 30,
Ken,
But I think that what Nate has gotten at is that there are several scriptures that point out that God chooses whether people are in tune with the spirit or not. See also Romans 9: 18 – 23
Andrew,
Exactly, and it takes agency out of the equation. I don’t believe God chooses, or makes, winners and losers. Rather, he recognizes and sustains those that make (or at least try) the right choices.
Ken,
Yes, because if the past few years have taught us anything, it is that the LDS church is losing its worst and laziest members, while the most humble and Christlike have remained devoted.
(This is a sarcastic attempt to bring your statement to its logical conclusion.)
(It may not even be a conclusion you disagree with.)
Jewelfox: “(It may not even be a conclusion you disagree with.)” /snort