Great Article Re: "Reconversion" Narratives

[smac97]

Here (from the Deseret News) :

Quote

Opinion: The untold stories of Latter-day Saint ‘reconversion’

We’re inundated with loss-of-faith narratives, but what about the ones where people find their faith again?

By Sarah Hafen d’Evegnée and Eric d’Evegnée  Oct 31, 2021, 10:00pm MDT

 

Many of us are familiar with stories about the loss of faith, but we’re less familiar with stories about faith-based reconciliation and renewal: A young man who stays on his knees all night because he can’t stop thinking about the love he felt in his childhood home. The woman whose cancer diagnosis helps her take shaky steps to the back of the chapel. The online troll heckling those in his former faith community for 20 years until he received a blessing from two missionaries who knocked on his door. The returned missionary who took a break from the faith she felt had betrayed her, but then rekindled her personal relationship with deity. The agnostic who writes an email to his former religion professor to understand his perspective on difficult church history.

 

These are the stories of Christian, Letitia, Dusty, Allyson and Leo. They are the real stories from real people who have gone through a reawakening of faith. We’ve been collecting and analyzing reconversion stories like these and we want to share what we’ve learned with you.

Very cool.  Read the whole thing.  This part stuck out to me:

Quote

While each individual story in our collection is rich in depth and complexity, the combination of all the accounts has helped us to see startling connections, patterns and themes. So far, we’ve gathered and carefully analyzed more than 50 of these narratives. In addition to providing helpful insights for those who sit all along the spectrum of belief, we hope there might be some helpful lessons for those completely estranged from faith but who may be open to the possibility of reconversion. Here are a few of the insights we’ve gleaned from our preliminary analysis of these narratives (see links to longer articles about each topic).

 

1. The language we use to describe our religious experiences influences our perceived choices. In many of these reconversion narratives there is a fascinating correlation between people’s use of language and their perception about the church, their faith and themselves. Often the language the narrators use to describe their experience seems to determine their perceived possibilities and choices, especially those choices they are able to see about their faith and their current and future religious activity.

The language they use frames not only their experience, but their ability to understand their experience. Analyzing this language helps us to understand at a deeper level why significant shifts in perspective may happen during both deconversion and later reconversion. In addition, the language used by the narrators indicates that overwhelming doubts are frequently connected to a larger certainty crisis. That is, when someone experiences a shift in belief, it isn’t always only their faith that is transforming — their whole worldview might be changing.

I have noticed this in many "loss of faith" or "deconversion" narratives.  I think one point of language that "influences our perceived choices" is the "I know" narrative.  See here:

Quote

We should ditch {or at least re-visit and reconsider} the "I know" paradigm.  "I'd like to bear my testimony.  I know this church is true..."  Well, actually, no.  Most of us, I think, have faith that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that the Church is what it claims to be, etc.  "I know" has become an affectation, and an inaccurate one at that.  Just as people use "literally" to mean "figuratively" ("I was so bored yesterday, I was literally climbing the walls..."), I think members of the Church use "I know" to mean "I believe."  And in so doing we've set up an incorrect perception of things.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (2 Cor. 5:7).  "{I}f a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it."  (Alma 32:17-18).  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9).

We are supposed to not have a sure knowledge.  We are supposed to be proceeding in faith.  But we've made it seem like anything short of a pulpit-thumping "I know..." just isn't good enough.  But "I know" seems too rigid.  Too fragile.  Too glass-jawed.  "I believe...", on the other hand, gives us some room.  Some time and some space to absorb challenging/difficult things.  

See also the "Nirvana fallacy," described here:

Quote

Quote

The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.
...
In La Bégueule (1772), Voltaire wrote Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, which is often translated as "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (literally: "The best is the enemy of the good").

The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969, who said:

Quote

The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing "imperfect" institutional arrangement. This nirvana approach differs considerably from a comparative institution approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.

My sense is that some members of the Church are harboring idealized, unrealistic expectations about the Church, and its leaders and members, and its history.  This is the "perfect" part of Voltaire's maxim. 

Then these folks encounter "big lists" and other online resources that distill and summarize all sorts of controversies, errors, shortcomings, etc. by members and leaders of the Church.  Such compilations are full of cheap shots presented for shock value.  Presentism.  Facile criticism.  Misrepresentation by omission and distortion.  A determined effort to keep these topics decontextualized and sensationalized.  Sarcasm.  No effort to study or meaningfully understand.  And intermingled with them are some legitimate criticisms. 

 

In sum, I think that some members of the Church harbor unrealistic expectations about what it means to have and exercise faith.  If an individual A) harbors doubts/fears/suspicions about the Restored Gospel and/or the leaders of the Church and/or some of the policies of the Church while simultaneously B) having "Nirvana Fallacy"-style expectations of perfection for the Church and its leaders and themselves ("I know the Church is true..."), then keeping the whole thing together starts to look untenable, leading to an error in grasping our "perceived choices," which are often narrowed down to . . . leaving the Church.  As I noted (see above link) :

Quote

These summaries of the Church are, understandably, difficult or impossible to reconcile with the Church's narrative about itself, which has long tended toward an idealized presentation (though the Church's publication of Saints, Vol. 1: The Standard of Truth is signaling some real change on this issue).

Some members, then, end up facing seemingly irreconcilable options

• Option A: the Church is essentially good and decent and ordained of God (as claimed by the Church), or
• Option B: the Church is essentially flawed and corrupt, and even evil (as claimed by authors of the above-referenced "big lists").

Applying Voltaire's maxim, the "perfect" (the idealized perception of, and expectations about, the Church and its members) becomes the enemy of the "good" (Option A).  Consequently, some folks go with Option B, because it seems the only plausible means of reconciling what they thought about the Church with what they now know about the Church.

I'm glad we are coming to understand this better.

Back to the Deseret News article:

Quote

2. People acknowledge a sense of alienation and banishment in their time away from the church. A sense of profound distance shows up in many of these narratives — with descriptions of time apart from faith often emphasizing how acute the separation felt when they were “distanced” from their former faith. One woman describes how she “wandered lost in the dark.” The emotional impact of stepping away from formerly valued connections and convictions, along with a lingering anxiety about the possibility of ever returning, is a major theme of these return narratives.
...
3. Others play a critical role in both the loss and return to faith. Family members, loved ones, friends and church leaders play a significant role in helping people come back to faith, but these same people also sometimes play a role in contributing to people’s choices to leave.
...
4. Those who return to faith often experience a moment that disrupts the previous narrative they held when estranged from the church. In different and often surprising ways, these stories describe a variety of momentum-shifting moments that disrupt previous assumptions and that puncture strongly held views. These narrative-disrupting moments are diverse, including significant tragedies, miracles, fresh insights and transformative examples, along with a sense of growing hunger for deeper spiritual connection and love from others. While widely different, these experiences appear to similarly open up new possibilities about a return to faith not openly considered before.
...
5. There is a remarkably consistent awareness and increase of divine influence throughout virtually every account of return. It’s striking to see how consistently our narrators express a growing awareness of their own relationship with God. While there are a wide variety of influences on the unfolding reconversion, this is one overarching similarity in virtually every story of reconversion: an increasing recognition of God and their relationship to him. Almost without exception, connecting with God in a deeper way is a vital and driving part of the reconversion process in these stories.

 Very insightful stuff.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

Just on one point for some people they make the Church their life. They don't really seem to do much outside of church things or have non member, non relative friends. So, if they quit the church then essentially they dropped their friends and church activities and are in some kind of a vacuum trying to find something to do with themselves and find new friends

an aside, some (i've seen this more in men than women) they pride themselves on church callings-probably because their home life sucks or they don't get respect at work or from their kids and so they feel valued at church. If you are the Bishop or a President of some thing people seek your advice and you are in charge and people generally speaking respect you. Some men though, they do feel valued at home, job, and so they would be happy to do whatever calling they get because their don't derive their sense of self worth from a calling that comes and goes anyway. God doesn't love you more if you are a secretary than he does if you are a president. So, some men would flounder like crazy if for whatever reason they quit the church and some wouldn't because they have friends outside the church and do things outside of the church

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Just on one point for some people they make the Church their life. They don't really seem to do much outside of church things or have non member, non relative friends. So, if they quit the church then essentially they dropped their friends and church activities and are in some kind of a vacuum trying to find something to do with themselves and find new friends

I have a good friend who left the Church a few years back.  She and her husband both grew up in the Church.  He served a mission, they met at a Church school, they married in the temple, had a large family, etc.  The husband drifted away first, then the wife.  The "drifing" started when they were living in two heavily-Latter-day Saint areas (southern Idaho and Utah County).  Then they moved to a state and city that have appreciable, but not numerically substantial, numbers of Latter-day Saints.  

My friend and her husband have had some years to develop relationships with "non member, non relative friends."  They've had a hard time of it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 1, 2021 by smac97

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here (from the Deseret News) :

Very cool.  Read the whole thing.  This part stuck out to me:

I have noticed this in many "loss of faith" or "deconversion" narratives.  I think one point of language that "influences our perceived choices" is the "I know" narrative.  See here:

See also the "Nirvana fallacy," described here:

In sum, I think that some members of the Church harbor unrealistic expectations about what it means to have and exercise faith.  If an individual A) harbors doubts/fears/suspicions about the Restored Gospel and/or the leaders of the Church and/or some of the policies of the Church while simultaneously B) having "Nirvana Fallacy"-style expectations of perfection for the Church and its leaders and themselves ("I know the Church is true..."), then keeping the whole thing together starts to look untenable, leading to an error in grasping our "perceived choices," which are often narrowed down to . . . leaving the Church.  As I noted (see above link) :

I'm glad we are coming to understand this better.

Back to the Deseret News article:

 Very insightful stuff.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

It is a nice confirmation bias for you that helps you think those who lose their faith are maybe not sincere and really don't have good reasons for concluding the LDS truth claims are bogus. You really do not want to seem to understand the real issues as to why so many are rejecting the LDS Church.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is a nice confirmation bias for you that helps you think those who lose their faith are maybe not sincere and really don't have good reasons for concluding the LDS truth claims are bogus.

I said nothing to dispute the sincerity of "those who lose their faith."  That doesn't even make sense.  What does sincerity have to do with leaving the Church?

I also categorically reject the "don't have good reasons" thing as well.  I've never said that, nor anything like it, nor do I believe it.  I have lost count of the number of times I have said "reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things."  For example, less than I month ago you said this:

Quote

Quote

Quote

The millennium is, or will be, a reality.  

Two expressions of faith.  One is hopeless, the other hopeful.  One is nihilistic, the other optimistic.

I'll take Pascal's Wager any day of the week.

Good for you. If you want to live your life based on a fantasy that is great.  And it is not nihilistic to think it is a fantasy.  And it is not optimistic to think it is not. The latter may be called delusional.  Living in reality is not hopeless.

 

Huh.  So to disagree with you is to "live {} life based on a fanstasy."

To disagree with you is to be "delustional."

I responded:

Quote

So can the former.

You are just being glib and insulting here.  Again, we are both speaking prospectively, and we are both speaking on faith.  The difference is that I think my "faith" is full to overflowing with optimism and hope and excitement, whereas yours is dreary, bleak and nihilistic.

In the end, you may be right.  It may be that God does not exist, that our existence is either illusory or just a matter of pure chance, that this life is all there is, that we have no souls, that "when a man {is} dead, that {is} the end thereof" (Alma 30:18).  

Alternatively, I may be right.  It may be that God does exist, that we lived prior to this life and will continue to exist after we die, that God has a wonderful plan for us, and so on.

Reasonable minds can disagree about these things.  I acknowledge that.  But I really believe that there are ways to ascertain, to some measure, whether God exists.  Not to a certainty (for most of us, anyway), but enough to tip the scales toward accepting Pascal's Wager, toward faith and hope and optimism.

(Emphases added.)

I can acknowledge the merits of your point of view.  You, meanwhile, label my point of view as a "fantasy" and "delusional."

See also here:

Quote

Joseph Smith pursued "worldly desires at the expense of God's children?"  Is that your assertion?  If so, then you seem to be - as I have said - presupposing that there is no Stage 3, at least as to Joseph Smith's "intent."

With respect, I think reasonable minds can disagree about that.  I get that people want to vilify him and accuse him - as you apparently do here - of having evil motives.  But others have studied his life and found ample room to traverse "the ideal" and proceed to "the real" and be convinced of his general character, and his prophetic calling.

And here:

Quote

The "truth," the reality of things like Joseph Smith's theophanies, the Gold Plates, the text of The Book of Mormon, divinely-bestowed priesthood authority, and so on are all not without biases.  We accept them on faith, not as undisputable facts.  We recognize that reasonable minds can disagree about these things.  So in that sense, no, the LDS Church does not have, or claim to have, "objective" truth.

And here:

Quote

First, we need to acknowledge that we have invited scrutiny of the claims of the Church.  Consequently, we need to accommodate the possibility of members of the Church coming to a conclusion that those claims are not what they claim to be.  We need to allow that.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.  We should also consider that "either the Church is true, or it is a fraud"-type statements can be compelling, but also risky, and those who have presented them likely did not contemplate the "glitch" described above.

Second, we also need to understand and respect the strong feelings and emotions that can arise when people become disaffected from the Church (or are heading down that path).  We need to reach out and communicate.  We need to let them give voice to their thoughts and concerns.

And here:

Quote

Quote

Yes, I've read those accounts.  I believe that a story may have been told and then repeated many times by others (and possibly embellished at times).  But I do not believe that God works that way (sending an angel to threaten someone's life to live a principle they were already living....).  

I'm okay with that.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

And here:

Quote

Quote

We can use the tools of science to determine how the events of the BoM square up with history to some extent.  So this third criteria so far has been failing the test.  

Well, reasonable minds can disagree about that.  I think The Book of Mormon holds up remarkably well to reasoned scrutiny.

And here:

Quote

The Church's finances have long been a source of controversy.  I'm okay with that.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things, and perhaps there are ways the Church can improve.  

This does not sound like someone overwhelmed with "confirmation bias."  I am acknowledging that both sides have substantive and reasonable points to make.

You, on the other hand, have summarily believed my position to be "delusional" and a "fantasy."  How's that for typifying confirmation bias?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by smac97

[MrShorty]

I have seen other reconversion stories, but it does seem like they are harder to find (or they get swept under the rug, or picked apart). I like the idea of drawing attention to reconversion narratives, but, like @Teancum notes, I hope it isn't just about confirmation bias. A few observations of my own:

1) (I seem to recall David Ostler addressed this in Bridges). It seems that many who reconvert do not reconvert back to the same faith they had before deconverting. Some are "all in", some are more nuanced, some are more cafeteria, and so on.

2) Many drop claims to exclusivity. They acknowledge that reconversion was what God wanted for them, but some seem unwilling to claim that God wants all to reconvert. "God can lead people to salvation and exaltation through paths that don't include reconversion." they will say. If I could, I would love to explore the question of exclusivity.

3) Being in mixed faith marriage where my wife and my children have completely left the Church, I find it is important not to EXPECT reconversion. Maybe reconversion is in their future, I don't know. But any expectation that they might reconvert seems to just breed disappointment and resentment. In this respect, I think reconversion stories might be more useful to those actually on the path, and much less useful to the faithful. Reconversion stories can help those traveling the path feel less alone in the journey through deconversion/reconversion. For those not called to walk that path, reconversion stories may set up unrealistic expectations for those among their friends/family who have deconverted.

I like the idea of studying and understanding reconversion stories and experiences, but I think we must do so cautiously so that we maintain proper expectations about how often it occurs and what reconversion really looks like.

 

[Kenngo1969]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is a nice confirmation bias for you that helps you think those who lose their faith are maybe not sincere and really don't have good reasons for concluding the LDS truth claims are bogus. You really do not want to seem to understand the real issues as to why so many are rejecting the LDS Church.

Assumes facts not in evidence?  (At least on this thread!)  I'd like to see evidence for your claim that Smac97 "think[s] that those who lose their faith are maybe not sincere [sic]."

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I have seen other reconversion stories, but it does seem like they are harder to find (or they get swept under the rug, or picked apart). I like the idea of drawing attention to reconversion narratives, but, like @Teancum notes, I hope it isn't just about confirmation bias. A few observations of my own:

1) (I seem to recall David Ostler addressed this in Bridges). It seems that many who reconvert do not reconvert back to the same faith they had before deconverting. Some are "all in", some are more nuanced, some are more cafeteria, and so on.

I think the Hafens' theory of tripartite faith progression is useful here:

I think the "Stage 3" type of faith is more pragmatic, more informed, more measured, and therefore hopefully more resilient and enduring.

13 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

2) Many drop claims to exclusivity. They acknowledge that reconversion was what God wanted for them, but some seem unwilling to claim that God wants all to reconvert. "God can lead people to salvation and exaltation through paths that don't include reconversion." they will say. If I could, I would love to explore the question of exclusivity.

I think my perspective on the Church's claims of exclusivity have changed a lot through the years.  It hinges on the meaing of what was lost in the Great Apostasy.  

13 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

3) Being in mixed faith marriage where my wife and my children have completely left the Church, I find it is important not to EXPECT reconversion. Maybe reconversion is in their future, I don't know. But any expectation that they might reconvert seems to just breed disappointment and resentment.

This is a good point.  We can hope and have faith, but having (and expressing) an expectation can have unintended consequences.

13 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In this respect, I think reconversion stories might be more useful to those actually on the path, and much less useful to the faithful. Reconversion stories can help those traveling the path feel less alone in the journey through deconversion/reconversion. For those not called to walk that path, reconversion stories may set up unrealistic expectations for those among their friends/family who have deconverted.

I like the idea of studying and understanding reconversion stories and experiences, but I think we must do so cautiously so that we maintain proper expectations about how often it occurs and what reconversion really looks like.

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Olmec Donald]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is a nice confirmation bias for you that helps you think those who lose their faith are maybe not sincere and really don't have good reasons for concluding the LDS truth claims are bogus. You really do not want to seem to understand the real issues as to why so many are rejecting the LDS Church.

 

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Being in mixed faith marriage where my wife and my children have completely left the Church, I find it is important not to EXPECT reconversion... 

I like the idea of studying and understanding reconversion stories and experiences, but I think we must do so cautiously so that we maintain proper expectations about how often it occurs and what reconversion really looks like.

 

Scott Peck was a psychiatrist and well-known author of “The Road Less Travelled”, who made some imo interesting observations in a subsequent book entitled “The Different Drum.” He noticed that people who entered therapy as non-believers (atheist or agnostic) tended to exit therapy as believers, while people who entered therapy as believers tended to exit as non-believers! This puzzled him for a long time.

Peck eventually concluded that humans tend to go through stages of spiritual development, and here is my recollection of the stages he described:

Stage 1. Chaotic and anti-social. Children almost always start out in this stage, and a large number of adults never get past it, lurching from one disaster to the next and/or in and out of the criminal justice system. What these people need is to be “saved”. They need religion or a 12-step program or something like that.

Stage 2. Formal and institutional. A sense of worth and a moral foundation are ideally instilled by the person's parents, but such is not always the case. Joining a religion or group that embraces the person and gives them a solid set of moral teachings characterizes Stage 2.  Within the group the person feels included and valued, internalizes the teachings of the group, and becomes self-disciplined and obedient. Most good, law-abiding citizens are in Stage 2. 

Stage 3. Skeptical and individualist. Over time, and following the internal moral compass they have acquired, the person begins to see the inconsistencies and outright failings of their religion or group. They can no longer in good conscience go along with it, so they separate themselves from it (partially or completely), and this is an act of courage. To the people in their religion or group it looks like they have “fallen away”, but actually they are just moving into the next stage of spiritual development.  They tend to embrace logic and/or science and usually live up to a strong internal moral code. Stage 3 tends to be lonely and difficult, and can last for the rest of a person's life.

Stage 4. Mystical and communal. If the Stage 3 person pays attention with an honest open mind, over time he or she begins to notice evidences for, or have experiences of, things which transcend what can be proven by logic and/or scientific inquiry. Eventually they have enough “dots” to connect into a pattern, and begin shifting into Stage 4. Sometimes they even return to their previous Stage 2 religion or group, but with more focus on abstractions like love and oneness, rather than on the specifics of dogma, rules and requirements. They tend to have more in common with Stage 4 people in other belief systems than with the Stage 2 people in their own.

I'm not claiming this is a complete model (and imo a person may simultaneously be at different stages in different areas of their life), but to me it suggests that what looks from the outside like “falling away” may actually be "progression" (cough cough Teancum cough).

I've spent time either in or studying several Western religions, and in my limited experience Judaism stands out from the rest in this way: Judaism deliberately embraces and values and retains, rather than disputes and rejects, its Stage 3 (skeptical and individualist) members. One result is that Judaism ends up with a disproportionate number of Stage 4 (mystical and communal) members. 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

 

 

Scott Peck was a psychiatrist and well-known author of “The Road Less Travelled”, who made some imo interesting observations in a subsequent book entitled “The Different Drum.” He noticed that people who entered therapy as non-believers (atheist or agnostic) tended to exit therapy as believers, while people who entered therapy as believers tended to exit as non-believers! This puzzled him for a long time.

Peck eventually concluded that humans tend to go through stages of spiritual development, and here is my recollection of the stages he described:

Stage 1. Chaotic and anti-social. Children almost always start out in this stage, and a large number of adults never get past it, lurching from one disaster to the next and/or in and out of the criminal justice system. What these people need is to be “saved”. They need religion or a 12-step program or something like that.

Stage 2. Formal and institutional. A sense of worth and a moral foundation are ideally instilled by the person's parents, but such is not always the case. Joining a religion or group that embraces the person and gives them a solid set of moral teachings characterizes Stage 2.  Within the group the person feels included and valued, internalizes the teachings of the group, and becomes self-disciplined and obedient. Most good, law-abiding citizens are in Stage 2. 

Stage 3. Skeptical and individualist. Over time, and following the internal moral compass they have acquired, the person begins to see the inconsistencies and outright failings of their religion or group. They can no longer in good conscience go along with it, so they separate themselves from it (partially or completely), and this is an act of courage. To the people in their religion or group it looks like they have “fallen away”, but actually they are just moving into the next stage of spiritual development.  They tend to embrace logic and/or science and usually live up to a strong internal moral code. Stage 3 tends to be lonely and difficult, and can last for the rest of a person's life.

Stage 4. Mystical and communal. If the Stage 3 person pays attention with an honest open mind, over time he or she begins to notice evidences for, or have experiences of, things which transcend what can be proven by logic and/or scientific inquiry. Eventually they have enough “dots” to connect into a pattern, and begin shifting into Stage 4. Sometimes they even return to their previous Stage 2 religion or group, but with more focus on abstractions like love and oneness, rather than on the specifics of dogma, rules and requirements. They tend to have more in common with Stage 4 people in other belief systems than with the Stage 2 people in their own.

I'm not claiming this is a complete model (and imo a person may simultaneously be at different stages in different areas of their life), but to me it suggests that what looks from the outside like “falling away” may actually be "progression" (cough cough Teancum cough).

I've spent time either in or studying several Western religions, and in my limited experience Judaism stands out from the rest in this way: Judaism deliberately embraces and values and retains, rather than disputes and rejects, its Stage 3 (skeptical and individualist) members. One result is that Judaism ends up with a disproportionate number of Stage 4 (mystical and communal) members. 

Stage 4 seems to be the healthiest, and the most Christlike.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Scott Peck was a psychiatrist and well-known author of “The Road Less Travelled”, who made some imo interesting observations in a subsequent book entitled “The Different Drum.” He noticed that people who entered therapy as non-believers (atheist or agnostic) tended to exit therapy as believers, while people who entered therapy as believers tended to exit as non-believers! This puzzled him for a long time.

Peck eventually concluded that humans tend to go through stages of spiritual development, and here is my recollection of the stages he described:

Stage 1. Chaotic and anti-social. Children almost always start out in this stage, and a large number of adults never get past it, lurching from one disaster to the next and/or in and out of the criminal justice system. What these people need is to be “saved”. They need religion or a 12-step program or something like that.

Stage 2. Formal and institutional. A sense of worth and a moral foundation are ideally instilled by the person's parents, but such is not always the case. Joining a religion or group that embraces the person and gives them a solid set of moral teachings characterizes Stage 2.  Within the group the person feels included and valued, internalizes the teachings of the group, and becomes self-disciplined and obedient. Most good, law-abiding citizens are in Stage 2. 

Stage 3. Skeptical and individualist. Over time, and following the internal moral compass they have acquired, the person begins to see the inconsistencies and outright failings of their religion or group. They can no longer in good conscience go along with it, so they separate themselves from it (partially or completely), and this is an act of courage. To the people in their religion or group it looks like they have “fallen away”, but actually they are just moving into the next stage of spiritual development.  They tend to embrace logic and/or science and usually live up to a strong internal moral code. Stage 3 tends to be lonely and difficult, and can last for the rest of a person's life.

Stage 4. Mystical and communal. If the Stage 3 person pays attention with an honest open mind, over time he or she begins to notice evidences for, or have experiences of, things which transcend what can be proven by logic and/or scientific inquiry. Eventually they have enough “dots” to connect into a pattern, and begin shifting into Stage 4. Sometimes they even return to their previous Stage 2 religion or group, but with more focus on abstractions like love and oneness, rather than on the specifics of dogma, rules and requirements. They tend to have more in common with Stage 4 people in other belief systems than with the Stage 2 people in their own.

I'm not claiming this is a complete model (and imo a person may simultaneously be at different stages in different areas of their life), but to me it suggests that what looks from the outside like “falling away” may actually be "progression" (cough cough Teancum cough).

I've spent time either in or studying several Western religions, and in my limited experience Judaism stands out from the rest in this way: Judaism deliberately embraces and values and retains, rather than disputes and rejects, its Stage 3 (skeptical and individualist) members. One result is that Judaism ends up with a disproportionate number of Stage 4 (mystical and communal) members. 

This seems quite similar to Haven's three-part faith progression, described here:

Quote

Quote

 

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority Seventy for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Sister Marie K. Hafen, once a member of the church’s Young Women general board, have just penned a refreshingly frank book— "Faith is Not Blind" (Deseret Book) — providing powerful paradigms for navigating faith in increasingly complex times.

In 2008, Elder Hafen delivered a devotional address at Brigham Young University (where he once served as dean of the law school and later as provost). His remarks centered on the lifelong journey of Christian discipleship.
...
Their new book extends this kind of faith-affirming discussion beyond the halls of BYU (or the ambiance of the local Olive Garden) and into the hearts of discerning Latter-day Saints of all ages.
...
But, with regard to style (the book is a breezy 130 pages) and substance, the Hafens clearly have a specific audience in mind — young adults.
...
The book amounts to one of the more readable, yet authoritative contributions to the expanding genre of literature speaking to the religious concerns of the rising generation.
...
That experience afforded an early glimpse into “what it means to encounter issues that require deeper digging in both thought and faith.” While the volume tackles modern issues, like “digging deeper” in an internet era (one chapter is titled “Some Internet soft spots”), the most important religious questions addressed are hardly novel.

A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

 

So we have:

Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience").

I think Peck's "Stage 1" and "Stage 2" are akin to the Hafens' "Stage 1."  Peck's "Stage 3" is akin to Hafens' "Stage 2" and Peck's "Stage 4" is aking to Hafens' "Stage 3."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

You, on the other hand, have summarily believed my position to be "delusional" and a "fantasy."  How's that for typifying confirmation bias?

It is disingenuous of you to harp on my comment of delusion and fantasy when I retracted it more than once.

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is disingenuous of you to harp on my comment of delusion and fantasy when I retracted it more than once.

No sin is ever forgotten by some.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It is disingenuous of you to harp on my comment of delusion and fantasy when I retracted it more than once.

 I took your accusation of confirmation by us as a returning to that particular strain of thought.

 I have many many times affirmed the concept reasonable minds disagreeing aboit's disagreeing about all sorts of things, including important things.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

 I took your accusation of confirmation by us as a returning to that particular strain of thought.

 I have many many times affirmed the concept reasonable minds disagreeing aboit's disagreeing about all sorts of things, including important things.

You took it wrong.  In fact I don't see how you connect the two.  So It is still disingenuous. Even more so. Maybe my comment was as well.  It is always interesting to me how Latter day Saint rejoice when someone converts from another religion, leaving behind perhaps a life of faith and tradition as well as family devotion to join the church. Yet when someone leaves it seems like the leave taker is somehow flawed. Reconversion I see the same way.  And sure I get that you all believe the LDS Church is God's only true and living church.  So I guess it makes sense.  I was the same way.  Yet is reflect and incredible bias and prevents the ability to empathize.  

By the way at least in my experience in the LDS Church people rarely come back.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Teancum

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You took it wrong.  In fact I don't see how you connect the two.  So It is still disingenuous. Even more so. Maybe my comment was as well.  

I'm confused.  You previously disparaged me as "delusional" and living in a "fantasy" because I disagree with you about the "ultimate issues" (existence of God, etc.), and you then retracted that disparagement.  Okay.  

But then you come to this thread and publicly accuse me of "confirmation bias" because I enjoyed an article about "reconversion" narratives.  You also falsely claimed I "think those who lose their faith are maybe not sincere and really don't have good reasons for concluding the LDS truth claims are bogus."

We've never met, but you presume to tell me, what I think and what my motives are.  And these imputed thoughts and motives are - surprise! - yucky.  That seemed like a return to your old form.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is always interesting to me how Latter day Saint rejoice when someone converts from another religion,

Yes.  Because we genuinely believe that the Restored Gospel is what it claims to be.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

leaving behind perhaps a life of faith and tradition as well as family devotion to join the church.

Poppycock.  

On March 8, 2000, President Hinckley participated in a Q&A in the National Press Club in Washington D.C. A transcript is available here. An excerpt:

Quote

Q. How should members of the church respond to efforts of some other religious groups to convert them to other beliefs and religions?

A. Well, I say this: We don't downgrade any religion. We recognize the good they all do. I say to those of other faiths: 'You bring all the good that you have and let us see if we can add to it.' Now that's our attitude reduced to a very short statement, and it works.

President Hinckley made a substantively similar point during a speech at BYU in 1997 and during an interview with Larry King in 1998.

I think this sentiment comports with and reiterates Joseph Smith's statement: "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may."

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yet when someone leaves it seems like the leave taker is somehow flawed.  Reconversion I see the same way.  

There is no great mystery here.  We believe the Church holds exclusivistic authority and truth claims.  These things manifest in some wonderful ways: living prophets and apostles, an open canon, proper authority, temple work, and so on.

We celebrate when a person joins the flock, and we celebrate when a person re-joins the flock.  How is this surprising?  How is this objectionable?

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And sure I get that you all believe the LDS Church is God's only true and living church.  So I guess it makes sense.  

Then why hector us about it?

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I was the same way.  Yet is reflect and incredible bias and prevents the ability to empathize.  

Says the guy who, it seems, reflexively insults people who disagree with him because they disagree with him.  

As I said nearly two years ago:

Quote

{W}e need to acknowledge that we have invited scrutiny of the claims of the Church.  Consequently, we need to accommodate the possibility of members of the Church coming to a conclusion that those claims are not what they claim to be.  We need to allow that.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

Again, this does not sound like someone overwhelmed with "confirmation bias" that destroys "the ability to empathize."  This sort of armchair psychoanalysis seems not to far afield from your earlier disparagements and insults.

Again, I am acknowledging that both sides have substantive and reasonable points to make.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

By the way at least in my experience in the LDS Church people rarely come back.

That would be an interesting sociological study.  What percentage of currently active Latter-day Saints have spent an appreciable amount of time "away" from the Church?  Offhand I can thing of many of my acquaintance who fall into this category.  A friend in my ward spent most of his adult life away from the Church, then returned and has served in many callings, attends the temple regularly, and so on.  Another friend in my ward spent, IIRC, 15+ years away from the Church.  He returned for the last decade of his life and died in full fellowship.  My wife's great-grandfather left the Church for some time but was persuaded to return by a member of his stake presidency: Spencer W. Kimball.  

There are, of course, many who do not return.  Returning to full activity and fellowship is a big ask.  A real commitment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 2, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Poppycock

Smac, does a Baptist who converts to the Restored Gospel remain a Baptist?  If not, aren’t they leaving behind a faith with its beliefs and traditions they were possibly devoted to?

[LoudmouthMormon]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That would be an interesting sociological study.  What percentage of currently active Latter-day Saints have spent an appreciable amount of time "away" from the Church?  Offhand I can thing of many of my acquaintance who fall into this category.  A friend in my ward spent most of his adult life away from the Church, then returned and has served in many callings, attends the temple regularly, and so on.  Another friend in my ward spent, IIRC, 15+ years away from the Church.  He returned for the last decade of his life and died in full fellowship.  My wife's great-grandfather left the Church for some time but was persuaded to return by a member of his stake presidency: Spencer W. Kimball.  

I can add my anecdote to that list.

My inactive Jack-mormon mom sent young me to church, and my areligious dad allowed it.  From age 7-15 I rode my bike to church, or sometimes got rides.  I became a surly unbelieving teenager, and would take off with friends after sacrament meeting to go get donuts, telling my mom I had been to "Brother Winchell's".   I declined to go on a mission, and went inactive shortly after becoming an elder, because I could finally get away with it.  From ~18-24, I was happily inactive and unbelieving. 

In college, I came within a few credit hours of a minor in philosophy, looking for the answers to all of life's great questions.  The experience only helped me clarify the questions.  My step sister tried to get me into her various things, they all lacked something.  I envied my LDS friends and family, both their kindness, and their professed confidence in knowing God was real.  I had maybe a 50/50 split in LDS/non-LDS friends and peers, and while both groups were full of idealistic youth, the quiet confidence and assuredness on what to rest a life on, was missing with the nonLDS folks - even the religious ones.

So starting around age ~24-ish, I started reading the BoM.  I grabbed Alma 32:27, and Moroni 10:4, and ran with them.  

Quote

Alma 32:27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

Moroni 10:4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 

Most every afternoon after school and work.  For around a year.  The result of that effort was an undeniable series of unique spiritual experiences that formed the foundation of my testimony, and has kept me strong in the church for over two decades now.

[longview]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Poppycock

Smac, does a Baptist who converts to the Restored Gospel remain a Baptist?  If not, aren’t they leaving behind a faith with its beliefs and traditions they were possibly devoted to?

Of course not.  Converts do not totally repudiate their background experiences.  It is perfectly fine for them to have fond memories of their previous associations and experiences.  No doubt they learned some truths in the past that were AMPLIFIED and REINFORCED upon entry into the true fold.

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Smac, does a Baptist who converts to the Restored Gospel remain a Baptist?  

Nominally, no.  In terms of character and attributes, light and knowledge, I would think and hope that he would bring the best parts of the Baptist faith with him.

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

If not, aren’t they leaving behind a faith with its beliefs and traditions they were possibly devoted to?

Not really.  Consider this excerpt from the missionary experiences of the Sons of Mosiah (Alma 17) :

Quote

1 And now it came to pass that as Alma was journeying from the land of Gideon southward, away to the land of Manti, behold, to his astonishment, he met with the sons of Mosiah journeying towards the land of Zarahemla.

2 Now these sons of Mosiah were with Alma at the time the angel first appeared unto him; therefore Alma did rejoice exceedingly to see his brethren; and what added more to his joy, they were still his brethren in the Lord; yea, and they had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God.

...

6 Now these were their journeyings: Having taken leave of their father, Mosiah, in the first year of the judges; having refused the kingdom which their father was desirous to confer upon them, and also this was the minds of the people;

7 Nevertheless they departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and took their swords, and their spears, and their bows, and their arrows, and their slings; and this they did that they might provide food for themselves while in the wilderness.

8 And thus they departed into the wilderness with their numbers which they had selected, to go up to the land of Nephi, to preach the word of God unto the Lamanites.

9 And it came to pass that they journeyed many days in the wilderness, and they fasted much and prayed much that the Lord would grant unto them a portion of his Spirit to go with them, and abide with them, that they might be an instrument in the hands of God to bring, if it were possible, their brethren, the Lamanites, to the knowledge of the truth, to the knowledge of the baseness of the traditions of their fathers, which were not correct.

When the Lamanites converted, did they leave the entirety of their worldview behind and adopt another?  Likely not.  I think the conversion process requires all of us to sort through our lives and separate those things which are "not correct" and leave them behind.

So it was with the many, many wonderful Chinese people I met on my mission in Taiwan.  Many of the precepts and cultural elements of Buddhism and Daoism (jointly the predominant faiths on the island) are quite compatible with the Restored Gospel.  When I was there the Church was working with members on how to approach what in English is called "ancestor worship" or "ancestor veneration."  See here:

Quote

For many ethnic Chinese, ancestor worship is more important than Buddhism, Taoism or other faiths. Christianity’s opposition to ancestor worship is one reason why the faith hasn’t gained much ground in Taiwan. The key point of ancestor worship is that living descendants provide those who’ve passed away with the means for a happy existence in the afterlife. Ancestors are both loved and feared; if neglected by their sons or grandsons (daughters are expected to marry and make offerings to their husbands’ ancestors), they may deliberately harm their descendants. Ancestor shrines can be found in many households, sometimes in the front living room, often upstairs.

And here:

Quote

Ancestor worship (拜祖), also ancestor veneration (敬祖), is a religious practice based on the belief that one's ancestors possess supernatural powers. All cultures attach ritual significance to the passing of loved ones, but this is not equivalent to ancestor worship. Rather, ancestor worship involves the same sort of religious practices one sees when people appease or supplicate other entities thought to exist and possess supernatural powers, such as gods, angels, saints, or demons. While far from universal, ancestor worship or ancestor veneration occurs in societies with every degree of social, political, and technological complexity, and it remains an important component of various religious practices in modern times.

As you can see, the concept of "ancestor worship" is treated almost interchangeably with "ancestor veneration."  But the Church draws a distinction.  See here:

Quote

As elsewhere in the world, the restored gospel in Taiwan often generates cultural friction with deeply ingrained religious and family traditions. About 93 percent of the citizenry practices some combination of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, with a heavy emphasis on ancestor worship. However, Taiwan has complete religious freedom, and about a million people adhere to various Christian sects and denominations.

Doctrinal issues aside, basic patterns of religious life in Taiwan are often quite foreign to Christian ways—Latter-day Saint ways included. “Typically, Chinese are not very religious in the Western sense of being conscious of membership in a particular church or a specific congregation,” writes Latter-day Saint author R. Lanier Britsch. “Nor are they accustomed to attending weekly worship services. Chinese religion is family-oriented and often home-centered. Local gods and spirits play major roles in most lives, as do fortune-telling, tea leaf reading, and reverence for the spirits of dead ancestors. Respect for dead ancestors and the rituals involved in paying honor to them are important to almost all Chinese.”

...

Because many Taiwanese converts are younger adults, Church leaders are particularly sensitive to parental issues. “We encourage people investigating the Church to talk to their parents and tell them what they are learning about,” says Yeh Chen Meng, president of the Kaohsiung stake. “It’s important that parents see the difference the gospel makes in their children’s lives.”

Karl Robert Koerner, who served a mission to Taiwan more than 30 years ago and recently served as president of the Taichung mission, has given much thought to the practice of ancestor worship. “When Taiwanese people join the Church, they stop worshiping other gods, but there may be some practices that are hard to stop. This is because of family expectations and pressure and a desire on the member’s part to obey another commandment, that of honoring your father and mother,” President Koerner says.

Yang Tsung Ting, president of the Taipei West stake, explains, “Most Taiwanese parents expect that when they die, their children will burn paper money and incense for them and offer food. Otherwise they fear they will be hungry and poor in the next life. That is why older people sometimes panic when they see their young people join the Church.”
...
For President Koerner, the crucial difference lies in a person’s inner purpose and intent rather than in his or her outward performance. “Showing respect for and honoring our deceased loved ones is in complete harmony with gospel principles, but what to one person is a religious and spiritual ritual to another is simply a way of showing respect to deceased ancestors, no more a religious ritual than the custom of placing flowers on a grave. For example, two people could be performing what appears to be the same rite of ancestor worship, each bowing reverently several times before a wooden tablet listing the names of deceased relatives. The one could easily be in harmony with the precepts of the gospel, while the other is in opposition to what the Lord has commanded.”

In a letter to Asian Church leaders dated 8 April 1975, President Ezra Taft Benson wrote: “The important thing is that the person be taught, as part of his conversion to the gospel, that he no longer worships shrines and altars and ancestors, but he pays his devotions and offers his prayers to God, our Eternal Father, in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ.”

“Church members emphasize ancestors but in a different way,” says President Yang Tsung Ting. “We do family history work, submit names to the temple, and perform ordinances for their eternal benefit.” The tablets listing deceased relatives are a good source for genealogical research.

Juan Jui Chang, first counselor in the Taichung stake presidency, enjoyed a powerful experience performing temple ordinances for his deceased parents. “Though I had been attending the temple for more than 13 years at that point,” President Juan says, “I felt the Spirit more strongly than ever while performing the work for my parents. In the sealing room, I represented my father and my wife represented my mother, and we knelt together at the altar. We felt it was the greatest thing we could do for our parents.”

In an address delivered during the dedication of the Taipei Taiwan Temple in November 1984, President Gordon B. Hinckley noted that the temple was built on land previously occupied by a prison. “This house,” he said, “built on what was once prison property, will open the doors of the veil of death.”

“Some of us see a connection between ways of Chinese worshiping and the ceremonies done in the Old Testament,” says President Juan Jui Chang. “One example is the traditional Chinese doorway, which has red posts along the sides and top, similar to what the Jews did at Passover so the angel would fly over them. The Chinese character for boat shows an arklike vessel and eight people, perhaps some connection to the flood story. Chinese shrines and temples have an inner court and an outer court, and offerings are made similar to ancient Israel’s practices. We need to help people see that the gospel is not something foreign to Taiwanese culture but something we already know pieces of.”

President Groberg says, “The Chinese culture has many similarities to the gospel in that the general emphasis is on truth, beauty, kindness, family, and other positive attributes. The opportunities this presents to the Church are apparent in that we are dealing with people whose mind-set is not that much different than our own when it comes to cultural values. The problem is that they generally feel they don’t need the gospel because they already have the same value system in place. At times they feel that Westerners are trying to invade their culture with something that isn’t too different from what they have already had in place for centuries. The Church has the opportunity to help them learn about every mortal’s need for the Savior and his plan of salvation.”

I have long appreciated the Church's nuanced and respectful stance on things like this.  There are some elements of every culture that are incompatible with being a disciple of Jesus Christ.  We are therefore all called upon, in varying ways and degrees, to abandon "the traditions of {our} fathers, which {are} not correct."  But there are many other cultural traditions and principles that can and ought to be retained and adapted in the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

On 11/1/2021 at 11:08 AM, smac97 said:

I think the Hafens' theory of tripartite faith progression is useful here:

I think it can be. I think my main issue with many of these "faith progression" concepts is that we tend to ascribe "better" status to later stages. Someone who is in Hafens' stage 3 is "better" than one still in stage 1 or one who failed to bridge the gap between 1 and 3. As long as we avoid "ranking" these stages into better or worse, I agree that they can be useful to understanding how different people react differently to the same information and circumstances.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

We believe the Church holds exclusivistic authority and truth claims.

Which leads me to hold up my hand and ask that you not necessarily include me in this "we". I know that the Church makes certain exclusivistic claims, but I'm not entirely convinced that I believe them. Perhaps everyone's path to salvation and exaltation goes through the Church, whether in this life or the next. Because the parts that require the Church and its priesthood can be done after death, I don't believe that everyone's path to salvation and exaltation necessarily goes through the Church in this life. Because of some of the difficult issues, I have no problem believing that some people's path to salvation and exaltation goes through a deconversion stage without necessarily needing a reconversion stage. Again, I am happy for those who reconvert and find their stories interesting, but I don't want to come to believe that those who reconvert are somehow "better" than those who stay deconverted.

From the Saints Unscripted video, the thing that struck me was his comparison to marriage. I recall making a similar comparison in another group (https://thirdhour.org/forums/topic/68053-marriage-to-the-lord/?tab=comments#comment-1030106  ) using Dr. Gottman's four horsemen (and other principles). Looking through the d'Evegnees' op-ed in the OP, I think you can see some of the same kind of relational terms and ideas. Sometimes, I think about it in the direction of David Schnarch's ideas of differentiation and emotional fusion and validation and such. Not speaking for everyone, but the way I see the process of deconversion is that a person has beliefs that are different from the Church's (*) beliefs. When those differences exist, the Church and the person have to decide how to deal with these differences. Sometimes, just as in marriages, the differences are too great to permit the relationship to continue.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think it can be. I think my main issue with many of these "faith progression" concepts is that we tend to ascribe "better" status to later stages. Someone who is in Hafens' stage 3 is "better" than one still in stage 1 or one who failed to bridge the gap between 1 and 3. As long as we avoid "ranking" these stages into better or worse, I agree that they can be useful to understanding how different people react differently to the same information and circumstances.

I dunno.  I can't help but think that Hafens' Stage 3 is "better" than its predecessors.  

Look at the progression in a different context, say, a marriage.  I'm coming up on my 25th anniversary next month.  When I was first married I was pretty clearly in "Stage 1" ("Innocent and Untested") relative to my affection for my wife and my posture towards the institution of marriage generally.  My wife and I are both pretty decent people, but we nevertheless had to transition into "Stage 2" ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real").  We had to juxtapose the broad abstract praiseworthiness of being married to each other with, well, financial struggles, health problems, children, differences of opinion, disagreements and arguments, and so on.  Nevertheless, we have been hanging on and are, I hope, transitioning into "Stage 3" ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience").  I love my wife more now than I did when I first married her.  I know her better, and vice versa.  I am more aware of her flaws and shortcomings, and she of mine.  The naive and idealized perception I had of her has given way to a more nuanced, and deeper, and stronger, appreciation and affection and regard, and an even greater desire to be a good husband to her.

So for me and my marriage, "Stage 3" is "better" because it is where I think I am supposed to be.  I think most of us can't stay in Stage 1, and the turbulence and difficulties encountered in Stage 2 make that one more transitory.  If this is the way of things as to my relationship with my wife, ought it not also be the way of things as to my relationship with the Lord and His Church?

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Which leads me to hold up my hand and ask that you not necessarily include me in this "we". I know that the Church makes certain exclusivistic claims, but I'm not entirely convinced that I believe them.

Okay.  By "we" I meant the Church generally.

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps everyone's path to salvation and exaltation goes through the Church, whether in this life or the next.

Well, not quite.  D&C 137 is hugely influential on this point.  "{A}ll children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven."  "All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God."  

"The Church" is, in my view, the inchoate Kingdom of God.  It is the Lord's Church, and I think its exclusivistic claims make sense in the grand scheme of things.  See here:

Quote

Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has written: “With the millennial advent, the kingdom of God on earth will step forth and exercise political jurisdiction over all the earth as well as ecclesiastical jurisdiction over its own citizens. When the saints pray … ‘Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven’ (Matt. 6:10), they are petitioning the Father to send the political or millennial kingdom so that complete righteousness, both civically and religiously, will prevail on earth” (Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966., p. 500; see also LDS Bible Dictionary, s.v. “kingdom of heaven,” p. 721).

In like manner, the Prophet Joseph Smith prayed: “Wherefore, may the kingdom of God go forth, that the kingdom of heaven may come, that thou, O God, mayest be glorified in heaven so on earth” (D&C 65:6).

Earlier in this dispensation, in anticipating the day when the Savior would preside over his earthly kingdom, Church leaders made a distinction between the Church and the coming kingdom of heaven, which they sometimes referred to then as the “kingdom of God.” For example, Elder George Q. Cannon of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said, “We are asked, Is the Church of God, and the Kingdom of God the same organization? and we are informed that some of the brethren hold that they are separate.

“This is the correct view to take. The Kingdom of God is a separate organization from the Church of God. There may be men acting as officers in the Kingdom of God who will not be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On this point the Prophet Joseph gave particular instructions before his death, and gave an example, which he asked the younger elders who were present to always remember. It was to the effect that men might be chosen to officiate as members of the Kingdom of God who had no standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Kingdom of God when established [during the Millennium] will not be for the protection of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints alone, but for the protection of all men, whatever their religious views or opinions may be” (History of the Church, 7:382).

On 8 July 1855 President Brigham Young said that the millennial kingdom “grows out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it is not the church; for a man may be a legislator in that body which will issue laws to sustain the inhabitants of the earth in their individual rights and still not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ at all” (ibid.).

If there are other "moving parts" in the Lord's plan, I look forward to understanding how they interact with the Church.  

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Because the parts that require the Church and its priesthood can be done after death, I don't believe that everyone's path to salvation and exaltation necessarily goes through the Church in this life.

I see your point, but I don't really agree with the distinction.  Jesus Christ is the sole means of salvation.  I believe He established the Church to prepare the earth for His return.  I have a hard time looking at the Church's missionary program, the family history work, the organization of the Church, the temples, the saving ordinances, etc., and then speculate about whether the Savior has in mind deliberately telling someone who encounters these things to not embrace and accept and live them.  

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Because of some of the difficult issues, I have no problem believing that some people's path to salvation and exaltation goes through a deconversion stage without necessarily needing a reconversion stage.

"Reconversion" to what?

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Again, I am happy for those who reconvert and find their stories interesting, but I don't want to come to believe that those who reconvert are somehow "better" than those who stay deconverted.

It's not a contest between individuals.  It's a contest between who the individual is today and who they want to be tomorrow.

A person who accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ and lives according to the commandments and the covenants is "better" than if he did not do these things.

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

From the Saints Unscripted video, the thing that struck me was his comparison to marriage. I recall making a similar comparison in another group (https://thirdhour.org/forums/topic/68053-marriage-to-the-lord/?tab=comments#comment-1030106  ) using Dr. Gottman's four horsemen (and other principles). Looking through the d'Evegnees' op-ed in the OP, I think you can see some of the same kind of relational terms and ideas. Sometimes, I think about it in the direction of David Schnarch's ideas of differentiation and emotional fusion and validation and such. Not speaking for everyone, but the way I see the process of deconversion is that a person has beliefs that are different from the Church's (*) beliefs.

For some, sure.  But there are plenty of people for whom "deconversion" encompasses a lot more than "beliefs."

I just had a friend email me and tell me she has left the Church for a few different reasons, only a very few of which pertain to the actual doctrines of the Church.

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

When those differences exist, the Church and the person have to decide how to deal with these differences.

Yep.  John 6 is a good example of that.

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Sometimes, just as in marriages, the differences are too great to permit the relationship to continue.

Hence the value of covenants.  I want to keep my covenants with God.  For reasons I do not entirely understand, He administers those covenants through His Church.  I view membership in the Lord's Church as an integral component of those covenants.

Jesus Christ, being perfect, has not, cannot, break His covenants to us.  Contrarily, we can.  "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."  (D&C 82:10.)  This is why I don't see the mistakes, omissions, errors, etc. of the Church as dealbreakers.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then it is the imperfect means by which the Lord administers the affairs of His nascent kingdom.  If I break with the Church, if I break my covenants, then that is on me.  Not on the Church, and not on the Savior.  Me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 2, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Many of the precepts and cultural elements of Buddhism and Daoism (jointly the predominant faiths on the island) are quite compatible with the Restored Gospel.

Many yes, but many are left behind.  Including some that are very near and dear and hard to give up.  Household Shrines, certain reassuring and comforting prayers and other rituals such as partaking of mass, religious jewelry and clothing (in the past missionaries were reported as taking away converts’ crosses or insisting an ancestor’s shrine be taken down), beautiful buildings to worship in, etc.

It is not easy to walk away from rituals that have been extremely meaningful in one’s life and if they are everywhere in one’s culture, the pull to continue them could be quite strong and painful to leave behind.

 

And if one’s identity is tied into one’s faith deeply, there may be grief in leaving it behind even if there is also joy in their conversion.

 

Think of it like moving to a new country because it is a better situation for one’s family while never expecting to return, leaving the land where one was born and thought one would live forever and never wanted to be anywhere else…until one learned that there was a better place.  It can be very hard moving away from one’s homeland and it may take quite awhile to feel like one truly belongs and is accepted in one’s new home.  Some never do.

Treating the differences as trivial just because there are common features is likely to result in greater feelings of alienation for some in their new faith rather than making them feel welcome.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Calm

[poptart]

On 11/1/2021 at 9:53 AM, smac97 said:

I have a good friend who left the Church a few years back.  She and her husband both grew up in the Church.  He served a mission, they met at a Church school, they married in the temple, had a large family, etc.  The husband drifted away first, then the wife.  The "drifing" started when they were living in two heavily-Latter-day Saint areas (southern Idaho and Utah County).  Then they moved to a state and city that have appreciable, but not numerically substantial, numbers of Latter-day Saints.  

My friend and her husband have had some years to develop relationships with "non member, non relative friends."  They've had a hard time of it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Ive had that experience with friends who live in heavy non member areas, in their cases they hid it.  I'm also finding out the LDS relatives I have can be kinda clickish, when visiting the non member relatives one of the first things they asked me was how I felt about the church.  My father hated the LDS church for the dumbest reasons and gave mom no end of hasstle for going to BYUH.  I feel for members, seems like the USA is becoming a lousy place to be a Christian.  At least I try to be kind, people don't appreciate how great you guys are.

[Olmec Donald]

8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think it can be. I think my main issue with many of these "faith progression" concepts is that we tend to ascribe "better" status to later stages... As long as we avoid "ranking" these stages into better or worse, I agree that they can be useful to understanding how different people react differently to the same information and circumstances.

EXCELLENT point!  Thank you for bringing this up.

A ninth grader is not "better" than a third grader.