Great Article Re: "Reconversion" Narratives

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

EXCELLENT point!  Thank you for bringing this up.

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

I don’t know. I know I for one am better than some other people.

 

[Teancum]

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

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.  

 

What is so confusing.  That was another thread.  A few weeks ago.  Why continue to bring it up?  I retracted. More than once. 

 

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

But then you come to this thread and publicly accuse me of "confirmation bias" because I  posted an article about "reconversion" narratives. 

Yes.  So? I think a number of comments on this post reflect that bias.

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

 

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."

So to you think those who leave the LDS Church over a conclusion that its claims are false are sincere?  Is that a valid reason to leave.

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

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.

No we have never met but I have seen enough of your posts and interacted with you enough to know quite a bit about your view.

As for returning to old form, I did not call you delusional or that your post was fantasy.  So leave it behind.

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

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

Yes.  And this can cause an inability to empathize with perhaps the pain someone converting causes to their loved ones and family.

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

.  

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:

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."

When someone converts they often leave a whole lot of what they thought was truth behind. 

 

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

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.

I understand this. And it makes it difficult to empathize and you are demonstrating that quite well thank you very much.  That's the problem with claims of exclusivity.

 

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

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?

It is ok to celebrate.  But can you celebrate and support someone who honestly comes to a conclusion that leads them out of the church. Do you appreciate how painful that process is for someone who has committed their life to the church.  And can you appreciate that it takes courage to act on their honest conclusion.  Do you still reach out and support them without the intention of reconverting them.  Do you accept them as they are? 

 

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

Then why hector us about it?

Oh my goodness. Lighten up. This is a discussion board. Are you looking for an echo chamber?

 

 

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

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

Are you feeling picked on by me? How is discussing insulting? 

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

As I said nearly two years ago:

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.

Ok great!  I stand corrected.

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, 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 did not say nobody comes back. I said I think few do.  And as I recall in many leadership training programs it often seemed that reactivation attempts did not bear much fruit.  

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

So why is it a real commitment and a big ask?  Is it a big commitment to leave and a big ask?  It has been for me and for others I know who left. It upended much of our lives. It has been scary. There is a great loss there. 

There has been little to no attempt by ward members to reach out and continue to hold out a hand of friendship.  Only a few close friends who I spent a lot of time talking to when I was going through my faith transition still socialize with me. And they are in a different ward.

And do they not return because it is a big commitment and ask or because they have found the church not to be what it claims?

 

[Teancum]

On 11/1/2021 at 9:07 PM, 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.

It was entirely a different comment.  Or insult as you seem to think.  So here we go. I stand corrected. Yes you have said reasonable minds can disagree. So I overstated your confirmation bias.  Now the question is can you empathize and accept someone who leaves and makes an honest decision to do so. And even still respect them?

[Teancum]

On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, smac97 said:

On 11/2/2021 at 8:55 AM, Teancum said:

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

Poppycock. 

By the way this is not poppycock. It happens all the time.

[BlueDreams]

On 11/1/2021 at 8:27 AM, 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

I was talking to my husband about this the other day. He would fit the description of reconversion…but only 2 of the points (specifically 3 and 5) match up in any meaningful way with his own experience. His shortened story was that he started to disbelieve early on (mid-early teens) and his parents for a couple years insisted he attend. He stopped once they stopped insisting, but there was no sense of isolation. At this point he was probably best described as agnostic. And he’s always been extremely logic oriented (which plays out in funny ways, both in the description of his journey and how he normally receives answer from God). He then began exploring different religions to “understand humans” as he put it. At some point he began re-studying the church and re-read the Book of Mormon. He decided to  try out the whole praying to see if there really was a god after reading Moroni. And he got a solid answer yes. And the rest moved from there. 
 

Anyway, talking to him makes me think that this specific version of reconversion may best fit those who’s deconversion already fits certain narratives for losing faith. My guess is how one reconverts likely varies based on what the experience of losing faith was in the first place. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It was entirely a different comment.  Or insult as you seem to think.  So here we go. I stand corrected. Yes you have said reasonable minds can disagree. So I overstated your confirmation bias. 

Mindreading is not your strong suit.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Now the question is can you empathize and accept someone who leaves and makes an honest decision to do so. And even still respect them?

Certainly.  Have done.  Many times.  Will do.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[kimpearson]

I have been a member of this Church for a long time (60 years).  My experience tells me that many of those who went inactive prior to the 2000's, left for reasons such issues with members of the ward, teenage and young adult rebellion against all the rules and a general loss of belief.  Hardly anyone left because of history issues, polygamy, LGBTQ issues, Book of Mormon historicity issues, patriarchy issues and other very specific issues.  I haven't read the re-conversion stories discussed in this article but I have heard many re-conversion stories personally.  Those re-conversion stories almost always came from those who left because of issues with members, rebellion against all the rules and general loss of belief.  I can't recall one re-conversion story of those who left for very specific issues.   I believe the possibilities of re-conversion are directly related to the original reason for leaving the church.  

I would also point out that with as many members as there are currently, you can always find some members who will have the story you are looking for such as re-conversion.  I would be much more interested in the percentage of people who leave who eventually come back.  I am sure the Church has that data based on many years as a clerk.  I often wonder why the Church doesn't make such data available but then I remember the general authorities will share nothing that might shed a negative light on the Church.

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I would be much more interested in the percentage of people who leave who eventually come back.  I am sure the Church has that data based on many years as a clerk.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a bit dated, but this is what is reported therein:

Quote

About 75 percent of lifelong Latter-day Saints experience a period of inactivity lasting a year or more. The process of disengagement most commonly begins sometime between the ages of fourteen and twenty. Of those who leave, 60 percent return to active participation between their mid-twenties and late thirties, when they marry and begin a family. Some Latter-day Saints who had stopped attending church were asked to list the reasons why they had left. Lifestyle issues and problems of social integration were mentioned most frequently. More than half said they had found other interests that led them to spend less and less time in Church-related activities; 42 percent reported that they felt their lifestyle was no longer compatible with participation in the Church; 40 percent said they did not feel as if they belonged or fit in; and 25 percent said they felt it did not matter to anyone whether they attended or not. Less frequently mentioned reasons included moving to a new community, work-schedule conflicts, poor health, marriage to an inactive member or marriage outside the Church, and conflicts with Church members, programs, or doctrines.

For those who convert to the Church as teenagers or adults, the period of greatest risk for inactivity is the first year or two after joining the Church (see Conversion). About 70 percent of the new Latter-day Saint converts in the United States who do become inactive stop attending within three to five years after joining the Church. Of those who drop out, 45 percent return to active participation in five to ten years. Activity among these converts is influenced by (1) the personal characteristics of the convert, such as religious background, age, and marital status; (2) how personally involved the convert was in the investigation process, such as experiencing the Spirit of God and attending Church worship services; and (3) the extent to which the convert developed social relationships with other Latter-day Saints both before and after baptism.

 

[kimpearson]

Hamba Tuhan, you are backing up my point about changing times.  All the information in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism comes from the 1980's.  What's going on today 40 years later.

[Teancum]

On 11/3/2021 at 9:14 PM, smac97 said:

Mindreading is not your strong suit.

 

Nor yours.  You have a bit a pot and kettle thing going on here.

 

Now the question is can you empathize and accept someone who leaves and makes an honest decision to do so. And even still respect them?

On 11/3/2021 at 9:14 PM, smac97 said:

Certainly.  Have done.  Many times.  Will do.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Wonderful. 

[MrShorty]

On 11/2/2021 at 1:58 PM, smac97 said:

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?

I agree that there is more nuance to this than my comment might have suggested. A lot of this "better" gets tied up in our beliefs around divorce, though, and what "justifies" divorce. As I have been around the topic, I find that I am a poor judge of what constitutes justifiable grounds for divorce, especially if I believe that I must shoehorn those reasons into one of the three A's (I was really disappointed when the "does sexual inactivity justify divorce thread from a month or so ago got shut down before it could really get started). I am glad that you and your wife are staying married and moving into a stage 3 type of relationship. I'm not entirely convinced that every marriage ought to do so -- that sometimes, divorce separation is the better choice, and I am a poor judge of which path is truly better.

In short, I see a problem with: "You got divorced because of _______?! That's a stupid reason to divorce."

I also see a problem with: "You deconverted from (and didn't reconvert to) the Church because of ______?! That's a stupid reason to deconvert without reconverting."

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I agree that there is more nuance to this than my comment might have suggested. A lot of this "better" gets tied up in our beliefs around divorce, though, and what "justifies" divorce.

Okay.  I was not speaking of "better" in the context of divorce.  I was speaking of "better" in terms of my marital relationship becoming "better" than it was before.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

As I have been around the topic, I find that I am a poor judge of what constitutes justifiable grounds for divorce, especially if I believe that I must shoehorn those reasons into one of the three A's (I was really disappointed when the "does sexual inactivity justify divorce thread from a month or so ago got shut down before it could really get started).

I have heard of the three I's: incompatibility, infidelity, and irreconcilable differences.  What are the "three A's"?

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I am glad that you and your wife are staying married and moving into a stage 3 type of relationship.

So am I.  But I hope that does not convey the message that I presume to judge anyone else's marital relationship, or the dissolution thereof.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not entirely convinced that every marriage ought to do so -- that sometimes, divorce separation is the better choice,

I agree.  Similarly, excommunication is sometimes "the better choice."

Is a person volitionally leaving the Church ever a "better choice" than remaining?  That would be an interesting discussion, IMO.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

and I am a poor judge of which path is truly better.

I have seen plenty of divorces that are plainly justified.  In such circumstances, I empathize.

I have also seen plenty of divorces where the basis for the divorce seems iffy (often due to lack of information).  In such circumstances, I refrain from reaching any conclusion one way or the other.  And I empathize.  And I generally remain silent about the propriety fo the divorce.

I have also seen plenty of divorces where the basis is fairly trivial.  That is, the marriage could have been salvaged but for intervening factors that push the dissolution forward.  In such circumstances, I empathize.  And I generally remain silent about the propriety fo the divorce.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

In short, I see a problem with: "You got divorced because of _______?! That's a stupid reason to divorce."

I generally agree about saying such things.  I am generally not situated to speak to the propriety of a divorce.  There doesn't seem much point to second-guessing something that has already happened.  There may be limited circumstances where someone within my stewardship asks for input about whether to get a divorce.  I would give advice in that circumstance, but only if solicited to do so.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I also see a problem with: "You deconverted from (and didn't reconvert to) the Church because of ______?! That's a stupid reason to deconvert without reconverting."

Again, I generally agree about saying such things.  If someone is not within my stewardship, and/or if someone has not solicited my input about their decision, I would not presume to express an opinion about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2021 by smac97

[MrShorty]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have heard of the three I's: incompatibility, infidelity, and irreconcilable differences.  What are the "three A's"?

I think it was Pres. Faust who put them all together once -- Addiction, Adultery, Abuse. These tend to be a bit more restrictive than your three I's.

[Thinking]

On 11/1/2021 at 7:27 AM, smac97 said:

I think one point of language that "influences our perceived choices" is the "I know" narrative.

It was as if somebody who said "I believe..." had a weaker testimony than somebody who said "I know..."

Edited November 5, 2021 by Thinking

[The Nehor]

On 11/5/2021 at 4:30 PM, Thinking said:

It was as if somebody who said "I believe..." had a weaker testimony than somebody who said "I know..."

Belief has become such a watered down word because it can mean anything from a heartfelt conviction to a position on an issue the person knows nothing about and just learned existed. I would say that “I am convinced” more than “I believe” because of the weakness of the concept of belief. I acknowledge that some people are on the ‘weaker’ end of belief where they like what they heard and want to believe and there is nothing repellant about being in that stage.

I might qualify as someone who can say “I know”. I have no idea where the dividing line is on what qualifies as knowledge.

[Canadiandude]

On 11/3/2021 at 7:14 PM, smac97 said:

Certainly.  Have done.  Many times.  Will do.  

From what I’ve witnessed on here?

I doubt that very much.

[OGHoosier]

On 11/7/2021 at 7:55 PM, Canadiandude said:

From what I’ve witnessed on here?

I doubt that very much.

No need for that.

[CV75]

On 11/3/2021 at 9:57 PM, kimpearson said:

I have been a member of this Church for a long time (60 years).  My experience tells me that many of those who went inactive prior to the 2000's, left for reasons such issues with members of the ward, teenage and young adult rebellion against all the rules and a general loss of belief.  Hardly anyone left because of history issues, polygamy, LGBTQ issues, Book of Mormon historicity issues, patriarchy issues and other very specific issues.  I haven't read the re-conversion stories discussed in this article but I have heard many re-conversion stories personally.  Those re-conversion stories almost always came from those who left because of issues with members, rebellion against all the rules and general loss of belief.  I can't recall one re-conversion story of those who left for very specific issues.   I believe the possibilities of re-conversion are directly related to the original reason for leaving the church.  

I would also point out that with as many members as there are currently, you can always find some members who will have the story you are looking for such as re-conversion.  I would be much more interested in the percentage of people who leave who eventually come back.  I am sure the Church has that data based on many years as a clerk.  I often wonder why the Church doesn't make such data available but then I remember the general authorities will share nothing that might shed a negative light on the Church.

Just one person here, but I do know someone who left the Church (not removing name, but stopped participating at all) over LGBT issues and is intently returning. Her basic opinions and feelings haven't changed, but the companionship of the Holy Ghost and the covenants are taking a much high priority after a time away. She refers to it as starting all over again to be sure her testimony is built on genuine communion with God and not family expectations and traditions from the way she was raised in the Church.

Each generation seems to have its own challenges. I do not think our current dynamics for leaving the Church are solely about content, but the juncture of social pressures, information and technology -- so much information to choose from, and those with the strongest incentive and funding to accomplish x, y, z are making the most use of the communication venues available.

I highly doubt the Church has the kind of data you are looking for except from perhaps focus groups, and maybe someone at BYU is conducting a social science research project on it. The GAs would use it in committee to improve policy. I think any "sharing" has more to do with what individuals can do about the identified problem above and beyond the counsel given in General Conference on how to treat others, minister, etc. That's not rocket science, and saving people on that level is very individualized (testimony, ordinances, etc.)  anyway, not policy-driven.

[Stargazer]

On 11/5/2021 at 9:30 PM, Thinking said:

It was as if somebody who said "I believe..." had a weaker testimony than somebody who said "I know..."

How about, "I believe I know that the Church is true." Is that halfway between the two, do you think?

Yes, I'm just playing with you.

Upon due reflection, it's really hard to say whether someone who says "I believe" has a weaker testimony than the one who says "I know." It depends a lot upon what the words mean to the individual expressing them. Some person might associate "knowledge" with the kind of certainty that equates to an angel popping up, or receiving a waking vision from God. To such a person who has received nothing like that, the standard testimony of the Gospel has to be "I believe" and it might be no less strong than my own, though I use the words "I know" and haven't received any visitations of angels or seen any visions.

When I say "I know" it is because I have experienced things that I cannot explain to myself in any way other than God is real, knows who I am, and loves me. This God has impressed upon me a certainty that Jesus really is the Christ, and that the CoJCoLDS is the correct path for all humans.