There’s a whole genre of blog posts and articles out there in Mormon land that analyze precisely why people would leave the Church. I guess this isn’t surprising coming from the rank and file of Church membership, as GAs themselves both address people on the fringe in their Conference talks and make pronouncements about their motives when they leave.
In this post, I thought it would be fun to turn the question around and try to come up with reasons why I think we Church members are so interested in attributing motives to people who leave the Church.
First, people leaving violate the Church’s growth narrative. Although this has dropped off in recent years as growth has flattened out, the Church has for decades liked to trumpet its growth numbers as evidence of truthfulness. We’re the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, rolling forth to fill the whole earth. We’re carrying the gospel “till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear.” We are the church that “will fill North and South America—it will fill the world.” So if the Church is supposed to make all this tremendous progress and experience all this growth, how does it even make sense that people would not only refuse to join, but some who are already members would proactively leave?
Second, they invalidate our choices. Of course we don’t expect all our choices to be validated by the wicked world. It will go on its merry way, embracing tattoos and marijuana and short shorts. We’re well-practiced at standing out by standing up for our unique beliefs and decisions. But we do expect to at least be validated for our difficult choices by people inside the Church. The billions of non-Mormons in the world, most of whom aren’t really familiar with the Church at all, can be excused for ignoring our righteous choices. But when people who are on the inside, who have firsthand knowledge of members’ day-to-day choices and still decide it’s not for them, it can be jarring. We can no longer wave away their invalidation of our choices as being due to ignorance.
Third, they suggest criticisms of Church history or policy might be valid. As with the previous point, we would expect that people outside the Church won’t understand the priesthood/temple ban, polygamy (past or ongoing), or the exclusion policy. After all, having not been in the Church, they haven’t encountered all the excellent apologetic reasons why these things are perfectly okay, and in fact, actually evidence of God’s love. They haven’t learned why what appears to be a male-only priesthood in the Church actually means God loves women more than men, if anything. If only these people were in the Church, we can comfort ourselves by assuming, they could partake of these sweet apologetics, and know the truth about all the so-called “troubling” issues. But how then do we handle the case of people who were in the Church, who had access to all these wonderful explanations, and who still rejected them? The existence of people who leave over Church policies or history suggests that perhaps not everything is as perfectly explainable and settled as we had imagined.
Fourth, we want to sin. Of course this is an accusation that we members often throw at people who leave. I wonder, though, if it isn’t a case of projection. Perhaps we too chafe at Church rules. Maybe we want to get an extra piercing (or even one if men) or try coffee or alcohol. Maybe we wouldn’t mind an 11.1% raise1 (higher if we were tithing on gross) or a less meeting-packed Sunday. It’s possible that we’re not actually completely sure that all the Church rules are completely necessary or even things God cares about. Sure, rape and murder are deeply wrong, but is God really hung up on our piercings or beverage choices? When people leave and get to enjoy these worldly delights, they might call into question whether it’s worth our trouble to follow all the Mormon rules.
__________
1. If you tithe on 100% of your take-home pay, that leaves you with 90% to spend. If you stop tithing, the increase you’ll get is 10%/90% = 11.1%.
Great post. I think the invalidating our choices is a big one. This happens in all areas with human beings. When people aren’t settled, comfortable, and grounded in the choices they make, they feel threatened when others make different choices. But it’s more than that, as you’ve said, it’s when those we perceive in the same group as us make different choices.
You see this when someone in a bar chooses not to drink. Those who are secure and comfortable with their decision to drink might be curious, but there’s no hostility towards the person who isn’t drinking. Likewise, if a mother in the church decides to work out of the home, then other mothers who stay at home may judge her because they didn’t feel they had a real choice not to work. They may not be secure in their decisions and wonder about other options. There are so many applications of these situations.
What’s tricky to parse is when someone is upset because they do feel secure in their decisions but honestly feel that someone else is doing something morally wrong. But even in those cases, the Christian response is to reach out with love and patience. I think expressing well-meaning concern looks very different from how the church and some members speak about those who leave, in such negative terms. My husband and I left over a year ago, and he is nervous to discuss this with his grandparents. We know the conversation will come up and hope the positive relationship we have with them doesn’t change. We completely understand our relatives’ decisions to stay in the church and hope family members can give us the same space and respect to make our decisions. The tribal mentality of the church is so sad.
Everyone knows church members who stay are offended by those who leave, so of course they ascribe motives to the lazy learners who give up on the Gospel
This is an interesting question. I’ve sat through many lessons on activating the inactive where everyone concludes that those who left either chose to get offended or wanted to commit sins. Church members who stay have to ascribe bad motives to those who leave. You’re right that it comes across as defensive. The Church’s truth claims practically require this – only someone who doesn’t care about truth could leave, ergo they are morally weak. It feeds into pride and thinking that you’re better and more righteous for staying. Blame those who leave so those who stay feel like it’s worth the effort.
It’s like being in the popular clique at junior high. You don’t dare leave because they’ll talk about you behind your back. I stayed longer than I should have, just because I didn’t want people to say I chose to get offended and failed to endure to the end.
Thanks for your comments!
Mary, that’s such a great expansion, and much more thoughtful than my original post, which is at least half snark. 🙂 I really like your thinking about separating situations where we’re threatened by others’ choices because we’re unsure of our own from situations where we think someone is doing a morally wrong thing.
MTodd, exactly. People need to just stop choosing to be offended by the leavers.
Melinda, that totally makes sense that you’d stay longer to avoid having people think bad things about you. I’m sorry that it led you to staying longer than you should have.
We are comparative so we are very inclined to find reasons to distinguish ourselves from others.
And it seems like some of the recent language limits the alternatives to poor motives: lax disciples, lazy learners, choose to believe. The implication seems to be that if a person leaves they are choosing not to believe.
In contrast, I recall Elder Uchtdorf stating in October 2013:
“One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”
Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.”
He goes on to talk about respect for others’ agency. I recall from a podcast that just prior to the talk he reportedly had read an eye-opening study on the reasons people leave.
Great Uchtdorf quote, Dub. I guess like with so many other things, the norms really come from the top. It’s unfortunate that President Nelson didn’t choose to retain him as a counselor.
I just returned to the church after over 30 years of inactivity. I am asked what made the difference as everyone has a child, friend, etc. they are praying about and trying to activate. Just as there is not one reason I left, there are even more reasons on why I came back. I have done my best to explain timing and healing that needed to happen…I don’t think that answers their question but I’m now the poster child for “Returning”! Go figure, LOL 🙂
Thanks for your comment, LAGirrrl!