Ex-Mormon Narratives and Pastoral Apologetics Seth Payne Introduction The personal exit from any organization, especially those which aresociallycontroversial,tendstoproduceaveryspecifictypeof narrativeorstorywhichgivesanaccountoftheindividual’sexpe- rience within, and eventual withdrawal from, the organization. This is especially true in the case of modern Mormonism. Vocal ex-Mormonsareoftenmotivatedtoproduceanddisseminateexit narratives, often written in the context of pop-psychological ter- minology such as recovery (e.g. “Recovery from Mormonism”), whichdescribeinvariouswaystheirvictimizationatthehandsof Mormonism generally and their subsequent movement from be- ing victims to victors.1 Indeed, an entire ex-Mormon movement has emerged in the past eighteen years,2 developing its own unique social structure, language,andcultureintheprocess.Ex-Mormonism,asasub-cul- ture,haslongexistedasasubsetofalarger,andlargelyEvangeli- cal counter-cult movement. This latest ex-Mormon movement or culture, however, is characterized by its mostly secular focus and distrust,ifnotoutrightrejection,ofnotonlyLDSdoctrinalliteral- ismbutmostformsofreligioustheologicalconservatismaswell.3 Recentex-Mormonnarrativesdonotgenerallydescribeaprocess ofwhatsociologicalliteraturewoulddescribeas“leave-taking”or “switching,”butratherfocusonthedescriptionofafundamental shift away from what is perceived as rigid literalism to an un- bounded scientific rationality. In this sense, members of the ex-Mormon movement should be sociologically considered apos- tates,althoughIhesitatetoemploythislabelduetotheextremely negative connotations this word has within the LDS community. 85 86 DIALOGUE:AJOURNALOFMORMONTHOUGHT,46,no.4(Winter2013) The use of a word such a word as apostate in light of its signifi- canceandmeaninginLDSculturemayoversimplifywhatappear to be complexnotions and descriptions of socialand culturales- trangementfound within the narratives of ex-Mormons.The sig- nificanceoftheapostatelabel,asopposed toother formsofreli- gious separation will be discussed below. Thisarticlewillexaminetheex-Mormonnarrativeasnarrative andwillattempttogleaninsightsintothecultureofex-Mormon- ismanditsrelationshiptothemodernLDSChurchfromthisvery specific literary form. This essay is not an attempt to explain the specific reasons why individuals leave (or have left) the LDS Church.Aswillbediscussedbelow,after-the-factnarrativesarein- herently unreliable in establishing the authenticity of actual oc- currence. Rather, this paper seeks to explore the cultural impact and mood of said narratives in an effort to identify areas and is- sues in need of further research and study. Thisarticlewillrelyheavilyonsociologicalliteraturedealing withthe nature ofreligious apostasy.Accordingly,I willbegin by presenting relevant sociological theory and will attempt to place Mormonism, and particularly the modern LDS Church, within thislargerconceptualframework.Inasense,thispaperhasthree purposes: (1)toproperlyidentifymodernMormonism’ssocietal positioning, (2) to explore how this unique positioning leads to thecreationofex-Mormonexitnarratives;and(3)toproposean approach to modern apologetics which is both informed by the culture of ex-Mormonism and meets the unique social and spiri- tual needs of the modern LDS doubter. Perhaps what is more important than understanding the so- ciological context and the unique structure of contemporary ex-Mormon narratives is to appreciate that these narratives are thewordsofrealLatter-daySaintsexpressinggenuinefeelingsof anger, frustration, and hurt caused by their encounter with trou- blingaspectsofLDSculture,doctrine,andhistory.Assuch,Icon- clude this paper with some personal reflections and specific rec- ommendationsonhowmembersoftheChurchofJesusChristof Latter-daySaintscanbebetterequippedto(1)understandthena- ture of doubt, thus developing empathy for those members who leave or consider leaving the Church, and (2) respond appropri- ately to those who struggle. Payne: Ex-Mormon Narratives and Pastoral Apologetics 87 Organization Type and Exit David Bromley identifies three types of organizations and classifies them according to “the degree to which their interests coincide with other organization units in their respective envi- ronmentalfields.”4TheseincludeAllegiant,Contestant,andSub- versive organizations.5 Allegiant organization are “positioned ei- ther as neutrals or coalitional allies” within the host society and “include“therapeutic/medicalorganizations,mainlinechurches, colleges,professionalorganizations,andvariousvoluntaryassoci- ations.” Due to their trusted positioning in society, “allegiant or- ganizations are able to exercise considerable autonomy in con- ductingtheirorganizationalmissions”andboth“externalgroups and internal members will find little need or basis for serious or frequent claimsmaking against the organization.” Contestant organizations have “a moderate level of tension with other organizations in their environments” and mostly in- clude“profit-makingeconomicorganizations.”6Because“contes- tant organizations are dedicated to the pursuit of organizational self-interest” their “environment [is] populated with both allies and opponents.”Consequently, “they are able to exercise limited autonomy in conducting their organizational missions as the le- gitimacyofpursingprivateinterestsisdeeplyembeddedinprop- erty rights and in cultural themes.” Bromley explains: Contestantorganizationsarethereforeinvolvedratherroutinelyin disputeswithotherorganizationsandthesocialexpectationisthat normalcompetitionandconflictwillinvolvetheseorganizationsin an ongoing pattern of claimsmaking. The normative boundaries that constrain unfettered pursuit of organizational interests are those such as “good citizenship”andcommitment to “publicinter- est.” Bromley limits the classification of Contestant organizations tothosethataresubjecttoformalregulationandoversight.How- ever, some exception is made with respect to “independent groupsapproximatingregulatoryagencies”when“restrictionson externalpoliticalregulation”exist.Suchgroupsmayincludecon- servativeChristiancounter-cultmovementswhoseekto“expose” thedoctrinalerrorsofthosegroupswhomtheylabelas“pseudo- Christian.”7 88 DIALOGUE:AJOURNALOFMORMONTHOUGHT,46,no.4(Winter2013) Subversive organizations “have extremely low coincidence of interests with other organizations in their environment” and in fact the term “‘subversive’ is a label employed by opponents spe- cifically to discredit these organizations.”8 There exists a contin- ual and “concerted effort by opponents [of Subversive organiza- tions] to label the organization as dangerous and pathological.” Consequently, “organizations regarded as Subversive are ac- corded virtually no organization legitimacy and therefore face continuousoppositionandconstraintinpursuingorganizational goals.” Bromley contends that Subversive organizations include “controversial alternative religious movements, radical rightist and leftist political movements, and various forms of under- ground economies.” Bromley observes that “all types of organizations experience somerateofparticipantexodus,andexitingparticipantsareapo- tentially important source of information that could be used to discredittheorganization.”9Therefore,organizationshaveincen- tivestocontrolormanagetheexitprocessofmembersasmuchas possible. Bromleyargues that“whatever the nature of individual orsituationalmotivations...organizationsinthelow-tensionpo- sitions are most likely to be able to control the exit process as to preventpublicdispute,whileorganizationsinahigh-tensionposi- tion are much less likely to be able to do so.” Thus, Bromley “[identifies]threedistinctivecontestedexitroles—Defector,Whis- tleblower,andApostate—thatarecharacteristicofAllegiant,Con- testant, and Subversive organizations, respectively.” Defector The term defector “traditionally has been applied to leavetaking in a variety of institutional contexts—familial, mili- tary, [and] religious—in which role occupants are defined as hav- ing a strong commitment and responsibility to the organization andtheirstatuswithinit.”10Defection,inthissense,islessabout anindividualmakingadramaticordistinctbreakwithanorgani- zation, and more about taking quiet leave due to some internal conflict, dispute, or disagreement. As Bromley explains “mem- bers[ofAllegiantorganizations]haveconsiderablereasonforre- luctancetoseverrelationshipforwhichtheyoftenhavemadecon- siderable personal sacrifice and to which they have serious com- Payne: Ex-Mormon Narratives and Pastoral Apologetics 89 mitment.”Consequently,member“responsetoinitialproblemsis likely to be renewed commitment and effort.” If however, “reme- dialeffortsareunsuccessful,theprocessofexitinginvolvesnego- tiationsbetweenthememberandorganizationalleadership[orI contend—otherorganizationmembers]ratherthanwithexternal parties.” Exits from Allegiant organizations tend to be quiet af- fairs garnering little notice from external interests. It is no sur- prise then, that “once outside the organization, defectors are mostlikelytoseekatransitionintoanewsocialnetwork”andexit narratives from Allegiant organizations are rarely produced.11 Whistleblower Bromley narrowly defines “the whistleblower role . . . as one inwhichanorganizationmemberformsanalliancewithanexter- nalregulatoryunitthroughofferingpersonaltestimonyconcern- ingspecific,contestedorganizationpracticesthatisthenusedto sanction the organization.” Bromley’s definition and discussion of the whistleblower is largely limited to how the role affects the relationship between an organization and some sort of external andformaloverseer.Iwouldargue,however,thatawhistleblower alliance with a formal external group may not be required as of- ten the force of “public opinion” may be functionally equivalent to that of any regulatory group, and in many cases may even ex- ceed it. In such cases, whistleblowers may make direct appeals to the public in order to apply pressure to the Contestant organiza- tionwithwhichtheyhaveadispute.Also,aswillbediscussedbe- low, some whistleblowers may make direct appeals to members still within the Contestant organization in an effort to effect change from within. Mostrelevanttoourdiscussionhereisthewhistleblowernar- rativeanditsroleasthemeansofcommunicatingtotheexternal worldthe“deviantpractices”oftheContestantorganization.Typ- ically,thewhistleblowerwillexplainthathe/shebecameinvolved inorawareofsaidpractices“asaresultofignorance,deception, orpressure;haspursuedallinternalmeansofrecoursebeforego- ingpublic;wasnotrecruited;isactingoutofpersonalconscience; has no personal interest in pending adjudication; and has as- sumed considerable personal risk in whistleblowing.”12 The “heartofthenarrativeisevidentiarymaterialdocumentingaspe- 90 DIALOGUE:AJOURNALOFMORMONTHOUGHT,46,no.4(Winter2013) cificpatternofruleviolation.”Thepurposeof“theaccount[isto] simultaneously [elevate] the moral standing of both the whistle- blower, as an exemplar of public virtue, and the agency, as a de- fenderofpublicinterest,whilecamouflaginganypoliticalmotiva- tions and struggle within the organization.” Significantlythe“whistlebloweroftenseekstomaintainorga- nizational membership and is involved in a limited dispute be- tweentwolegitimateorganizationalentities[thecontestantorga- nization and the regulatory or quasi-regulator agency].” Not sur- prisingly “whistleblowers find that their disloyalty has the conse- quence of sealing off alternative opportunities” even if there is some “protection from overt retaliation.” Apostate Unlikedefectorsandwhistleblowers,apostates“[undertake]a total change of loyalties by allying with one or more elements of anoppositionalcoalitionwithouttheconsentorcontroloftheor- ganization.” Thus “the [apostate] narrative is one which docu- mentsthequintessentiallyevilessenceoftheapostate’sformeror- ganization chronicled through the apostate’s personal experi- ence of capture and ultimate escape/rescue.”13 Subversive orga- nization apostates generally have “a plethora of allies to whom [they]canturn[to]forsupport”and“becausethe[subversive]or- ganization possesses little legitimacy, [they] may be able to con- troltheintegraldisputeresolutionprocessaslongasindividuals remainmembers,but[have]averylimitedcapacitytocontrolex- ternal intervention in exit and post-exit processes.” Due to a “polarized situation and power imbalance, there is considerablepressureonindividualsexitingSubversiveorganiza- tionstonegotiateanarrativewiththeoppositionalcoalitionthat offersanacceptableexplanationforparticipationintheorganiza- tionandfornowonceagainreversingloyalties.”14Themostcom- mon apostate narrative can be classified as a: “Captivitynarrative” in which apostates assert that they were inno- centlyornaivelyoperatinginwhattheyhadeveryreasontobelieve wasanormal,securesocialsite;weresubjectedtooverpoweringsub- versive techniques; endured a period of subjugation during which theyexperiencedtribulationandhumiliation;ultimatelyeffectedes- capeorrescuefromtheorganization;andsubsequentlyrenounced Payne: Ex-Mormon Narratives and Pastoral Apologetics 91 theirformerloyaltiesandissuesapublicwarningofthedangersof the former organization as a matter of civic responsibility. Uponexitingasubversiveorganization,apostatesassumea“new- ly constructed role [which places them] in a position that is dia- metrically opposed to[their] former beliefs and commitment.”15 Consequently“theapostateseekstopolarizetheformerandpres- ent identities, accentuating a personal transformation akin to conversion”and“theintensityandzealinwhichtheapostateem- braces the new moral vision, seeks atonement through public confession and testimony, and makes salvific claims of redemp- tion,atleastsuggestthattheex-member’snewaffiliationmaybe analyzed as a type of quasi-religious conversion in its own right.” Indeed“itistypicallycharacterizedasadarkness-to-lightpersonal transformation.” Bromley’s Typology and the LDS Church We can utilize Bromley’s typology in two distinct ways when consideringtheLDSChurch:first,inwhatItermahistoricalpro- gressionmodelandsecondbyemployingwhatIhavelabeledsoci- etalsegmentanalysis.ArmandMauss,inTheAngelandtheBeehive, gives a thorough account of the LDS Church’s social positioning through time, society’s reaction to this positioning, and the vari- ous levels of tension which have existed at various stages of LDS Church development.16 In general, the LDS Church has gone from being considered a highly subversive organization (due mostly to plural marriage and fears of theocratic leadership dy- namics)from1830totheearly1900s,toexperiencinghighlevels ofassimilationthroughthe1950sandhasmorerecently,through whatMausscalls“retrenchment,”assumedwhatMaussdescribes asaposition“somewherebetweenAllegiantandContestant,per- haps closer to the latter.”17 The use ofahistoricalprogression modelis extremelyuseful if we are attempting to identify modern Mormonism within a static position along Bromley’s organizational typology. Clearly, the LDS Church would fit, as Mauss has indicated, between the Contestantand Allegiantorganizational types due to the moder- ate-to-low tension experienced in general with society at large. Such a positioning, however, does not consider (due to its high- level abstraction) those societal segments with which the LDS 92 DIALOGUE:AJOURNALOFMORMONTHOUGHT,46,no.4(Winter2013) Church experiences extremely high levels of tension and there- foredoesnotadequatelydescribetheLDSChurch’suniquesocial positioning at any given point in time—hence, the importance of thesocietalsegmentanalysis.Usingthisanalysis,wecanevaluate the varying levels of tension that exist between the LDS Church and divergent societal segments to gain a more nuanced under- standing of both the modern LDS Church, its apostates and whistleblowers.18 LDS Church as Allegiant In most respects, the LDS Church would like to be perceived asanAllegiantorganizationandexperiencelowlevelsoftension with society as a whole. The Allegiant role should be considered the Church’s desired societalpositioning and the Churchinvests significant resources, in the form of ad campaigns via disparate outlets, search engine optimization, keyword advertising,, etc., into presenting itself as “mainstream” and “Christian.” Addition- ally,theChurch’smediaarm,BonnevilleCommunications,owns many radio and television stations that broadcast the Church’s semi-annualgeneralconferenceandweeklyMormonTabernacle Choirperformances.TheMormonTabernacleChoirwastermed “America’s Choir” by Ronald Reagan and has performed at sev- eral presidential inaugurations. Modern Church leaders have been presented with prestigious civic awards and are often given audience with both prominent American politicians and world leaders. Many Latter-day Saints drop out or disaffiliate during some pointintheirlives.OnestudyledbyStanAlbrechtconcludedthat “eightoutoftencurrentmembersoftheMormonChurchwillbe- comedisengagedatsometimeintheirlife”meaningthat“opera- tionally . . . they [willexperience] a period of at least 12 months whenthey[donot]attendreligiousservicesonaregularbasisor the LDS Church [will be] unimportant to them.”19 However, this samestudydeterminedthattherearehigh-levelsofreengagement among Mormons which “clearly [indicates] the extent of move- mentintoandoutofreligiousinvolvement.”20Albrechtconcludes that,evenduringtheseperiodsofdisengagement,“most...[will maintain]someidentificationwiththeChurch[andtherefore]do not qualify as apostates.” It should be noted that the Albrecht Payne: Ex-Mormon Narratives and Pastoral Apologetics 93 study was conducted well before widespread availability of the Internet and the wealth of information on Mormon history and doctrine that the Internet makes possible. Thus, I suspect that, werethissamestudytobeconductedtoday(2013),thenumberof respondents who self-identify as apostates or cite historical and doctrinal issues as instrumental in their disaffiliation may in- crease.21 LDS Church as Contestant Unlike many denominations, the LDS Church actively at- temptsto“sell”itsmessagethroughaverylargeandsophisticated proselytizing effort. Currently, this missionary effort includes over80,000youngmenandwomen,aswellasretiredcouples(as ofDecember2013).22Whilesomeofthismissionaryworkischar- itable in nature, the vast majority is designed to bring converts into the LDS Church. Consequently, some may view the LDS Churchaspursuingitsownself-interestbyexpandingitsmember- ship rolls much like a business enterprise attempts to increase market share and promote its own image. The Church’s prosely- tizing effort and the omnipresent missionary focus within LDS culture creates tension with society at large and may raise skepti- cism among some societal segments about the Church’s inten- tions and motives. The Church’s “I’m a Mormon” advertising campaign, while potentially effective in improving general per- ceptionofLDSChurchmembers,seemsverymuchlikecommer- cial advertisements meant to promote the Mormon “brand.” Additionally, the Church controls a very large and sophisti- cated business arm.23 The Church maintains that profits from business operations are used to support ecclesiastical efforts but this claim is unverifiable due to the private nature of Church fi- nances. This policy of financial non-disclosure in and of itself raisestensionwithsomesocietalsegments.24Addtothisthatthe Church is apparently very successful in its business ventures and investments and you end up with a Church which is, in many re- spects, perceived as a business.25 This perception places the Church squarely within the Contestant role. Other conflicts and controversies serve to reinforce the LDS Church’s Contestant role, and it is from these conflicts that the Church’s whistleblowers emerge. Modern Mormonism tends to 94 DIALOGUE:AJOURNALOFMORMONTHOUGHT,46,no.4(Winter2013) be politically conservative and has exercised its considerable or- ganizational power to support controversial conservative causes.26 This clear conservatism puts the LDS Church at odds withliberalactivistgroupsaswellaswiththosesocietalsegments thatare affected by conservative policies. Atthe same time,how- ever,theseconservativepositionslowertensionandimproverela- tions(atleastonafunctionallevel)withconservativeactivistsand Evangelical Christians who share the Church’s political aims. Due to its prophetic tradition, the doctrines and policies of the modern LDS Church have occasionally been at odds with an emergingsocialorthodoxy.Apoignantexampleofthiswouldbe theChurch’spolicyofdenyingpriesthoodordinationandtemple admittance to black men from 1852 to 1978. The emergence of thecivilrightsmovementinthe1950squicklycreatedsignificant tensionwithsocietalsegmentsthatwereadoptingmoretolerant, liberal, and open positions towards African-Americans.27 Rem- nants of this tension still exist today as the Church struggles to shake off perceptions of racism and bigotry. A key tenet (both institutionally explicit and cultural) of mod- ernMormonismisobedienceandloyaltytotheChurchhierarchy. RichardBushmanarguesthatthiscomponentofMormonismcan betracedbacktoJosephSmithduringthetimewhenhewasdevel- oping and making known, to a few key individuals, doctrines and practicesthatwereasignificantdeparturefromtherelativelydem- ocratic Protestantism of that time.28 Modern Church administra- tionhasexplicitlybeenreferredtoasa“theocracy,whereGoddi- rectshisChurchthroughrepresentativeschosenbyhim.”29Inthe early days of the Church, Joseph Smith established a system whereinChurchleadersweretobecalledandthen“sustained”bya vote of the membership. On several occasions, congregations re- jectedleaderswhowerechosenbythehierarchy,andleaderswere forced to call alternate individuals. Today, such sustaining still takesplacebutisdonemoreasaformalityandrarelyhasanybear- ingontheordinationorplacementofChurchleaders.30 Not surprisingly, this theocratic and authoritarian organiza- tionalstructurecreatestensionbetweentheChurchandWestern culture at large that embraces democracy, is anti-authoritarian, and generally holds in contempt any effort to curtail speech and thought.Itisthisculturaltensionthatproduceswhistleblowersin