How many come back

[slavereeno]

From what I understand the church makes it difficult to go back if you resign. What percentage of the people who resign have decided to go back? Are there any statistics on this?

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Doubtful those numbers are available publicly. The most interesting case for me to witness is Don Bradley. He is the researcher that left and came back, claiming that he felt opposite cognitive dissonance after diving even deeper into Joseph Smith's theology. He was hired by Brian Hales to do research for his polygamy books. He now seems to work for FAIR but his last major article on that site seems to be 2013. I have read his articles but haven't felt they were as ground breaking as hyped. I certainly didn't feel any cogdis pulling me back. Maybe I'm past feeling.

[Give It Time]

IIRC, Margaret Toscano came back, but I don't know if she resigned or was ex-ed. I know that there are people who are ex-ed who were essentially apostate and were ex-ed for other reasons. I know some of them come back, for various reasons. I imagine it's case-by-case. I know one person isn't having such a hard time, but his Bishop is understanding. I know he's wanting the rebaptism before the bishopric changes.

[Jeffret]

Very few, though there are enough to make for a few good, faith-promoting GC stories. Whether embellished or not.

[Rob4Hope]

Almost no one...as in like 99% of those who are exed ever come back.

Those statistics are hard to get, but in the past, I think there were efforts, and the results are dismal. The claim of the church that excommunication is "discipline to try to save a soul" is total bull hunk. Almost no efforts are made to reclaim anyone. In fact, those people are virtually and almost universally shunned for the duration.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Almost no one...as in like 99% of those who are exed ever come back.

Those statistics are hard to get, but in the past, I think there were efforts, and the results are dismal. The claim of the church that excommunication is "discipline to try to save a soul" is total bull hunk. Almost no efforts are made to reclaim anyone. In fact, those people are virtually and almost universally shunned for the duration.

That may be true for apostasy, but we had reconvene councils quite often when I was on the HC for things like adultery.

[Red Ryder]

Almost no one...as in like 99% of those who are exed ever come back.

Those statistics are hard to get, but in the past, I think there were efforts, and the results are dismal. The claim of the church that excommunication is "discipline to try to save a soul" is total bull hunk. Almost no efforts are made to reclaim anyone. In fact, those people are virtually and almost universally shunned for the duration.

That may be true for apostasy, but we had reconvene councils quite often when I was on the HC for things like adultery.

When I was a former ward clerk there was a long discussion about this with the stake president. Excommunication was often pulled off the table because the statistics showed the majority of members didn't come back compared to those who were disfellowshipped. So somewhere the stats reflected a trend that scared the pict makers into lax disciplinary procedures in order to preserve membership. I think allowing the resignation process has curbed most of the excommunication issues thanks to Norman Hancock. Prior to his lawsuit, members wanting out were excommunicated.

It's actually funny when you realize the church thinks it has control over someone's salvation when a simple "I quit" will do.

[Silver Girl]

Aside from web-based interactions, I've met only a few people who resigned (I've met several in the virtual world of this site or others). As traumatic, painful and difficult as it is to make the decision to resign, I'd be surprised if the ratio of those returning is anything other than microscopic. Also, the church's practice of claiming it revokes your ordinances is BS. I did nothing wrong. How dare the cult tell me that I would have to be rebaptized?

Interestingly, in my short (~one decade) time as a member, i met at least four people who were ex'd and had later been rebaptized. It was usually because they believed in the cult (why, I don't know, after going through that mess), or maybe had family pressures. Often, it was also because they desired to get married to someone in the church. This tells me many people have little or no exposure to churches outside of the LDS world, and therefore do not recognize how cultish, punitive and needless the rules and doctrines are.

Also, at least one person I know who was rebaptized, and several others I heard of but never met, had histories that were unsavory to the point that any church would want to protect its members. The LDS church has admitted many documented child predators and convicted (repeat) con artists back into membership. Since there is no real training for leadership, I question whether this may be due to the egos of bishops or SPs who want to believe they've "rescued" someone and brought them back into compliance. Bishops and SPs get bonus points for increasing PH numbers.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Aside from web-based interactions, I've met only a few people who resigned (I've met several in the virtual world of this site or others). As traumatic, painful and difficult as it is to make the decision to resign, I'd be surprised if the ratio of those returning is anything other than microscopic. Also, the church's practice of claiming it revokes your ordinances is BS. I did nothing wrong. How dare the cult tell me that I would have to be rebaptized?

Interestingly, in my short (~one decade) time as a member, i met at least four people who were ex'd and had later been rebaptized. It was usually because they believed in the cult (why, I don't know, after going through that mess), or maybe had family pressures. Often, it was also because they desired to get married to someone in the church. This tells me many people have little or no exposure to churches outside of the LDS world, and therefore do not recognize how cultish, punitive and needless the rules and doctrines are.

Also, at least one person I know who was rebaptized, and several others I heard of but never met, had histories that were unsavory to the point that any church would want to protect its members. The LDS church has admitted many documented child predators and convicted (repeat) con artists back into membership. Since there is no real training for leadership, I question whether this may be due to the egos of bishops or SPs who want to believe they've "rescued" someone and brought them back into compliance. Bishops and SPs get bonus points for increasing PH numbers.

I think this is a key distinction about those who return after excommunication and those who don't. Mostly it is those who retain or recover belief in the church even after such a punishment. Those who resign do so out of a lack of belief in the first place.

[moksha]

I came back. Gone from about age seventeen to fifty-something.

[slavereeno]

I came back. Gone from about age seventeen to fifty-something.

When you were gone were you inactive, resigned? Did you believe during that time? How do you manage your current nuanced faith?

[moksha]

I came back. Gone from about age seventeen to fifty-something.

When you were gone were you inactive, resigned? Did you believe during that time? How do you manage your current nuanced faith?

I was simply inactive. When I was seventeen, I think some of the information integrating neurons in my pre-frontal cortex came on-line and I had an epiphany that the church claims could not possibly be true. I went inactive. That lead to an inevitable sense of atheism because Mormonism was all I knew. In my early twenties, I stumbled upon a book by Dr. Viktor Frankl called Man's Search for Meaning, in which he observed that those who survived the WWII concentration camps where those who found a greater meaning to life outside themselves. This peaked my interest since I wanted to survive. Thus began my period of agnosticism.

So when the opportunity presented itself to go with friends every Sunday to the services of a wide variety of churches and then go out to brunch afterward, I took it. Who doesn't like eating at breakfast buffets?

Went many times to the services of various faith traditions over the course of many years.
during that time my agnosticism gave way to gnosticism (with a small g). Finally, I decided that I liked the philosophy of Jesus and I considered myself a progressive Christian.

Years went by and I found myself bumping into my ward's bishop in a checkout aisle. Didn't know he was my bishop ahead of time, but we got to talking and I asked him when they discontinued the old home teaching program. Told him I still remembered the home teachers from my childhood. He told me they hadn't discontinued it. Surprise!

Several months later some LDS home teachers showed up at my door. We had a pleasant discussion and they kept visiting for several years. Finally, at their invitation, I decided to attend to my local ward service. It was pleasant and it was finally nice to meet some of my neighbors (Mormons are a bit clannish). It evolved into a regular thing and I was able to enjoy it on my terms. Approaching faith does not mean you abandon all the nuggets of wisdom you learn through life. Faith is best when it is tailor made by you, rather than just putting on any old off-the-rack thing. That makes the whole experience worthwhile.

Throughout life, people believe many different things. I feel comfortable as a progressive 21st Century Mormon sitting on the exact same pew with my 8th Century Mormon coreligionists. If they start taking in their dark ages lingo, I can immediately run it through the translating time machine and turn it into something understandable in post-enlightenment language. Mormons are wonderful people and the church is a brick building.

[Fifi de la Vergne]

Approaching faith does not mean you abandon all the nuggets of wisdom you learn through life. Faith is best when it is tailor made by you, rather than just putting on any old off-the-rack thing. That makes the whole experience worthwhile.

Throughout life, people believe many different things. I feel comfortable as a progressive 21st Century Mormon sitting on the exact same pew with my 8th Century Mormon coreligionists. If they start taking in their dark ages lingo, I can immediately run it through the translating time machine and turn it into something understandable in post-enlightenment language. Mormons are wonderful people and the church is a brick building.

It's wonderful to hear your faith story, Moksha. I don't know why, but your last couple of paragraphs made me tear up. I miss my faith and feeling the spirit and I can't imagine ever feeling at home in any church ever again . . . but this gives me a little hope that I'm wrong.

[Rob4Hope]

Almost no one...as in like 99% of those who are exed ever come back.

Those statistics are hard to get, but in the past, I think there were efforts, and the results are dismal. The claim of the church that excommunication is "discipline to try to save a soul" is total bull hunk. Almost no efforts are made to reclaim anyone. In fact, those people are virtually and almost universally shunned for the duration.

That may be true for apostasy, but we had reconvene councils quite often when I was on the HC for things like adultery.

When I was a former ward clerk there was a long discussion about this with the stake president. Excommunication was often pulled off the table because the statistics showed the majority of members didn't come back compared to those who were disfellowshipped. So somewhere the stats reflected a trend that scared the pict makers into lax disciplinary procedures in order to preserve membership. I think allowing the resignation process has curbed most of the excommunication issues thanks to Norman Hancock. Prior to his lawsuit, members wanting out were excommunicated.

It's actually funny when you realize the church thinks it has control over someone's salvation when a simple "I quit" will do.

There are pockets where excommunicants to work themselves back; however, with overall statistics, this is not the case.

One of the things I heard (and believe) is that excommunication was taken off the table for many because if its the father of the household, when he leaves, he often takes his whole family with him. Don't know if there is a similar circumstance for a mother being exed, but its something interesting to contemplate.

[slavereeno]

I have read James Fowler's Stages of Faith and going through it again. I looked up Don Bradley, FAIR has an interview with him and two others (Janet Eyring, Maxine Hanks) that had returned to the church. In my mind they didn't at all go back to a stage 3 belief. They have adopted a stage 5 nuanced faith. Bradly perhaps shows the least nuance of the three.

If I believe in the stage theory, I am raging in stage 4 right now. I have been seriously considering resignation, but if I can learn to appreciate the Faith and not equate it with belief as Fowler suggests, perhaps I can settle in somehow as these three have done. I feel a little bit like a lost child at the moment. Leaving would be a major burning of a bridge. Before his excommunication John Dehlin had a podcast about staying, he made several points about why you may want to stay. One of those was that some people leave and then want to come back, so why leave in the first place. Another podcast of his I listened to was from some Sunstone guys that said stage 4 people get frustrated with stage 5s that return... Interesting.

As I discuss things with DW, we really want something to go to, not just a fleeing from. We need to have a faith to help us with moral reasoning, and comfort us against the dark night of the soul. We still want to be able to teach that to our children so they have some substantial "why's" and "how's" So they have some guidance in finding peace and direction. Is there a way to get that without the other baggage associated with organized religion? I personally like and identify with the concept of God and Jesus Christ, even if I have no "Sure knowledge" of their nature. I don't want the dogma, the privacy violating intrusion, the corporate smugness, the deceit, the caustic teachings, the time wasting vacuousness, the financial extortion, the icky history, the "one and only" and a host of other things. But I would love a framework for teaching my kids, and to follow myself. One that includes, respect for oneself, and others, and that is ok embracing the image of God without forcing a particular image of his nature on me. One that is OK with the unknown.

[slavereeno]

Faith is best when it is tailor made by you, rather than just putting on any old off-the-rack thing. That makes the whole experience worthwhile.

Throughout life, people believe many different things. I feel comfortable as a progressive 21st Century Mormon sitting on the exact same pew with my 8th Century Mormon coreligionists. If they start taking in their dark ages lingo, I can immediately run it through the translating time machine and turn it into something understandable in post-enlightenment language. Mormons are wonderful people and the church is a brick building.

Thanks for sharing this M.

[Red Ryder]

As I discuss things with DW, we really want something to go to, not just a fleeing from. We need to have a faith to help us with moral reasoning, and comfort us against the dark night of the soul. We still want to be able to teach that to our children so they have some substantial "why's" and "how's" So they have some guidance in finding peace and direction. Is there a way to get that without the other baggage associated with organized religion? I personally like and identify with the concept of God and Jesus Christ, even if I have no "Sure knowledge" of their nature. I don't want the dogma, the privacy violating intrusion, the corporate smugness, the deceit, the caustic teachings, the time wasting vacuousness, the financial extortion, the icky history, the "one and only" and a host of other things. But I would love a framework for teaching my kids, and to follow myself. One that includes, respect for oneself, and others, and that is ok embracing the image of God without forcing a particular image of his nature on me. One that is OK with the unknown.

I wanted this dynamic for the first year or two but unfortunately with a TBM wife I was never able to get there. Now I just want the extra day in the weekend.

[alas]

I have read James Fowler's Stages of Faith and going through it again. I looked up Don Bradley, FAIR has an interview with him and two others (Janet Eyring, Maxine Hanks) that had returned to the church. In my mind they didn't at all go back to a stage 3 belief. They have adopted a stage 5 nuanced faith. Bradly perhaps shows the least nuance of the three.

If I believe in the stage theory, I am raging in stage 4 right now. I have been seriously considering resignation, but if I can learn to appreciate the Faith and not equate it with belief as Fowler suggests, perhaps I can settle in somehow as these three have done. I feel a little bit like a lost child at the moment. Leaving would be a major burning of a bridge. Before his excommunication John Dehlin had a podcast about staying, he made several points about why you may want to stay. One of those was that some people leave and then want to come back, so why leave in the first place. Another podcast of his I listened to was from some Sunstone guys that said stage 4 people get frustrated with stage 5s that return... Interesting.

As I discuss things with DW, we really want something to go to, not just a fleeing from. We need to have a faith to help us with moral reasoning, and comfort us against the dark night of the soul. We still want to be able to teach that to our children so they have some substantial "why's" and "how's" So they have some guidance in finding peace and direction. Is there a way to get that without the other baggage associated with organized religion? I personally like and identify with the concept of God and Jesus Christ, even if I have no "Sure knowledge" of their nature. I don't want the dogma, the privacy violating intrusion, the corporate smugness, the deceit, the caustic teachings, the time wasting vacuousness, the financial extortion, the icky history, the "one and only" and a host of other things. But I would love a framework for teaching my kids, and to follow myself. One that includes, respect for oneself, and others, and that is ok embracing the image of God without forcing a particular image of his nature on me. One that is OK with the unknown.

I understand why some stage four, five, six or thirty six people feel some frustration with those stage 5's who return to Mormonism. I see Mormonism as more harmful than good, compared to other religions. If you want a religious community, fine, but for crying out loud, pick one that does not fight against the civil rights of those they fail to understand. Pick one on the leading edge of giving people civil rights instead of one that had to be drug kicking and screaming into treating blacks the same as others, one that didn't fight against the ERA, and one that did not fight against rights for LGBT people. Pick a religious community that doesn't constantly judge as "unworthy" those outside the cult. Pick a religion that understands that family should all be allowed to attend a wedding. Pick one that doesn't constantly tell members that they are not doing enough, not good enough, that if things don't go as planned, then it is all their fault. Pick a religion led by people humble enough to admit mistakes. Pick a religion that treats women as full human beings not as an auxiliary to their husband. Pick one that doesn't cause gay teens to feel so hopeless and unloved that they see suicide as the best option. Pick one where you can openly admit to taking some things as allegories, rather than them being 100% literal, historical, fact.

I tried living Mormonism as a nuanced believer. It made me crazy. No, if you are really stage five, then find a religious community that does more good in the world than harm.