Study on religious nones vs. dones

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/new-study-identifies-another-key-difference-between-religious-nones-and-religious-dones/ar-AA1dLES6?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=6cd6165a1fc7432a8f97489f20251db5&ei=22

The linked article discusses the major findings. Essentially that religious “dones” (that were once religious but no longer identify that way) feel less sense of belonging and are more likely to conceal their religious identity than “nones” (that have never identified as religious).

For me, part of it was just that “church” and “church community” encompasses A LOT more then just some theological constructs.

– Employment Opportunities

– Education Opportunities

– Dating Pool (and to a degree dating norms)

– Spousal Expectations (and dynamics to a degree – Patriarchy hierarchy in the family has created as many problems as it solved).

– Family Dynamics

– Friend Groups & Social Support Network

When you drift into becoming a person “Done” with religion to a specific degree, you wind up having to replace and engineer those social structures in your life in other ways – and it is absolutely daunting sometimes. You also burn a respectable number of bridges by accident (or “should have known better” is the default assumption) – so deal with the consequences of that.

I have conversations with my daughters – the oldest “grew up in the church” and was baptized and is “Done”. We have theological conversations about God, humans, and her experiences at church and she is definitely “Done” with church. I have done a lot to prevent/minimize my youngest having church exposure and/or church teaching exposure [to the point where she doesn’t know how to say a prayer properly for church people/what our church practices are around prayer – that is pretty awkward] – and she is “Free-er” for it as her experience is more like a “None” then a “Done”.

Correlation does not mean causation. However, it is theorized that religious “dones” still maintain contact with a larger social network of religious people and this could lead to the higher levels of concealment and lower sense of belonging.

I agree that the social network of religious people is likely to be larger with higher levels of “concealment” necessary to set others at ease. I think some of it is just re-building a life with non-religious people is harder to do (especially as you get older) and may not be possible. If you are married, then your social life is likely intertwined with your spouse’s – and they may be religious friend-group oriented. If you are single, that might be a different situation. If you have kids, you are more aware of the need for a social network to help raise your children – humans are not as isolationist as they think they are.

It is not difficult to see how this applies to StayLDSers. We do not fit neatly into the label of “done,” but I do think that there is usually a lower level of religious affiliation after a person undergoes a faith crisis. Also, there is often a need to conceal this lower level of religious affiliation to various extents. I believe that this can decrease our sense of belonging in the group.

I know for me, this group was super helpful in avoiding me burning all the bridges to other humans when my faith transition started. I also found this group super helpful in deciding and processing my degree of “Done”. And even though I can “walk away” from actual church activity and investment, I’m not “Done” – being LDS is an essential part of my heritage that I am sorting out.

I theorize that if I were never religious I would have more non-religious social support networks that have grown up over time. I also theorize that, in this hypothetical situation, the religious people in my life would have grown to accept me in my non-religious state. My Mormon friends and family could invite me to meet with the missionaries from time to time and I could politely decline without it affecting the relationship.

A) Non-Religious Social Support Network – I agree, it would have grown naturally.

Non-Religious State Acceptance – I don’t agree actually. I think the classification would have been more of “One Day They Will Come to the Truth” [Missionary Mode] vs “They Should Know Better [Chastisement Mode]”. The hypothetical missionary decline example would only happen because they set their relationship expectations differently for non-members vs former members.

When you drift into becoming a person “Done” with religion to a specific degree, you wind up having to replace and engineer those social structures in your life in other ways – and it is absolutely daunting sometimes. You also burn a respectable number of bridges by accident (or “should have known better” is the default assumption) – so deal with the consequences of that.

I don’t know if this is actually true but I’d guess that it takes a force that is equally as strong as the identity in order to uproot you out of that identity. For an identity as profound as orthodox Mormonism can be, it probably takes a very strong uprooting force. A force that strong is going to leave some scarring. It’s probably not a pleasant experience for most.

I’d expect someone to go through stages of anger, hurt, fight or flight, bridge burning, etc. It comes with the territory. If it were easy it wouldn’t even be a thing people discuss.

Non-Religious State Acceptance – I don’t agree actually. I think the classification would have been more of “One Day They Will Come to the Truth” [Missionary Mode] vs “They Should Know Better [Chastisement Mode]”. The hypothetical missionary decline example would only happen because they set their relationship expectations differently for non-members vs former members.

I think when so much of someone’s identity is wrapped up in being Mormon they’re going to interpret a former Mormon’s rejection of Mormonism as a rejection of them personally.

That hits different than a rejection from someone that never shared the identity. The feelings of rejection aren’t nearly as intimate because the person doing the rejecting was never a member of the tribe.

I’m sure other people have had different experiences but for me so much of church culture feels related to enforcing the purity of a correlated identity, telegraphing adherence to correlated identity, and seeking validation for a correlated identity. If you don’t share the identity those things can be grating at worst and unfulfilling at best.

This really jumped out at me. I agree that there is enforcement of the purity of the identity correlated going on. It makes it hard to be a Mormon that openly drinks coffee or tea or believes differently on some other matter than the majority of members. We tend to have a long list of correlated standards, behaviors, and beliefs and if someone calls themselves Mormon or a member of the church then we assume that they will check all of those boxes or else there is something wrong and deficient with that person.

I think when so much of someone’s identity is wrapped up in being Mormon they’re going to interpret a former Mormon’s rejection of Mormonism as a rejection of them personally.

That hits different than a rejection from someone that never shared the identity. The feelings of rejection aren’t nearly as intimate because the person doing the rejecting was never a member of the tribe.

Yes, If we are all “enlisted” in a common and urgent cause and someone in our group detaches then it can seem like lazy shirking at best and betrayal at worst.

I have several values-forward family members who have had to give serious mental thought to how they treat me and what my “defection” (for lack of a better term) says about them. Their biggest problem was that “it says nothing about them” – so they can’t control the narrative because it isn’t their narrative. Because values are important to them, they keep mentally being dragged by their values into thinking/acting like “my defection at it’s root is about them” and “they are empowered to do something active [in the Purity Culture Way] to do something about it”.

Right. I think many member loved ones with the very best of intentions view us a broken in some fashion and if they can just fix the problem then things can return to their former state. For example, they may feel that if you have concerns about some historical issue then meeting with a bishop or CES employee could resolve the issue. Another popular thought is that maybe you were offended by something at church and that if only that rift could be mended then things would return to normal. I feel that in the church culture we are taught that we can rescue disaffected people if only we are dedicated and persistent enough.

My own wife spent a number of years holding out hope that I was going through a phase and something would happen to allow my return to a more believing former state. During that time she wondered what she could do to help nudge me along – does she give me space? does she invite? does she set a super good example of how to be more faithful? All of it impeded her from coming to acceptance of my new stance and learning to see me positively for who I am now (rather than only seeing the perceived negatives of who I no longer am). Then the day came when we had a discussion and we agreed that (short of an ACTUAL heavenly manifestation) I was very unlikely to return to my more traditionally believing state and we were finally able to move forward.

Unfortunately, I am still in that state with my bishop and many others. They only have that one “lens” to view me through. As fundamentally broken.

To be fair to people I am close to, I do challenge them a bit. Whenever they lean into the “fundamentally broken” phrasing in my company, I tend to remind them that the options I saw a the time were a) be frozen as a fundamentally broken character, or b) Focus on becoming my most valuable/compassionate/empathetic self while I waited for God to show up. I chose the later, so that is the overarching narrative about my story for public consumption:)

That is awesome Amy. Great Example. Also, to be fair to my Bishop and others. I have leaned into the broken/struggling faith narrative. I did this because I felt to do otherwise might be interpreted as a direct challenge to the dominant narrative and the authority of church leadership over me. I made choices within the environment and there are both pros and cons to those choices.