Possible Model of LDS Church Phases of Commitment

[Anonymous]

I wanted to quickly formalize possible stages of commitment to the church. I wonder if I’m unique here or if anyone else experienced these.

1. Stage 1: Engagement

In this phase, you believe most of what the LDS teaches, and had few items on the shelf. You reject most challenges to your faith as the influence of Satan or of little consequence. Your rely heavily on spiritual feelings as my only source of truth. When challenges face you (bad leadership, doctrinal questions, bad interpersonal church relationships), standard Mormon answers are enough to keep you fully engaged and serving.

2. State 2: Unfreezing

In this phase, something happens that really rocks a person’s commitment or testimony. It could be the accumulation of several negative experiences, but something happens that makes you seriously question the Standard Mormon Answers. The event or series of events unlocks one’s commitment to the church, and the Standard Mormon Answers no longer seem to satisfy. During this period there is a real sense that you are possibly violating God’s will in thinking poorly of church leaders, doctrine, history, or the LDS experience. It is a period of risk and darkness, sometimes anger, grief, and fear. It can also be a period of testing family relationships to see if they can withstand unorthodoxy and lesser commitment.

3. Stage 3: Disengagement

During this phase, you embrace the fact that the orthodox approach to the church no longer works for you. You are more open to critical reflection. You no longer felt excited about the mission of the church, serving in a calling, and no longer feel part of the community. The status symbols of our religion no longer hold the same allure. You may continue to go to church, but do so out of obligation, and may even feel like an observer rather than a participant. Confusion sometimes accompanies this period as you no longer know what you believe about the church, just that you no longer engage with its teachings and culture.

4. Stage 4: Reconstruction

During this phase, you start reconstructing what you believed about the church. You might draw on the ideas of people who were not orthodox for new perspectives. You feel free to think on your own about what you really believe as you are no longer engaged with the LDS experience.

5. Stage 5: Exodus or Modification & Re-engagement

During, or after reconstruction, for many, there is an Exodus — where they leave the church altogether or stop being active. For others, it means modifying their belief system and then re-engaging with the church in new ways. It could mean that you choose not to abide by certain cultural norms, or hold traditional roles in the church. For example, you might see yourself as a purveyor of unorthodox perspective to the traditional believers (a bit like what I proposed to SunBelt Red today, regarding training the leadership in how to talk to doubters) rather than a mainstream member. I see some of this in Dark Jedi, Sunbelt Red, and Old-Timer. You find a way to make your unique perspective to somehow line up with the church’s goals so you can continue participating. [Edit – might add that when this phase completes, you are at equilibrium again — relatively content with your new belief system. The tension you experienced in phases 2, 3, and 4 is not intense any longer. There is relative peace with your relationship with the church]

So, that is my own model. I hope it is understandable and perhaps even flexible to others transition with its high level concepts of Engagement, Unfreezing, Reconstruction, and then Modification/Re-engagement or Exodus as the final stage.

Thoughts? Does your own faith transition appear compatible with this framework?

[Anonymous]

I like this. I think its a good encapsulation of my stages. Though I still feel like I am in four and five and they are happening simultaneously.

[Anonymous]

This is a good general guide. Though for myself. I did not go as far as you described in 3 and 5.

[Anonymous]

I found it to be very close to my experience. The “unfreezing” stage seems to be the equivalent of the actual crisis of faith, the thing that breaks your shelf. For me, the initial crisis stage lasted several months, and trickled on for a couple of years after that as I slowly disengaged. Because of family ties and my own slowness to make decisions, it took me probably 4 years before I basically gave up and completely reached the disengaged stage. Right now I’m very actively in the reconstruction phase, taking slow baby steps towards reengagement.

I would suggest modifying stages 4 and 5. I think the modification portion of your stage 5 overlaps too much with the reconstruction aspect of stage 4. I think it would be clearer if stage 5 were the end result of reconstruction—either exodus or re-engagement. But I also wonder if stage 4 always happens for those who end with an exodus. I know several people personally for whom there was either no stage 3 or a very brief one followed quickly by exodus, with no attempt at reconstruction.

[Anonymous]

Daeruin wrote:

I found it to be very close to my experience. The “unfreezing” stage seems to be the equivalent of the actual crisis of faith, the thing that breaks your shelf. For me, the initial crisis stage lasted several months, and trickled on for a couple of years after that as I slowly disengaged. Because of family ties and my own slowness to make decisions, it took me probably 4 years before I basically gave up and completely reached the disengaged stage. Right now I’m very actively in the reconstruction phase, taking slow baby steps towards reengagement.

I would suggest modifying stages 4 and 5. I think the modification portion of your stage 5 overlaps too much with the reconstruction aspect of stage 4. I think it would be clearer if stage 5 were the end result of reconstruction—either exodus or re-engagement. But I also wonder if stage 4 always happens for those who end with an exodus. I know several people personally for whom there was either no stage 3 or a very brief one followed quickly by exodus, with no attempt at reconstruction.

The problem for me is that theorists try to make a serial model or a process that is iterative. I think you can ebb and flow between stages. For example, I did have a period when I was teaching Gospel Essentials when I had desires to move back to engagement at times. During reconstruction, there were times when I had flashes of adaptation and re-engagement. So, I think the model really needs to allow for people to exist in multiple stages at the same time. Theory is beautifully and orderly, reality is messy

[Anonymous]

I generally like it too. Maybe “stages” isn’t exactly the right word to call them, but then I don’t know a better word. I do agree with what you and others have said – it’s not necessarily clear sometimes what stage one is in. I do agree with your assessment that I and some others here are in stage 5. I consider myself a 5 in Fowler’s also. I will say in the disengagement stage I really disengaged, and had pretty much nothing to do with the church or religion in general. For me that stage lasted several years. It would be interesting if there were some sort of statistic about those who reach stage 5 and leave as opposed to those who modify/re-engage. FWIW, I do sometimes feel engaged and sometimes still feel more of the observer – that is, I’m there and not necessarily buying in and not even really necessarily interested in what’s going on.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

it’s not necessarily clear sometimes what stage one is in.

I think that is true after Stage 3.

I would also agree on it being more like waves and you move back and forth and on different issues. An example of that is I am rather 😡 today after reading Wheat and Tares topic of “”Malcolm Jeppsen’s Role in the September Six” and also BCC “Institutional Change: Pulling the Rug from Under the Most Committed” have me back being frustrated with “leadership.” This is even after DBMormon had a good long phone call with me about this general topic 2 week ago and calmed me down – somewhat. Thanks again DBMormon for the help. I need to back off those topics a while before I have to start taking blood pressure meds.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

it’s not necessarily clear sometimes what stage one is in.

I think that is true after Stage 3.

I would also agree on it being more like waves and you move back and forth and on different issues. An example of that is I am rather 😡 today after reading Wheat and Tares topic of “”Malcolm Jeppsen’s Role in the September Six” and also BCC “Institutional Change: Pulling the Rug from Under the Most Committed” have me back being frustrated with “leadership.” This is even after DBMormon had a good long phone call with me about this general topic 2 week ago and calmed me down – somewhat. Thanks again DBMormon for the help. I need to back off those topics a while before I have to start taking blood pressure meds.

I’m not saying this will work for you just because it works for me, but I can overlook those things as just the “teachings of men mingled with scripture” and get by it. I’m sure some think I oversimplify, but really the only reason I can say I’m at stage 5 is because of that simplification. I believe the gospel of Christ (AKA the doctrine of Christ) is very, very simple and nothing else really matters. We don’t know so much more than we do know, and the more I learn the less I seem to know.

[Anonymous]

Thanks DarkJedi,

One thing I have found interesting is how many of us have hot buttons in some areas and other things really don’t matter. For me the whole DNA/BOM issue is like “what? who cares?” as I didn’t get that pounded into me (somehow). I know others find it as a huge issue.

I don’t claim to be in Stage 5, but I know I feel like I am out of the emotional storm I was in about a year ago. Glad to hear what I can expect to feel when/if I progress to Stage 5.

[Anonymous]

Maybe “phases” would be a better descriptor than “stages.” it seems more fluid in my mind. Either way, I’ve been at this for a very long time. For a while, I was in stage 5 – re-engagement. Then some things that sent me right back to stage 2. I’m firmly ensconced in stage 3. Your definition is spot on for me and I could have written it. I either can’t or don’t really want to move out of this stage again. Maybe that’s because I have to continue to go to church out of obligation and I don’t see that ever changing. I’m OK with that though. I have my own internal discoveries going on constantly and I’m great joy in that. I honestly can’t see myself ever re-engaging or exiting.

[Anonymous]

MockingJay wrote:

Maybe “phases” would be a better descriptor than “stages.” it seems more fluid in my mind. Either way, I’ve been at this for a very long time. For a while, I was in stage 5 – re-engagement. Then some things that sent me right back to stage 2. I’m firmly ensconced in stage 3. Your definition is spot on for me and I could have written it. I either can’t or don’t really want to move out of this stage again. Maybe that’s because I have to continue to go to church out of obligation and I don’t see that ever changing. I’m OK with that though. I have my own internal discoveries going on constantly and I’m great joy in that. I honestly can’t see myself ever re-engaging or exiting.

I agree — they aren’t stages as they imply an upward path to a final destination. They are phases..or “states”, which doesn’t imply progression. I think even numbering them is a mistake. They are simply states of being in your relationship with the church. and you can regress through them again. I’m sure that something could happen that would throw me off with the sense of peace I have now with my relationship with the church. If I re-engaged and ended up with leadership abuse again, that could push me back to Stage 2 again.

[Anonymous]

I do think almost everyone goes through these phases at some point, even the most faithful.

I think the trick is to minimize the awareness to others, and not burn bridges during disengagement times.

The church is always there for when you’re ready to re-engage, others can have a turn to step up and be the “anxiously engaged” crowd. The Lord knows I can only handle so much in life, and has counseled not to run faster than I have strength. So…I can only do so much and have a willing heart, even if I don’t have to have an engaged activity rate at all times.

So far, my bishops have all respected my need to disengage at times. I’ve had legitimate reasons, despite their council that engagement will help me through my trials. I appreciate their counsel, but I can choose what I can do and what is too much.

I’d say I’m firmly in the modification and re-engagement phase…although some think I’ve disengaged. I haven’t. Just have lots on my plate others don’t know about. And I’m OK with that. I’m at peace with my activity at church, and will likely do more some day when I can. The buffet is yummy to me.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Daeruin wrote:

I found it to be very close to my experience. The “unfreezing” stage seems to be the equivalent of the actual crisis of faith, the thing that breaks your shelf. For me, the initial crisis stage lasted several months, and trickled on for a couple of years after that as I slowly disengaged. Because of family ties and my own slowness to make decisions, it took me probably 4 years before I basically gave up and completely reached the disengaged stage. Right now I’m very actively in the reconstruction phase, taking slow baby steps towards reengagement.

I would suggest modifying stages 4 and 5. I think the modification portion of your stage 5 overlaps too much with the reconstruction aspect of stage 4. I think it would be clearer if stage 5 were the end result of reconstruction—either exodus or re-engagement. But I also wonder if stage 4 always happens for those who end with an exodus. I know several people personally for whom there was either no stage 3 or a very brief one followed quickly by exodus, with no attempt at reconstruction.

The problem for me is that theorists try to make a serial model or a process that is iterative. I think you can ebb and flow between stages. For example, I did have a period when I was teaching Gospel Essentials when I had desires to move back to engagement at times. During reconstruction, there were times when I had flashes of adaptation and re-engagement. So, I think the model really needs to allow for people to exist in multiple stages at the same time. Theory is beautifully and orderly, reality is messy

This is definitely the theorist in me that’s speaking. Models are always abstractions to some degree, or they wouldn’t be models. If you’re going to have two separate stages, or whatever you call them, then they should overlap as little as possible. Otherwise you’re not justified in calling them something different, and you’ve lost some of the power of having a model. The model isn’t meant to capture all of reality—just one aspect of it, and just enough to explain or illuminate the thing being modeled.

Anyway, I don’t want to be any more of a nit-picker than that. I really like what you’ve come up with, and I’m obviously not the only one who thinks so. Things like this are helpful in being more self aware, and I’m glad that you spent the time thinking about it and then posted it for discussion.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Daeruin — ideally, you want separate states of commitment without overlap. Similar to the concept of factor analysis that seeks to isolate key factors that have little or no correlation with each other. Beyond the scope of my research abilities or time at the moment, but overall a good thing to pursue at some point.

[Anonymous]

I really love this- although I do agree that there can be quite a bit of overlap. I am squarely in stage 3:

Quote:

You no longer felt excited about the mission of the church, serving in a calling, and no longer feel part of the community. The status symbols of our religion no longer hold the same allure. You may continue to go to church, but do so out of obligation, and may even feel like an observer rather than a participant. Confusion sometimes accompanies this period as you no longer know what you believe about the church,

This describes me quite accurately right now. I attend church, and will continue to do so primarily because I don’t wanna rock the family boat, so to speak. I’ve allowed myself the freedom to let go of certain things for a while, and it has been good. That said, I’m feeling like my life is pretty chaotic, and like I need to perhaps re-engage in some of the personal practices that bring me peace.

I am sure some of you have experience with this- I feel like prayer helps me, primarily as a form of meditation and communion- and tithing can help me with self-discipline- although right now, I think if I start to pay it again, I’d kind of like to put it all toward fast offerings. Where I’m really torn is what to do with my kids…right now I feel like they participate largely for social reasons, and quite frankly, I feel like that may be doing them more harm than good, because it seems like so many of our youth believe that living the gospel means wearing long shorts…

[Author]

Posts