Running head: A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 1 DOWN BUT NOT OUT: A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS WITHIN THE LDS CHURCH By Ashley Hilton A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah April 27, 2018 A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 2 Abstract Religious exit in the US is increasing at a very fast pace. In 2007, 16% of the US population identified as non-religious. In 2015, that number jumped to 23% (Lipka, 2015). The substantive number of people currently disidentifying with religious organizations makes voluntary religious exit an important phenomenon to study. However, research on voluntary exit from religious organizations is infrequent, and from what little research does exist, the majority has been focused on the reason for leaving, not as much on the exit process or communication during exit (Hinderaker, 2015). This study examines the communication processes of organizational disengagement and exit from a religious organization – specifically, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. By developing a deeper understanding of the communication processes related to exit from a religious organization, this study contributes to our understanding of organizational exit generally and from identity-encompassing organizations in particular. This study examines why a non-believer continues to practice in their congregation, and what information about their disengagement they communicate to others. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 3 Religious exit in the US is increasing at a very fast pace. In 2007, 16% of the US population identified as non-religious. In 2015, that number jumped to 23% (Lipka, 2015). It is difficult to quantify religious exit, as some people may still identify with a religion, even if they do not regularly participate. On the other side, religious organizations may claim some members who choose to no longer identify with that organization. Yet, the substantive number of people currently disidentifying with religious organizations makes voluntary religious exit an important phenomenon to study. However, research on voluntary exit from religious organizations is infrequent, and from what little research does exist, the majority has been focused on the reason for leaving, not as much on the exit process or communication during exit (Hinderaker, 2015). As part of a broader theory of organizational assimilation (Jablin, 2001), organizational exit is typically defined as the activity of leaving an organization and role exit is defined as disengaging from a role that encompasses an individual’s self-identity” (Hinderaker, 2015). Exit has been studied far less than other areas of assimilation (Kramer, 2011) and similar to other organizational phenomena, existing literature on exit is heavily focused on employment rather than on civic, voluntary, or other nonprofit organizations (Hinderaker, 2015). The limited research on both religious and volunteer organizations in general has shown the organizational exit process to be much more fluid and non-linear than employee exit. The organization member is likely to start distancing themselves before their exit and they may even reengage before that exit becomes final (Hinderaker & O'Connor, 2015). As a result, traditional communication models of organizational exit need to be expanded to better reflect the exit processes people may experience from religious organizations. In addition, organizational exit is often described in the existing literature as a single time-based event. In other words, there is a moment at which someone has “exited.” In nonprofit A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 4 organizations, exit is often understood as with non-attendance at organizational activities. However, religious exit may not always be so simple. For instance, there are some people within religious organizations who are emotionally or mentally disengaged with their faith. These individuals may have mentally “exited” from the ideology of the faith, but choose to continue to practice or attend in their congregation. It is impossible to know how many religious organization members would identify as practicing non-believers. While some are open about communicating this information, likely the majority is silent about their disengagement. There are social impacts on exit that encourage people to stay within the organization and not communicate their dissent (Cragun, 2014). This stage of mental exit or disengagement, but not physical exit has been underexplored in the existing organizational exit literature. This study examines the communication processes of organizational disengagement and exit from a religious organization – specifically, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. By developing a deeper understanding of the communication processes related to exit from a religious organization, this study contributes to our understanding of organizational exit generally and from identity-encompassing organizations in particular. This study examines why a non-believer continues to practice in their congregation, and what information about their disengagement they communicate to others. Literature Review Little organizational assimilation research includes organizational exit. The research that does exist for organizational exit is heavily focused on exit from employment, and the majority of existing literature focuses on the steps of the exit process, not communication of those exiting. There is need for additional research on the communication process during exit from identity-encompassing organizations. Three themes will be discussed in this paper. The first is A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 5 organizational assimilation, which focuses on the socialization process, the steps an individual goes through to join, assimilate, and finally exit an organization. The second theme is exit from identity-encompassing, religious organizations. Exit from this type of organization greatly differs from employee exit; members may be hesitant to exit and hesitant to share their dissent with others. The third theme identifies the LDS Church as an identity-encompassing organization and discusses members’ reasons for not finalizing exit, even after they are disaffiliated with the organization. Organizational Assimilation Organizational assimilation explains how individuals become integrated into an organizational culture. According to Jablin (2001), assimilation is the process by which individuals join, participate, and leave organizations. Similarly, socialization can be defined as “the process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organizational role” (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979. p 211). Organizational socialization shows how an individual becomes part of an organization, when an individual is transformed from an outsider into an insider, or member (Bullis & Bach, 1989). This socialization process is something that can take years and vary greatly depending on the individual and the organization. The first step of the assimilation process is anticipatory socialization. When someone joins an organization, they begin with a set of expectations. Individuals go through a phase of learning and becoming familiar with expectations of organization members. (Dainton & Zelley, 2015). The second step of the assimilation process is encounter. During the encounter phase, the individual’s preconceived expectations are put to the test. The individual discovers whether or A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 6 not their assumptions were correct. This may be a stage of affirmation of their preconceived expectations (Jablin, 2001). During this phase, the individual begins to learn the expected behaviors of the organization through observation and communication. If they choose to continue with the organization, the next step is metamorphosis (Gibson & Papa, 2000). During the metamorphosis stage, the individual begins to conform and internalize expected organizational behaviors, beliefs, and assumptions. Individuals attempt to become an accepted, participating member of the organization. After metamorphosis, the individual is then assimilated into the organization. Organizational identification is reached when an individual experiences feelings of belonging, similarity, and membership within that organization. Those feelings of identification may change over time and are integrally related to the socialization process. As part of the assimilation process people change and adapt in order to better fit within the organization to better meet organizational needs (Cheney, 1982 & Kramer, 2011). An individual may be so integrated into an organization that their self-identity revolves around their membership (Davis & Myers 2012). People have a tendency to create categories in which to place themselves and others to help better understand the social order and where they fit in it (Ashforth, 2001). These categories show shared attributes between members and can define relations between members of other categories. Individuals define their beliefs, goals, values, and even ways of thinking and feeling, from their social memberships. This is especially true if their role is deemed important in their given social or cultural environment. Some cultures can foster more totalistic members than others, which makes organizational exit significantly different in these instances than in employment relationships. In religious organizations specifically, congregations who perceive the outside environment to be A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 7 threatening are more likely to distance themselves from society and seek solace within their congregation. This distancing from outside cultures can make them more loyal to their congregation (Chau, 2008). In a study on a group distanced from society, Davidman and Greil (2007) interviewed former Ultra-Orthodox Jews and found that defection is a lifelong process that involves not only leaving, but also unlearning lifelong roles that have been established and taught since infancy. Some people are so involved in their religious culture that the thought of leaving is terrifying, given that they have never known anything else. They may feel a void without the organization in their life and look for something new to convert to, but these individuals are often confused and skeptical about any new belief system (Harrold, 2006). Part of the problem with identity being so intertwined with an organizational role is when an individual’s role with the organization may end. Costas and Fleming (2009) found that there are individuals who find themselves no longer agreeing with an organization they belong to. This group feels a need to be real and true to themselves, and when the organization no longer supports their views, they go through a confusing period where the try to justify or convince themselves that they can make it work. This realization can lead the individual to disassociate or disengage with the organization. Some find it difficult to be authentic within such an identity-encompassing culture. Certain behaviors are expected, and behaving in ways outside the norm is frowned upon. This inability to be authentic can cause an internal struggle. Costas and Fleming (2009) found that individuals who do not agree with a group’s opinions are likely to try and justify their relationship within the group. The struggle can go on for awhile, but if or when individuals realize that their personal beliefs are not supported by the group, they reach a state of “realness” which can cause their disengagement with the organization. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 8 Kassing (1997, 1998) defines dissent as “the expression of disagreement.” Dissent in organizations can occur when obtrusive or problematic control methods are in place. If employees feel they are not being heard within their organization, they become less committed. Kassing (2011) also notes that communicating dissent can be risky. The stakes are high considering that organizational status, professional careers, and relationships may be at risk. Dissent can cause stress in individuals, not only because of the occurrence that caused dissent, but also because of the attempt to communicate their dissent with others. As an individual’s negative affective responses to an organization increase, so does their intent to leave. These individuals will look for additional areas where their values differ from the organization’s values. Those experiencing dissent will likely start exhibiting avoidance behaviors that will distance themselves from others in the organization (Jablin, 1996). This distancing can be the first step to the individual’s exit from the organization. In a 2001 study, Jablin identified three stages of voluntary exit. Within the first stage (Preannouncement), individuals are likely cautious to share their feelings of disengagement. The individual is seeking alternatives and weighing their options. The second phase identified by Jablin is Announcement of Exit and Actual Exit. This phase includes a formal announcement to members of the organization. During the Announcement phase, current duties and projects are discussed and likely reassigned to others in the organization. The final phase is Postexit. During the Postexit phase, the individual may experience uncertainty while getting used to their new role. Social support may be required during this phase. Jablin’s study was heavily focused on voluntary employee exit from their place of employment, but does not necessarily apply to exit from volunteer or identity-encompassing organizations. In a 2011 study, Kramer examined assimilation of volunteers and points out that A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 9 volunteer members of an organization have a much different experience than employees. Kramer noted that much of the existing research (especially downsizing or dismissing) is irrelevant to volunteers. For a broader view, Ebaugh’s (1988) socialization research is more applicable to exit from volunteer or identity-encompassing organizations. Ebaugh found that socialization research has been heavily focused on entrance and argues that role exit is a unique form of socialization which needs more research. Ebaugh studied exit from members of totalistic or identity-encompassing organizations and found a different path to exit that is not commonly discussed as part of organizational exit, but possibly much more relevant to this study. The first stage identified by Ebaugh is First Doubts. In this stage, the member begins disengagement and questions their role within the organization. These doubts are often brought on by organizational change, burnout, or disappointment. The second phase of exit is Seeking Alternatives. During this phase, the individual begins to compare their current role to alternatives. They may start looking for social support. They may also come to a realization that they are able to choose whether or not to stay with the organization. They begin to weigh the pros and cons of exit and the search for a new reference group. Once they decide to pursue role exit, they’ve reached the third stage which Ebaugh labeled Turning Point. The Turning Point phase is often gradual and can take years. Sometimes a specific event can serve as a catalyst or “last straw” to make the final decision. During this stage is when the individual announces their exit to others. The final stage is Creating the Ex-Role. This phase is one of the areas that is absent from other exit research. During this phase, the individual has to leave behind who they were in the A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 10 previous organization and find their new self. There may be possible uncomfortable interactions with those from the old organization and they will try to find a new network. While these exit studies bridge a gap between organizational exit and volunteer or identity-encompassing organizations, they are highly focused on phases of the exit process. Ebaugh noted that the exit process could take years and more research is needed on those currently stuck within the exit process and what their communication is like with others. Hinderaker (2015) notes that most organizational communication studies are focused on employee/employer relationships and therefore, do not have a holistic view. Some organizations are deeply rooted in everyday life and involve binding relationships with friends, family, and neighbors. Exit from totalistic or identity-encompassing organizations looks different from employee exit. Some examples of identity-encompassing organizations include emergency personnel, sports teams, and religious congregations. These organizations may have an internal, perceived higher risk of severing ties than other types of organizations. The reach of organizational values, beliefs, and practices into members’ lives is totalistic and complicates the communicative process of leaving (Hinderaker, 2015). Religious Organizational Exit This paper will focus on religious organizations as a form of identity-encompassing organizations. Garner (2012) defined dissent as opinions contradictory to an organization’s policies or practices. In religious organizations, dissent is commonly a taboo subject, and leaders are often encouraged to silence dissent conversations. Barbour (1994) defines deconversion as the loss or deprivation of religious faith. Albrecht (1998) says that those who discontinue participation in a religious community for a period of time are disengaged, but these members have not formally or officially cut ties with the organization. Disaffiliation is the process by A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 11 which individuals change their organizational identification through leaving officially or finding another organization with which to identify. Secularization is a gradual fading of belief where an individual may be involved less and less over time and finally may find themselves outside an organization. Barbour (1994) noted that secularization is different from deconversion; and deconversion stories almost always encompass intellectual doubt, moral criticism, emotional suffering, and intentional disaffiliation from the community. Individuals feel that they have to leave, because they are not able to morally stay or associate with the organization anymore. In a series of narratives, Barbour (1994) found that those who rejected their religion did so for reasons of conscience. They had a commitment to honesty or may have felt supporting an organization had a potential destructive effect on society. Those who feel they have to leave will likely not do so immediately. They may distance themselves somewhat from a religious organization, and chose to return at a later time. Hinderaker and O’Connor (2015) found that religious exit is not a linear process and those on their way out do so in small steps – testing the waters and distancing themselves from the organization slowly. An individual may even be on their way out and come back with a higher level of commitment. There are many stops and reevaluations of the decision along the way (Albrecht, 1998). In a study on religious exit, Barney (2009) noted that the disengagement was fluid and discovered that members who chose to leave may even return over time. There is a set structure in place for joining a religious organization, but how to leave is unknown. There is no support system or guidelines for those who leave (Davidman & Greil 2016). A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 12 Given the fluid nature of religious exit, it is impossible to identify a set process that everyone will follow as the general organizational exit theorizing in organizational assimilation tends to do. It is also difficult to say how many members have actually initiated the exit process, or where the members are within the exit process. Fear of negative impacts of leaving may be a deterrent to finalizing an exit process. Some who have left religious organizations may experience a sort of identity crisis (Harrold, 2006), rejection from friends and family (Hinderaker & O'Connor, 2015), or may even believe their eternal outlook is grim because of their “apostasy” (Cragun, 2014). Because of these fears, someone may choose to stay with an organization, even if the organization does not support their personal beliefs. Those who become disaffiliated with an identity-encompassing organization will likely not follow the traditional steps to organizational exit. Why these individuals choose not to complete the exit process, or what information they communicate to others is unknown. LDS Religious Exit One identity-encompassing religion with a complicated road to exit is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints (LDS Church). Assimilation into the LDS Church typically begins for members (commonly referred to as “Mormons”) very early in childhood and the church is present in all aspects of life and throughout the daily tasks of its members (& O'Connor, 2015). The LDS Church annually reports large and increasing membership numbers. There are arguments about the accuracy of this data, including inactive members showing on membership reports. The LDS Church identifies an active member as someone who “attends sacrament meeting at least once every quarter.” While the LDS Church reported in 2016 that total membership was 15,882,417, (LDS statistical report) it is estimated that only 30% of those A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 13 members actively attend (Martinich, 2014). While an exact number of those choosing to become less-active in the faith can not be calculated, that number appears to be growing in developed countries (Dehlin, 2012). In any faith community, the level of involvement of faith members might be said to exist on a spectrum. In a 1998 study, Albrecht identified nine types of individuals within the LDS Church, ranging from a Fervent Follower to Apostate. In a further review of Albrecht’s work, Barney (2009) identifies four groups within the LDS Church: engaged believers, engaged non-believers, disengaged believers, and disengaged non-believers. Movement along these four categories is fluid and dynamic. As a result, understanding organizational exit in the LDS church is complicated because someone’s status within the church is not widely known. An individual may be actively participating, but have lost faith, or someone who is faithful may not be able to attend regularly. One thing we do know is there is a growing and public ex-Mormon movement in response to the LDS Church. These ex-Mormons have developed their own social structure, language, and culture. (Payne, 2013). Past reports (Albrecht, 1998 and Stewart, 1975) cite a lack of conversion or dedication as a primary reason for exit, but it seems that those reasons are changing. Dehlin (2012) observed that many who have left were actually very involved and regularly participated in their congregation. Contrary to popular belief within the LDS Church, the vast majority who left were not looking to sin, but rather cite disbelief in church doctrine or history as their reason for leaving (Dehlin, 2012). In a later review of the study, Dehlin (2014) notes that most participants in his study said their disaffection was not caused by a single issue, but a large number of issues that eventually became too many to ignore. Barney (2009) found that disaffiliation in the LDS Church is not a sudden decision and most often follows a period of A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 14 disengagement. In a study on LDS exit and the influence of online communities Avance (2013) found that many were disbelievers who wanted to leave for a long time. Finding support, or something akin to sponsors outside the organization served as a catalyst for deconversion. Once there was someone to communicate with, the exit process was much easier. Inside the organization, there are many negative assumptions surrounding exiters. Those who are raised in the LDS Church are taught from a very young age that those who leave are “apostates” or “anti-Mormon.” Not only is “apostate” or “anti-Mormon” inaccurate, especially given that the majority who leave are not actively fighting to bring down the church they left behind, they are also very damaging terms that aim at discrediting those with the label. A label with such a negative connotation within the organization discredits and makes one suspect. This labeling allows members to dismiss things said by exiters and further distances the two groups (Cragun, 2014). Damaging words about those who leave are not just left to labels, but also teachings from LDS Church leadership, which are heralded as doctrine for members to follow. Stewart (1975) taught members that inactivity comes from sources such as: a consequence or unrepented transgressions. In 1983, Wirthlin encouraged members to reach out to those who are inactive, but only with a primary focus of spiritual conversion. There was no encouragement for acceptance or love of those “less-active.” Similar teachings are present today. In a Brigham Young University commencement speech, Elder L. Whitney Clayton encouraged new graduates to “disconnect” from those who had lost their faith, because they may drag the graduates down (Sterzer, 2016). In a 2016 talk directed at those who left the church, Ballard suggests that there isn’t anything out there worth looking for and those who are questioning are wasting their time. These teachings communicate a message of the negative reasons and consequences for leaving to members. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 15 Given the negative teachings surrounding exiting the LDS Church, it is no wonder that there are fears about communicating questions or dissent with others in the organization. When members leave the church behind, they are not only leaving behind the doctrine, but also their normative ways of life. Some interviewed by Hinderaker and O’Connor (2015) described unique costs not seen in most organizational exit, which include losing primary social networks, experiencing rejection from friends and family, and a fear over the fate of their eternal souls. In 2012, Dehlin surveyed those who identified as “ex-Mormon.” This group reported feeling that they were being vilified by members in their congregations. Members made negative assumptions that the exiters were adulterers, addicted to pornography, or just drawn to sin. Many reported strained relationships with their believing spouses – some were even divorced over differing beliefs. While spouses were the highest reported affected relationship, relationships with friends, parents and siblings were also negatively impacted by disbelief. Disbelievers who remain active in the church report a significantly higher mental and spiritual cost to their disbelief. A staggering 32% of those surveyed still attend church regularly enough to be considered “active.” Why this group has lost faith but choses to continue active participation warrants further study. Traditional organizational socialization literature does not fully explore the potentially negative communicative consequences of organizational exit and how that might shape the exit process. This study will include messages received by and shared by the potentially exiting member to better understand the exit process. Ritualists and Cultural Saints identified by Albrecht (1998), engaged non-believers (Barney, 2009), or disbelieving Mormons (Dehlin, 2012) can all be classified as practicing non-believers. This group merits further study. Understanding reasons why these individuals still A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 16 attend through their disbelief, what communication they receive from members that may influence that decision, and what information about their disbelief that they are willing to share with others can greatly help understanding of the difficulties associated with the exit process. This further understanding can help current members better understand and communicate with those in the exit process, and can also help questioning members better understand what exit looks like (see Hinderaker & O'Connor, 2015; Payne, 2013). Better understanding this situation not only ties to the LDS community, but can also be applicable to other totalistic or identity-encompassing organizations, and create better understanding for the exit process in religious and volunteer organizations. Research Questions The purpose of this study is to expand theorizing on organizational exit by examining how people communicatively negotiate the decisions to mentally and/or physically exit an identity-encompassing organization. Previous scholarship on organizational exit assumes that exit is a linear process that concludes with physical exit from an organization and that individuals have gone through the steps to announce their exit. The LDS context allows us to challenge those assumptions by showing the exit process is fluid and non-linear. Some members are even stagnant at some point in their disengagement, and even though they are mentally exited or no longer believe, they choose to still practice. Studying how messages about exit from organizational insiders affect exit decision making will help understanding of communication for those who have not and may not finish their physical exit process. We can better understand what reasons they have for not physically exiting during or after a mental exit, what information has been communicated to them from A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 17 others that makes them hesitant to exit, and what information they are willing to communicate to others about their disaffiliation and position in the exit process. The following questions will guide this study: RQ1: How do LDS members who are disengaged but not yet formally exited the organization describe their decision making-process? RQ2: What messages are LDS members who are disengaged but not yet exited receiving that influence their decision to not communicate their disbelief? RQ3: Who are LDS members who are disengaged but not yet exited willing to share their disbelief with? Method Participants Members of the LDS Church, over the age of 18, who could be classified as practicing non-believers were interviewed. These individuals self-identified as people who do not believe in the doctrine of the LDS Church, but still choose to attend LDS Church services regularly. They may or may not have shared their disbelief with others. While the LDS Church defines activity as attending at least once per quarter (LDS statistical report), this study included those who self-identified with more routine attendance, who attend at least once per month. While those who attend once per quarter may be reported as active on church reports, they will likely be labeled as inactive from others in their congregation. This could adversely affect their relationships with those in their local congregation more than an individual attending every month. Participants for this study were recruited via a purposive sample on social media. The majority came from online support groups for ex-Mormons and practicing non-believers found on Facebook and Reddit. Fourteen practicing non-believers were interviewed for this study. Of the fourteen, nine were male and five were female. The participants’ ages ranged from 25 to 55, A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 18 with an average age of 37.35 years. Participants reported they had been practicing non-believers between 6-months and 30 years. While not a requirement for recruitment, all participants were members of the church since childhood. Ten of the fourteen participants served a religious mission for the LDS Church. The majority of participants live in areas with a high LDS population including Utah, Idaho, and Southern Alberta. Procedures Semi-structured interviews were conducted from an interview protocol. These interviews focused on the communication of the participant – and those in the participant’s network – and whether that communication (or lack of communication) affects the participant’s decision to continue in the organization. During the course of the interviews, the decision whether or not to communicate their disbelief was more prevalent to the participants than their decision to continue church attendance. Agee (2009) stated, “Those tentative theories and the questions that result from them may very well change to accommodate data collection or preliminary findings” (p. 432). Due to the nature of qualitative studies, the research questions may change throughout the course of the study to better adapt to interviewee salience. Therefore, RQ2 was adjusted to focus on what others communicate that influenced the respondents’ willingness to share their disbelief. RQ3 was adjusted to ask with whom they were willing to share their disbelief. Participants were either interviewed in-person or over the phone. Interviews took approximately 30 to 60 minutes and were tape-recorded. The average interview lasted 38 minutes, which led to 532 total minutes of recorded interviews. The number of interviews was not decided beforehand, but continued until the author reached theoretical saturation and no new themes were discovered. Interviews were transcribed near verbatim (leaving out vocal fillers) by the author, which resulted in 82 total single-spaced pages for data analysis. Data was analyzed A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 19 systematically using qualitative methodology following grounded theory, due to the semi-structured nature and large amount of data accumulated (Turner, 1983). This allowed the data to take shape while conducting the research and made it easier to identify opportunities for future research (Lawrence & Tar, 2013). After an initial review of all transcripts, open coding was used to identify and document individual themes. A subsequent review used axial coding to then group and assign like themes together (Keyton, 2015). These themes were analyzed for relevance to the study. Based on the themes that emerged, RQs were adjusted to better reflect audience salience (Agee, 2009). Representative thoughts from each theme were selected and are included in the study. Findings How do LDS members who are disengaged but not yet formally exited the organization describe their decision making-process? RQ1 asked participants to describe their decision making process to continue LDS church attendance through disbelief. To answer this research question, participants were asked about why they continue to attend church, and what they enjoy when they are there. Three themes emerged which include: (a) pressure from and protection of family, (b) want of a community, and (c) saving face. Below, each theme is described and supported with quotes from the interviews. Pressure from and protection of family. The primary theme reflected in every interview was that the participant chose to continue LDS church attendance despite their disbelief because of their family. Participants described family relationships as easier to maintain by attending; this was especially true with extended family. Julie said: A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 20 “I mostly go for my family’s sake. It would be really hard on those relationships if I just stopped altogether.” And Craig noted, “I’m definitely just wanting to maintain family relationships. I’m very close with my family – I like them a lot. We talk about many interesting things. If I left, that would put a divide in. I think we would still try to maintain, they would all reach out and be friendly and supportive, but there just would be a certain spark that wouldn’t be there any more.” Participants described family pressure coming from a range of sources including their spouse and children, their parents, siblings, and grandparents. Even when family members knew of the participants’ disbelief, they still pressured continued attendance. This pressure ranged from small requests, to ultimatums. Stanley attends to support his wife, saying “my wife and I get along really well and she knows where I’m at. It means a lot to her to attend together, even if you don’t believe. That’s just something you do as a family, we do together.” Other participants haven’t had as much support or acceptance from their family members. Dwayne described feeling threatened by things his wife communicated: In my case I still attend mainly because of my spouse. I’m in the situation where my wife still very much believes. I came out to her about six years ago, so my disbelief started before then, she’s never been interested in learning more and certainly doesn’t want to follow along with me. There have been times where she’s used ultimatums, “you’re still going to church, you’ll still pay tithing, you’re still wearing your garments, or I’m leaving you.” Dwane’s church attendance is motivated by fear. He would rather continue to attend through his disbelief than risk losing his family. His wife uses their future as a family as leverage when he suggests behaviors that are contrary to church teachings. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 21 There was also a fear among participants that their disbelief could hurt their family – emotionally or socially – and this was a motivation for continued attendance. Charles discussed concern for his family’s feelings, “I don’t want to hurt them. It’s that simple, because once you’ve seen both sides, I know what they’ll think. No matter what we tell them, it will hurt them. Because you’re destroying their eternal family.” Those with children were especially worried about negative the repercussions of their disbelief. Barbara said: There’s fear of somehow like, ruining my kids lives. Even though I know it’s ridiculous and I hear so many people that are out and feel so free and everyone is thriving, it’s just so ingrained in you like, you’re not going to be happy and your kids are going to stray so you know that kind of stuff and there’s fear of just making the wrong decision. As a mom I worry that I won’t be able to guide them on my own. Charles also pointed out that even though they’re still attending, they’ve already seen their children being treated differently because of his disbelief, “I know some people who won’t let their kids play with my kids anymore. It’s ridiculous, we’ve considered moving because of it.” Disbelief not only affects the individual, there could be negative consequences among the entire family. This influences the participants’ decision to keep attending, they don’t want their families to be treated differently, or miss out on opportunities because of perceptions of the non-believer. The main motivations described as influencing participants’ decision to continue attending church through their disbelief was because of pressure from family and wanting to protect their family from negative consequences of the participant’s disbelief. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 22 Want of a community. After pressure from believing family members, the most common reason described for continuing attendance in LDS religious services in the face of disbelief was want of a community. Zander had this to say: I think the main thing that I enjoy would be just a sense of community. I try really hard to create that elsewhere and I haven’t been able to come close. You know I’ve got a group of people who do a lot for me, and I try to do a lot for them and I really value that. Outside of weekly worship meetings, members of the LDS Church likely have assignments, which send them into the home of other members during the month to share a message and provide service. Fellowshipping and serving others is an integral part of the culture. Amy described her ward (group that meets together for worship, designated by geographical location) as her tribe, “I still feel like culturally I’ll always feel Mormon. It feels like my tribe, my people, and I like the community aspect for us as well.” Participants also noted that especially in areas with a high LDS population, the local ward is the best way to be involved in the neighborhood. Dwayne pointed out that: As a Mormon and one thing that Mormonism has is doing our congregation by geography, we’re forced to come in contact with people we wouldn’t come in contact with otherwise and in such an environment where we can stretch ourselves and get outside of our comfort zone, I like all that. I think it’s really helpful to make everyone better, well-rounded more compassionate, otherwise we get stuck in these echo chambers. Members of the LDS Church would likely not associate with as many people in their immediate neighborhood if they were not given the opportunity to spend hours with them each week during worship. There are also other activities in the LDS Church that members are encouraged to participate in; this builds a community outside of worship. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 23 Many respondents commented on appreciating the social part of church attendance. Charles said: I really enjoy the social aspect, I’ve been in my ward a little over three years and so I feel like I know most of the people really well, I know the bishopric [local leadership] really well. So yeah, I really enjoy the social aspect of it, I feel like I have a lot of friends: While respondents no longer shared the same beliefs as those in their ward, many pointed out that members in their congregation were good people who they liked to associate with. Zander said: I see that everyone is trying to be a good person and according to their own idea of what a good person is and so I guess I can still feel uplifted in the attempt, the motivation that they have to be better and that helps me try to better in my own life even though we’re going at it in a different approach. A sense of community is something that many value and strive for, inside and outside of religion. In highly populated LDS areas, the ward is the community. Participants appreciated being part of a community, finding opportunities to serve, and find meaningful relationships with others. Saving face. A third reason participants gave to continue attendance in LDS religious services through disbelief is to save face. Participants felt family, friends, and those in their local congregation would judge them negatively if they stop attending church. Participants argued that there are a lot of assumptions made by members about those who stop attending. Daniel said: There is a huge stigma attached to being inactive. I was considered a somewhat prominent member of the ward, like I said, I was a bishop counselor for four years, a high counselor in the ward. And so there’s a stigma attached and some attention that you might get that I’m not quite ready for. I would definitely prefer to not go to church at this A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 24 point, but I’m not ready for all of the personal ramifications of being labeled as “inactive.” The fear of judgment is enough to keep Daniel going to church. This decision is based on other people’s reactions to his attendance. Charles also worries how others will react if he stops attending, “If I stopped attending there would be anxiety about the impact it will have how others will look at me.” Especially in areas with a high LDS population, it is culturally expected to be an active member of the ward. Your neighbors are your congregation, and they notice if you attend or not. Marc explains it this way, “There’s a huge culture of evaluating and policing each other. It’s very important to make sure your neighbor is obeying the commandments and rules, possibly more so than it is for you [emphasis added] to be doing so.” There is likely a large number of people attending who would not do so if it wasn’t a cultural expectation. Charles said: I think the reality is 95% of people go to church because they know there supposed to go to church and they feel guilty because they know Mormons are supposed to go to church, but 95% of the people would rather be home than going to church. But it’s our culture, it’s the expectation. Others’ opinions can largely influence behavior. A worry that a neighbor may notice a participant was not attending church was enough motivation for them to attend. The motivation to worship was not wanting to worship, but to avoid judgment. There is more at risk with inactivity and disbelief than judgment from others. Multiple respondents attend a church-sponsored school and would lose their ecclesiastical endorsement and be expelled from the university if they stopped attending church. Marc admitted a fear of being sent home, “I still attend entirely because of my educational status. I can’t profess disbelief A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 25 or leave the church without losing my endorsement to attend this university.” When asked why she chose to still attend church, Ann responded: Because I go to BYU and I live with my family who are really devout LDS members. Living with them and going to BYU I feel like I have to. I don’t want to cause any contention with my family that I live with, and I also need to maintain my ecclesiastical endorsement. I’m looking forward to being done with school so I can stop attending altogether. Even though they no longer believe, worry about negative impacts of disassociating with the LDS Church influenced participants’ decision to continue their church attendance. Maintaining the expectation was more important than being authentic. Membership in the LDS Church is more encompassing than where you choose to worship on Sundays, it is integrated into many parts of life and can influence which opportunities are available. Those who leave, or profess disbelief, can face negative consequences. What messages are LDS members who are disengaged but not yet exited receiving that influence their decision to not communicate their disbelief? To answer RQ2, participants were questioned about communication they received from their families, church leadership, and ward that made them less likely to exit or less likely to share their disbelief. Their answers revealed two main themes: (a) disbelief is the fault of the individual and (b) do not discuss disbelief. Disbelief is the fault of the individual. One recurrent message that participants said they received from believing members is that disbelief was the fault of the individual. The practicing non-believer must have been living incorrectly, going through a rebellious phase, or were lazy. The believing members communicated that if the non-believer would just follow the teachings of A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 26 the church more closely, they would regain their faith. Marc described communication received from his father: My dad has told me several times that he wished that I would never have read the gospel topic essays, that he wishes I would have been more focused on the church and that I wouldn’t have been so curious because he thinks I would still be in. This communication expressed to Marc that he was at fault for seeking out additional information. Even though the essays referenced are materials shared from the LDS Church, the fact that they added to his disbelief means there must be something wrong with him for how he interpreted them. Marc’s father feels if Marc hadn’t been so curious, he would still have his faith. Julie shared a few statements she has received from believing members, “There are people who say things sometimes like, ‘if you only understood, you wouldn’t have these questions’ or ‘if you truly were living the gospel, you wouldn’t have these questions.’” Julie could take away from these statements that they think she is ignorant, uninformed, or stupid. They also question her worthiness; implying her disbelief is a consequence of sinful behavior. Craig described teachings from church leadership that contributed to his hesitancy to share his disbelief: In General Conference, they do not preserve the integrity of the doubter, it’s always “the doubter doesn’t have enough faith, the doubter hasn’t done their homework, they’re being deceived, they just Google it, they don’t do enough research.’” Craig also received a discouraging message from his father, “My dad said, ‘you’re doing something wrong.’ I said, ‘what am I doing wrong? Am I not being forgiving enough, am I not doing my homework, are there perspectives I haven’t thought about?’ He couldn’t say, but he was sure of it. That hurt really, really deeply.” A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 27 Participants received messages from family, church leadership, and ward members that their disbelief was a result of something they had done wrong. Disbelief is considered a punishment for living contrary to the teachings of the LDS Church. These types of messages encourage non-believers to not communicate with others. Do not discuss disbelief. Participants also received verbal and non-verbal messages from believing members that they should not share their disbelief. In some cases they were told directly to stop asking questions or discussing issues they may have with the church. Charles described communication from others that made him start being silent about disbelief: I learned quickly I couldn’t ask questions about church. When I first started learning this stuff, the natural response is to ask at church and I’ve been shut down from that, but what I’ve learned from that is there are people all over that are just going through the motions, I would come to church you know, ‘do you guys know about this?’ and I would just get shot down. Charles was a volunteer teacher in his ward and shortly after he started asking questions he was removed from that position. This reaction caused Charles to no longer ask questions or participate in discussions at church. In other cases there was complete avoidance of the subject and sometimes, a complete avoidance of the non-believer by others still practicing in the faith. Many described surprise at the lack of communication, especially from their local leadership. Daniel noted: It’s been radio silence from the leadership of the ward, it’s like they don’t want to deal with me. So there has been no communication at all. They avoid me, you know, they’ll shake my hand in the halls, but they don’t want to talk to me about this. They would A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 28 rather ignore it and avoid it than ask what the issues are, understand my position. So it’s been weird that there’s just been no communication and no contact even. Ward leaders are selected and rotated from the local congregation. These individuals receive little to no clerical training and have not been instructed how to best respond to conflict. It is likely easier for them to not address the issue at all, rather than risk a conversation they are not prepared for. Believing members seem to think that asking questions or sharing disbelief is an attack on their views. This was noted by Dwayne to be a double-standard, “I do want to talk to people and I do want to share with them, but too frequently even just asking simple questions that are not charged comes off as ‘why do you want to destroy faith?’” Members of the LDS church may not be prepared to discuss disbelief. Engaging in negative or “anti” LDS Church materials and conversations is highly discouraged, starting in childhood. While many participants noted they wanted an opportunity for open conversation, they also expressed they did not intend to argue or destroy others’ faith. Members of the LDS Church may associate dissent or differing opinions as “anti-Mormon.” Who are LDS members who are disengaged but not yet exited willing to share their disbelief with? To answer RQ3, participants were asked with whom they had shared their disbelief and if they felt that relationship had changed once their disbelief was shared. Two main themes were revealed from the interviews: (a) people identified as ‘safe’ and (b) “ex-Mormons” People identified as ‘safe’. All participants described having at least shared their disbelief with someone in their immediate circle. Those who were married had all shared with their spouse. Most had also shared with their parents and siblings. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 29 Those who shared their disbelief outside of their immediate circle described identifying “safe” people who they felt they could be authentic with. When a member of the local leadership noticed Julie’s family was attending less often, he came to her home to express his disappointment. She did have one takeaway from the encounter, “I’ve learned to recognize who is a safe person to talk to and who is not and that’s fine.” Marc described who he has shared with, “Generally I haven’t shared with anyone who isn’t close to me. Mostly it’s just people who I’m already close to and I know and who I believe strongly who would accept me as I am, regardless.” According to Ann, it’s a process and takes deliberation before sharing, “It’s not kind of like an all-of-a-sudden, ‘by the way, you should know this about me,’ like you really feel out the situation first and see if they’re on the same page that you’re on.” Stanley described a few details he has noticed that help him identify safe people: I would say you just kind of look for people who are a little less orthodox, just by their behaviors. I mean, sometimes it’s the things they wear. So if somebody at church is wearing a blue shirt, or a woman who wears pants, then you know that that person may be a little less orthodox and you can approach that person, at least that’s how I do it and you kind of very tentatively explore something kind of controversial. Just slightly, just kind of open up with something that wouldn’t get you in trouble and you can see where they’re at. And it just seems to facilitate further conversations and some people are more orthodox and you back off those and others are more open and then, you know. At least that’s how I’ve done it; you kind of explore tentatively to see. Participants were much more willing to be authentic and communicate their disbelief with people they identified as safe. Those they were already close to, who they felt would accept them as A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 30 they are were aware of their disbelief. This included those in their immediate household, and other friends and family members they were close to. To share outside of that group, participants described a process where they tested out others with messages that may be slightly more controversial to see how the person responded, before they were willing to share more with them. They also told about visible ways to identify less-orthodox members of the LDS Church, who would be more likely to be accepting of a non-believer. Whether or not to share is a very thoughtful and calculated decision. “Ex-Mormons.” Participants described having more meaningful relationships and open communication with those who had already left the religion. Ann’s immediate family left the church before her and she described a much closer relationship with them, “I feel like my relationship with everyone every single person in my family is better now, it’s stronger now I feel like there’s more of an open dialogue.” Many found support and comfort from others who had already left the church. Daniel said communication with a former-member friend was helpful through his disbelief, “I had my friend that I mentioned that was ahead of me, you know he was ahead of me in disbelief, if I didn’t have him, I would feel like, ‘man I’m the only guy out there.’” Charles noted that his relationships with other non-believers, including his wife, are stronger now, “The craziest thing is my wife and my relationship and my friendships are much better now. There’s not this fake mantle they’re trying to put on. It’s really funny.” Participants were able to communicate their disbelief with people they identify as safe and people who have already left the LDS Church. They described open communication and closer, more meaningful relationships with these groups. The opportunity to not be judged and to be A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 31 authentic created an environment where participants were willing to express their disbelief. Discussion The purpose of this study was to discover reasons for non-believers to continue their attendance in the LDS Church, and what information about their disbelief they communicate to others. It was discovered that participants largely chose to continue attendance (1) because of pressure from their family, (2) they want a sense of community in their lives, and (3) continuing attendance helps them save face with family, friends, and ward members. It also emerged that participants were receiving communication from believing members that (1) disbelief was the participant’s fault and they should have tried harder and (2) they should avoid discussing their disbelief with believing members. Participants also identified two groups with whom they were more likely to share their disbelief with (1) people they identified as safe and having unconditional love and (2) ex-Mormons or those who had left the church in some form. Practical Implications The findings from this study can help believing and non-believing members of the LDS Church better understand communication through disbelief and the exit process. Practical implications include a need for (1) opportunities for open and honest communication, (2) family understanding and a sense community, and (3) support for those who leave an identity-encompassing organization. This study demonstrates a need for a more open environment and available platforms for members of the LDS Church to ask questions and communicate disbelief. Many participants expressed wanting to be able to more openly share their disbelief with others – not to deconvert them – but to have an opportunity to express themselves. Participants reported being disappointed by the lack of opportunities to ask questions, discuss their process, and profess their A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 32 disbelief with their families and local leadership. Garner (2012) reported a similar finding and that religious leaders were encouraged to silence conversations of dissent. Most participants who had attempted to discuss their disbelief with a believing member had received enough negative feedback or silence that they no longer initiated conversations of disbelief. If within the LDS Church, there were more opportunities to ask questions and express disbelief, it may not halt exit, but it could help facilitate communication between believing and non-believing members. This could help relieve the strain many participants reported feeling with their family, friends, and ward members. Second, practicing non-believers do not want to attend church, but feel they have to. From this study, many participants stated they did not see their current position as sustainable. All participants noted that their main reason to continue attendance through their disbelief was their family. Many participants lived in areas with a high LDS population and found that the best way to interact with their neighbors was at a church setting. In an effort to maintain relationships and have a sense of belonging, they choose to continue practicing through their disbelief. This shows the complicated nature of exit. There are many factors that influence the decision to be part of an organization, outside the scope of employment. If families were more accepting of disbelief, many practicing non-believers would finalize their exit from the LDS Church. This study also shows the need of a community for those who have left the church. Opportunities to connect with neighbors and provide service in their community, outside of religion, would be welcome. Third, all participants of this study were either born into the church or joined as a child. This means they were raised in an LDS culture, and their parents are most likely members. This supports Albrecht’s study (1998) that found that socialization and religious attitudes developed A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 33 from a very young age. Albrecht also discovered that members with an “incomplete” LDS family are more likely to disengage, converts would fall into this category. Converts are less likely to receive pressure from or feel a need to protect their family members. As seen from this study, people born into the church – or who joined the church as a child – may be more likely to continue practicing through disbelief. The LDS culture is more encompassing for those members who joined as children. This supports what was discovered by Davidman and Greil (2007), that those who defect from a culture they were immersed in from childhood can’t just leave, they must go through a process of unlearning the roles they were taught. Exit from the LDS Church is likely a longer and more complicated process for those who have been lifelong members than those who joined as adults. This can also apply to other identity-encompassing organizations. Theoretical Implications Differing from the more traditional models of organizational exit from Jablin (2001) and Kramer (2011), which show a fairly straightforward and linear process between disaffiliation and exit, this study reveals that there are those who may become disaffiliated from the organization, but choose not to exit. Theoretical implications from this study are (1) exit is non-linear and flexible, (2) there is a difference between mental and physical exit, and (3) exiting members look for support from those who have gone through a similar process. This study shows that exit from the LDS Church is non-linear and flexible. Drawing on Ebaugh’s (1988) research, participants of this study were somewhere between the phases of Seeking Alternatives and Turning Point. Ebaugh noted that the Turning Point phase can take years. Participants of this study reported they had been practicing non-believers between 6- months and 30 years. Even though participants are disaffected and would prefer to leave, they A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 34 have stalled in their exit process in order to maintain relationships. Some have gone through periods of inactivity, but returned to attendance due to pressure from family. This could also be the case with exit from any type of organization. Organizational exit in general could also be non-linear and flexible. Many people become frustrated with their jobs, but may not realize or identify themselves as within the first step of the exit process. They may even begin seeking alternatives, but if they do not find a better option, they will continue with their current organization. Previous scholarship (Jablin, 2001) has considered exit as a singular event, and ultimately exit as the actual, physical process of leaving or discontinuing attendance. Previous research has not explained the process of mental exit compared to physical exit. This study shows there is a difference between mental and physical exit. All participants in this study were mentally exited from the LDS Church. They no longer believe in the teachings or doctrine, but still physically attended. Most who attended reported not being involved in discussions during worship. They chose to sit at the back or in the hall to avoid listening or discussing content they would rather not engage with. For participants, physically exiting was not an option, but they were mentally disengaged with the LDS Church. There is a need across organizations – religious, volunteer, and employment – to separate and better understand mental and physical exit as distinct forms of organizational exit. There are likely employees who are mentally exited from their job, but choose to continue their employment. Participants reported reaching out to ex-Mormons for support and guidance during their dissent. They go through a process of meaning making, seeking affirmation for their decision to leave the church. Seeing those who had made a successful transition out of the organization, and who were happy with their decision, made exit seem more attainable to those who were A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 35 experiencing dissent. Avance (2013) found similar results where question members of the LDS Church were able to find sanctuary in online communities where they were able to freely express their dissent and freely explore more information. Avance described the like-minded community as a catalyst for deconversion. Similarly, those considering leaving any type of organization would benefit from examples of others who have gone through a similar process. Limitations and Future Research As with all research, a larger sample size would have provided more accuracy and understanding of practicing non-believers. We have no way of knowing exactly how many practicing non-believers exist in the LDS Church. Since participants for this study were recruited from non-believer support groups, we know that these individuals have reached a point were they are slightly more open about their disbelief and looking for like-minded individuals, at least online. There are likely many practicing non-believers who have not yet explored support groups and are going through their disbelief in silence. There are opportunities in and outside of the LDS Church to increase understanding of organizational exit. There are subsets of the non-believing or ex-Mormon population that should be considered. These include non-practicing non-believers who do not communicate their disbelief with their families, and non-practicing non-believers who choose keep their name on LDS Church records. These individuals are at different stages of the exit process, but still not fully exited from the organization. In this study, people who joined the LDS Church as adults (converts) were not identified as practicing non-believers. Future study could identify whether converts are not exiting the church, or if converts do not go through a period of mental, but not physical exit. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 36 To expand on exit outside of religious organizations, future research could look at mental vs. physical exit by studying employees who are disengaged with an organization but have not yet quit their job. Information such as: why they stay, who they communicate their dissent with, their perceived sustainability of their situation, and what others have communicated to them that influences their willingness to share can help us better understand the differences between mental and physical exit. This greater understanding could help organizations learn how better communicate and retain employees before their mental exit becomes physical. Organizational communication research could look at meaning making and if those disengaged with an organization look for guidance and support from others who have gone through a similar process. This could help understanding of the exit process and if finding that support serves as a catalyst to finalize the exit from the organization. This study showed traditional models of organizational exit should be expanded to include non-linear exit as well exit that may stall in the fact that it is mental, but not physical. In this study, all participants were mentally out, but chose to still attend. Motivations for attendance were pressure and want of a community. Participants felt they were judged negatively by their community if and when they shared their disbelief, so they communicated their disbelief with very few. In this study, practicing through disbelief resulted in lack of authenticity and strained relationships. Better understanding of disaffiliation and the exit process can help communication between current and exiting members of the organization. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 37 References Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. 22(4). 431-447. Albrecht, S. L. (1998). The consequential dimension of Mormon religiosity. In Duke, J. T. (Ed.), Latter-day Saint social life: Social research on the LDS Church and its members. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. Retrieved from: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/latter-day-saint-social-life-social-research-lds-church-and-its- members/8-consequential Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Avance, R. (2013). Seeing the light: Mormon conversion and deconversion narratives in off- and online worlds. Journal of Media and Religion, 12(1), 16-24. Ballard, M. R. (2016, October 2). To Whom Shall We Go? Retrieved September 24, 2017, from https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/10/to-whom-shall-we-go?lang=eng Barbour, J. D. (1994). Versions of deconversion: autobiography and the loss of faith. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Barney, K. (2009). Why do people leave the church – by common consent, a Mormon blog. Retrieved from https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/03/15/why-do-people-leave-the-church/ Bromley, D. G., (1998). Linking social structure and the exit process in religious organizations: defectors, whistle-blowers, and apostates. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(1), 145-160. Bullis, C., Bach, B.W., (1989). Socialization turning points: An examination of change in organizational identification. Western Journal of Speech Communication. 53. 273-293. Chau, H. G. (2008). The impact of congregational characteristics on conflict-related exit. Sociology of Religion, 69(1), 93-108. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20453199?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference# references_tab_contents Costas, J., & Fleming, P. (2009). Beyond dis-identification: A discursive approach to self-alienation in contemporary organizations. Human Relations, 62(3), 353-378. Cragun, R. T. (2014). “Apostates,” “anti-Mormons”, and other problems in Seth Payne’s “Ex- Mormon narratives and pastoral apologetics”. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 47(2), v-xix. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 38 Dainton, M. & Zelley, E. D. (2015). Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life: A Practical Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Davidman, L., & Greil, A. L. (2007). Characters in Search of a Script: The Exit Narratives of Formerly Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(2), 201- 216. Davis, C. W., & Myers, K. K. (2012). Communication and member disengagement in planned organizational exit. Western Journal of Communication, 76(2), 194-216. Dehlin, J. (2014). A comprehensive list of why people leave the LDS Church. Why Mormons Leave. Retrieved from: http://www.whymormonsleave.com/a-comprehensive-list-of-why- people-leave-the-lds-church Dehlin, J. (2012). Understanding Mormon disbelief: Why do some Mormons lose their testimony, and what happens to them when they do? Why Mormons Question. Retrieved from: http://www.whymormonsquestion.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Survey- Results_Understanding-Mormon-Disbelief-Mar20121.pdf Ebaugh, H. (1988). Becoming an ex: the process of role exit. Chicago, IL: Univeristy of Chicago Press. Garner, J. T. (2012). Uncomfortable communication: leaders' and members' perceptions of dissent triggers in churches. Journal of Communication and Religion, 35(1), 50-72. Gibson, M. K., & Papa, M. J. (2000). The mud, the blood, and the beer guys: Organizational osmosis in blue‐collar work groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(1), 68-88. Harrold, P. (2006). Deconversion in the emerging church. International journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 6(1), 79-90. Hinderaker, A. (2015). Severing primary ties: Exit from totalistic organizations. Western Journal of Communication, 79(1), 92-115. Hinderaker, A., & O'Connor, A. (2015). The long road out: Exit stories from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Communication Studies, 66(5), 509-527. Jablin, F. M. (1996). Handbook of organizational communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury Park u.a.: Sage. Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F.M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 732-794). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 39 Kassing, J.W. (1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: A model of employee dissent. Communication Studies. 48(4). 311-332. Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the organizational dissent scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(2), 183-229. Kassing, J. W. (2011). Stressing out about dissent: examining the relationship between coping strategies and dissent expression. Communication Research Reports, 28(3), 225-234. Keyton, J. (2015). Communication Research: Asking Questions, Finding Answers. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. 336. Kramer, M. W. (2011). A study of voluntary organizational membership: The assimilation process in a community choir. Western Journal of Communication, 75(1), 52-74. Lawrence, J and Tar, U. (2013). The use of Grounded Theory Technique as a practical tool for qualitative data collection and analysis. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 11(1). 29-40 Lipka, M. (2015). A closer look at America’s rapidly growing religious ‘nones’. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/13/a-closer-look-at- americas-rapidly-growing-religious-nones/ Martinich, M. (2014). Member activity rates. LDS Growth Encyclopedia on Missionary Work and Church Growth. Retrieved from: http://cumorah.com/index.php?target=view_other_articles&story_id=678&cat_id=35 Payne, S. (2013). Ex-Mormon narratives and pastoral apologetics. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 46(4), 85-121. Sterzer, R. (2016, April 26). Stay "connected" to God, Elder L. Whitney Clayton tells BYU graduates. Church News. Retrieved November 19, 2017, from https://www.lds.org/church/news/stay-connected-to-god-elder-l-whitney-clayton-tells-byu- graduates?lang=eng&_r=1 Stewart, D. M. (1975). Inactivity: Helping Starts with Knowing Why. Ensign. Retrieved from: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/10/inactivity-helping-starts-with-knowing-why? lang=eng Turner, B.A., (1983), The use of grounded theory for the qualitative analysis of organisational behaviour, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 20(3), 333-348. Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E.G. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc. A STUDY OF PRACTICING NON-BELIEVERS 40 Wirthlin, J. B. (1983). The worth of one: A home teacher’s guide for working with inactive members. Ensign. Retrieved from: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-worth-of-one-a- home-teachers-guide-for-working-with-inactive-members?lang=eng