Running head: IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 1 Identification of Early-Returned Missionaries in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Cami Sabin Weber State University Author Note Cami Sabin, Graduate Student, Department of Communication, Weber State University Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be directed to Cami Sabin, Graduate Student, Department of Communication, Weber State University. 1395 Edvalson St. Dept. 1407, Ogden, UT, 84408-1407. Contact: cami.a.sabin@gmail.com IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 2 Identification of Early-Returned Missionaries in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Perhaps the best-known symbol of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS church) is the full-time missionary. They are seen in pairs all over the world, seeking out people with whom to share their message. Often, they are not native to the culture or the country, and their mission service is limited to two years for men or 18 months for women. At the end of their time, they return home to continue educational or professional pursuits. Some of these missionaries, however, will not serve the full length of time. They might leave the mission early due to physical or mental health issues, or due to other factors either in or out of their control. This study focuses on those early-returned missionaries and uses Social Identity Theory (SIT) as a lens through which to examine their experiences. A review of the literature follows, as well as an explanation of the proposed methods of study and data analysis. Literature Review This section contains an explanation of Social Identity Theory as proposed by Tajfel and Turner (1986), and an explanation of how it is used in communication research. It also contains a brief overview of the LDS church and its missionary program. Specifically, the concept of identity is explained as it relates to missionaries, particularly during and after the exit process. Gaps in the existing research are identified, and research questions are presented. Social Identity Theory Tajfel and Turner (1986) first proposed SIT as a theory of intergroup conflict. Essentially, individuals define their identity in relation to the social categories to which they belong. These social categories are self-imposed, and individuals feel pressure to evaluate their own group positively by comparing it with other groups. The researchers suggested a hierarchy IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 3 of prestige in which “subordinate groups often seem to internalize a wider social evaluation of themselves as ‘inferior’ or ‘second class’” (p. 11). Three concepts that are central to SIT and to this study are in-groups and out-groups, depersonalization, and differentiation. In-groups and out-groups. According to Tajfel and Turner (1986), a group is a “collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be members of the same social category, share some emotional involvement in this common definition of themselves, and achieve some degree of social consensus about the evaluation of their group and of their membership in it” (p. 15). Any group to which an individual belongs is an “in-group” to that person; conversely, any group to which the person does not belong is an “out-group.” Conflict occurs when the in-group and an out-group are “relevant” to each other and when a threat to the self-esteem of the group members is perceived. An example of this might be seen when limited resources are to be distributed among two or more groups. Members and leaders of those various groups might feel threatened by the existence and needs of the other groups, because they perceive them to be competing for the same resources. Tajfel and Turner (1986) explain that this creates conflict as each group vies for recognition that it is the most important and therefore the most deserving of those resources. The two primary processes in social identity formation are self-categorization and social comparison. Self-categorization occurs when an individual focuses on perceived similarities between the self and other in-group members, and perceived differences between the self and out-group members. Social comparison occurs when the individual selectively compares the in-group and out-group using criteria that are biased in the individual’s favor (Stets & Burke, 2000). Depersonalization. The central cognitive process in SIT is depersonalization. This occurs when individuals see themselves as “an embodiment of the in-group prototype rather than IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 4 as a unique individual” (Stets & Burke, 2000, p. 231). In other words, individuals may assume that all in-group members have the same values, and this motivates them to regulate or change their behavior in order to fit the norms of the in-group. The process of depersonalization helps to reinforce individuals’ identification to the group, as they may give up certain parts of their identity in order to more strongly assimilate into the in-group. Differentiation. When a group encounters an out-group that they perceive to be too similar to themselves, a conflict can arise because that out-group may be seen as threatening. What follows next is a phenomenon known as differentiation – the aim of which is to “maintain or achieve superiority over an out-group on some dimensions” (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, p. 16). Differentiation is accomplished through social or instrumental competition. Social competition is characterized by comparison, and instrumental or “realistic” competition is seen when group goals are incompatible. Differentiation is most obvious when there are many perceived similarities between the in-group and out-group. Jetten, Spears, and Manstead (2001) found that those who identify strongly with the in-group “should be particularly motivated to differentiate themselves from the outgroup on relevant dimensions” (p. 623). In addition, they found that “similarity rather than dissimilarity of intergroup norms led to more ingroup bias and more ingroup favoritism in general” (p. 636). SIT in Organizational Communication In organizational communication studies, SIT is a useful lens through which to examine organizational identification. According to Stets and Burke (2000), “Once in society, people derive their identity or sense of self largely from the social categories to which they belong” (p. 225). Ybema et al. (2009) presented the concept of identity as self-other communication. In other words, identity is essentially the way people present themselves as similar and different from IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 5 others – whether that “other” is an individual or an organization. The authors point out that various social categories such as gender, occupation, ethnicity, etc., all intersect and can create a challenge to the articulation of one’s identity. For the individual, identity formation involves the processes of negotiation between social actors and institutions, between self and others, between inside and outside, between past and present. As an outcome of this continuous self-society dynamic, an ‘identity’ is simultaneously both what is projected and what is perceived and, thus it is a processual facticity constructed somewhere ‘in between’ the communicator(s) and their audience(s). (p. 303) An individual’s personal identity is made up of any number of constructs that describe them or groups to which they belong. These groups could be social, ethnic, religious, etc. For example, a person may identify another as a white socialist male, or an Hispanic atheist female. People tend to project the stereotypical tendencies of each group onto the individuals who assume that identity, even though individually they may not fit that mold. In other words, one might assume that because a particular individual is a Democrat, they support abortion rights, yet there are certainly Democrats who oppose abortion. The challenge of articulating one’s identity can be made more complicated by the conflict between various identities. Ashforth and Mael (1989) speculate that when identities contradict each other, the individual does not generally resolve it by integrating the conflicting identities. Rather, they will resolve the conflict cognitively, by “ordering, separating, or buffering” (p. 30) them so that each identity can be assumed when it is most appropriate or useful to the individual. In addition to social identity allowing individuals to define others based upon these constructs, SIT also provides for individuals to define themselves based in part on the groups to which they belong. Ashforth and Mael (1989) define social identification as “the perception of IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 6 oneness with or belongingness to some human aggregate” (p. 21). However, they are careful to distinguish identification from commitment and internalization, which indicate “buy-in” from the individual regarding the values and attitudes of the organization. Identification is seen as an antecedent to commitment and internalization, but there are important distinctions. A person may claim membership in an organization without espousing all of the values of that organization. For businesses, this may result in higher turnover as employees leave one company for a more advantageous position elsewhere, which would demonstrate that the employee – although identifying with the former organization – was not committed to it to the exclusion of other organizations. When young LDS members become missionaries, they assume an identity that carries with it stereotypical expectations from both LDS and non-LDS people. Throughout their mission experience, they will create their own identities, which may or may not align with the societal expectation. If they are obedient throughout their missions and return home “with honor,” they will receive the identity of “returned missionary,” a distinction that offers special status. As described below, this identity, however, can be difficult for individuals to negotiate. The LDS Church and the Missionary Program The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS church) was formally organized on April 6, 1830, by Joseph Smith. (“History of the church,” n.d.). The LDS church has since grown from six original members to a membership of approximately 15.5 million as of 2015 (Hales, 2016). The church claims as its mission to help all people “meet the challenges of this life so that we will be worthy of the temporal and spiritual blessings God wants for us.” (“About Us,” n.d.). Perhaps the most visible manifestation of the work the church does to accomplish this goal is the full-time missionaries – young men and women wearing little black nametags all over the world. As of 2015, there were nearly 75,000 full-time missionaries serving in 418 missions IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 7 (geographical areas) around the world, and that number is projected to increase to between 90,000 and 100,000 by 2019 (Stack, 2016). Why they serve. Young LDS youth are socialized from a very young age to one day become missionaries. From the time they start attending church, they sing songs such as “I Hope They Call Me on a Mission” (Children’s Songbook, 1989, p. 169) and “Called to Serve” (Hymns, 1985, p. 249) during Sunday meetings. Sunday School lessons promote missionary work, and teachers and parents are expected to encourage young people to prepare for their missions. In the LDS church, missionary service is seen as a priesthood responsibility, and since only males have the priesthood, young men are expected to serve. Young women are also encouraged to serve, although they are not under the same obligation as young men. The church refers to missionaries as volunteers (“Missionary Program,” n.d.). They exhibit the three types of volunteer motivation identified by Morrow-Howell and Mui (1989): 1) altruistic motivation, a desire to help others; 2) social motivation, a desire to “fit in” or belong; and 3) material motivation, a desire to improve one’s own worldly position through the experience (e.g., gain job experience, make important contacts, etc.). These motivations likely transfer to the LDS missionary program through missionaries’ desires to assist others to learn about their beliefs, maintain social positioning within their home LDS community, and as a way to develop marketable skills such as foreign language, public speaking, and sales skills. Missionaries are not paid for their service; in fact, they and their families are responsible to provide funds for living expenses. While their children are still young, parents may establish bank accounts dedicated to accumulating the funds necessary to pay for a future mission. Although missionary service may potentially create a financial burden on families, it is regarded as a blessing and a great opportunity, as well as an expectation. The pressure for young men, especially, to serve is both official and cultural. Lessons and addresses from church leaders IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 8 include statements such as the following: The Lord wants every young man to serve a full-time mission. Presently only a third of the eligible young men in the Church are serving full-time missions. This is not pleasing to the Lord. We can do better. We must do better. Not only should a mission be regarded as a priesthood duty, but every young man should look forward to this experience with great joy and anticipation. A young man can do nothing more important. School can wait. Scholarships can be deferred. Occupational goals can be postponed. Yes, even temple marriage should wait until after a young man has served an honorable full-time mission for the Lord. (Benson, 1986) The Aaronic Priesthood Manual, from which the young men ages 12-18 are taught, contains an entire lesson, the objective of which is, “Each young man will realize that full-time missionary service is both a privilege and a responsibility.” The lesson includes the following quote from Spencer W. Kimball, a former president of the church: “The question is frequently asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer has been given by the Lord. It is ‘Yes.’ Every young man should fill a mission” (“Lesson 25,” 1995, p. 99). The expectation to serve doesn’t come only through official channels. There is enormous cultural pressure as well. As young men near their upper teens, people start asking them if they are planning to serve, and young women are expected to encourage the young men in their preparations. Those who wish to serve missions must declare to their church leaders that they have abstained from alcohol, illegal drugs, tobacco, and sex before their missions. If a young man decides not to serve, there may be whisperings among members of his congregation, questioning his faithfulness, his priorities, and his moral character. There are also benefits to the missionaries that extend well beyond the two years (or 18 months in the case of women) they will serve. Martin (2009) found that the experience of serving IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 9 helps missionaries develop leadership skills that translate into other aspects of their lives, including future employment, community service, and family life. The Wall Street Journal reported that returned missionaries (RMs) have fueled much of Utah’s entrepreneurial success by way of language skills and international contacts (Wysocki, 1996). Some missionaries even look at their time of service as “payment for a better future” (Hinderaker, 2009, p. 28). Adams and Clopton (1990) found that missionaries who enjoyed the order and rigid structure of missionary life were more likely to be assigned to leadership positions and to maintain active membership in the LDS church after their missions had ended. Those who did not enjoy the structure were more likely to report that their self-esteem had suffered, and that the missionary experience did not promote or increase their commitment to the LDS church. There is no official policy that RM status affords an individual any advantages in the LDS organization. In fact, of the 15 top leaders in the LDS hierarchy, six did not serve as full-time missionaries, including all three of those who make up the First Presidency (“Current Apostles Missionary Service,” n.d.). Some explain this by pointing out that many of these six were fulfilling military obligations at the time they were of missionary age, and that the obligation of all young men to serve as missionaries was not established until after many of them had married and were therefore ineligible for full-time missionary service. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the absence of an official requirement of RM status for church position does not negate the cultural advantages of that status. As mentioned previously, these advantages may include being seen as more desirable job candidates or dating prospects. The rigorous expectations of missionary life perhaps most closely mirror those of other full-life volunteers. Peace Corps volunteers largely credit the time they served as a good way to prepare for later steps in their lives and careers. They also credit support or encouragement from friends or family members as inspiration for their decision to join (Jones-Bodie, D’Enbeau, & IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 10 Dohrman, 2008). This parallels the LDS cultural position that missionary service will increase future blessings, as well as the encouragement given to young people by their friends and family to serve. Serving a mission is an important step for young LDS men and women. According to Pepper (2016), “Rites of passage tend to mark important times in cultures such as birth, death, or graduation. In other words, they are social indicators of status changes” (p. 151). Pepper further argues that the missionary experience is even more than a rite of passage for young LDS men and women. He calls it a “self-contained life” (p. 149) and describes an experience wherein the missionaries examine themselves to determine whether or not they are following the rules exactly, and whether or not they are developing their relationship with God. While it is true that missionary life is entirely removed from one’s pre- and post-mission life, it is still very much a “social indicator of status change” (p. 151). In post-mission life, a young LDS man who has honorably served a mission has traditionally been seen as more desirable by many potential employers and romantic interests. It is common to hear young women claim they will “only date a returned missionary.” These influences and others combine to create enormous cultural pressure on young men. Socialization of missionaries This section contains an overview of the organizational assimilation model proposed by Jablin (1982, 1984) and how missionaries may experience each stage. Assimilation is defined as the ongoing behavioral and cognitive processes by which an individual joins, becomes integrated into, and leaves an organization. Socialization is the phenomenon experienced by the individual when he or she learns the norms and expectations of the organization and makes adaptations to fit in. In other words, socialization is one of the means by which assimilation is accomplished. Anticipatory socialization. Anticipatory socialization occurs before a person enters an IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 11 organization. It is during this phase that the person learns about work itself, including the work done by a particular vocation, and about the specific organization. Two types of socialization occur during this phase: Vocational and Organizational. Vocational/role anticipatory socialization. In vocational anticipatory socialization, the individual learns about the job they would do if they entered an organization. Because volunteers are not employees, and because their volunteer work is generally not linked to their vocation, Kramer (2011a) suggested that the term vocational anticipatory socialization should be replaced with role anticipatory socialization. The LDS emphasis on missionary service from a very young age is one example of role anticipatory socialization. Sources of this socialization include parents and family, lessons and other education provided by and through the church, social relationships, and the organizational emphasis on highlighting the missionary experiences of those who have returned. When missionaries experience feelings of doubt during their time of service, they often draw from messages and information they received during childhood to overcome those feelings (Hinderaker, 2009). Organizational anticipatory socialization. During this phase, the individual learns more specifically what it means to be in a certain organization. In the case of prospective employees, this is the stage in which they research what company they might want to join, submit applications, and go through the interview process. The experience for an LDS missionary is slightly different, as there is no investigation as to which organization to join. However, there is still a decision to be made, an application and other forms to be filled out and submitted, and questions to answer in interviews with church leaders. Each prospective missionary has two interviews, during which church leaders ask about the individual’s commitment to the church and about their faithfulness in keeping prescribed mandates. It is during this phase that a prospective missionary may attend missionary prep classes, which are weekly classes largely IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 12 dedicated to discussing various doctrinal topics and learning how to teach them to potential members. Some overlap between role and organizational anticipatory socialization occurs, as the individual is arguably learning both about the role of missionary and about the specific requirements of the organization and position. Encounter. The encounter phase begins when an individual officially enters an organization. During this stage, they may struggle with learning the official policies and cultural norms, and they may struggle to “fit in.” It is no different for missionaries, although the full-life aspect of their commitment may create additional challenges. “Full-life” means that every aspect of their life is affected for the time of their service. They are not just volunteering a few hours each week to a cause, but their cause largely defines their life. Entry into the mission experience can be a shock to the young person. They are initiated into a rigorous daily schedule of study and preparation in the Missionary Training Center (MTC). After two to eight weeks in the MTC (depending on where the mission assignment is and whether the missionary needs to learn a new language), the missionaries are sent to their assigned missions, where they are immediately placed with a “companion” – another missionary of the same gender who is familiar with the area. They are expected to remain with that person all day, every day, and to work with him or her to contact, teach, and help people become converted to the church. The pressure on young people to serve missions evolves into pressure on a missionary to work hard, follow mission rules exactly, and teach at every opportunity. Preach My Gospel (2004), which serves as the missionaries’ lesson manual and guide throughout their service, and which missionaries are required to study every day in addition to the Book of Mormon and other scripture, claims that “Your success as a missionary is measured primarily by your commitment to find, teach, baptize, and confirm people and to help them become faithful members of the IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 13 Church who enjoy the presence of the Holy Ghost” (p. 10). Metamorphosis. In this phase of assimilation, members are considered to have “completed” the socialization process and are now a full “insider.” For missionaries, this could mean that the shock of a new culture and a new lifestyle has worn off. In addition, they have been fully trained and have demonstrated that they “know what they are doing.” They may be assigned to train other new missionaries or given other responsibilities. The missionary program serves not only as a means of recruitment for the LDS church, but also as a program to further integrate and commit the missionaries to the organization. When missionaries teach investigators, their expression of testimony serves to tie them more closely to the LDS church by committing the missionary to the church’s organizational myths. Avance (2012) concludes that “Mormon missionary work acts to create individual Mormonism and maintain the validity of the Mormon faith” ( p. 16). Thus, through the process of assimilation into the missionary culture, the participant is also more fully assimilated into the church. Formation of the missionary identity. One way of answering the question “Who am I?” is through social identity – the position a person holds or the groups to which the person belongs. Carbaugh (1996) argues that identity is not only who a person is, it is also what they do in particular social scenes. He says, “What exactly one is being, or saying, or doing, by being such a person as a worker, or a woman, or a man, or an environmentalist, or a German, is largely contingent upon the scene in which one is acting, and the way that scene is set, cast, and communicationally improvised” (p. 23). This idea is further reinforced by Scott and Stephens (2009), who found that identification is situated and that it may shift during various activities or scenarios. To extend this to the topic at hand, the way a person is being, saying, or doing, by being a missionary, is largely contingent upon the scene, or the context. For a missionary, the context is entirely different from “normal” life. Carbaugh (1996) IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 14 states, “The question Who am I? depends partly on ‘where’ I am, with whom I am, and what I can ably do there, in that scene, with those people, given the (material and symbolic) resources that are available to the people there” (p. 24). For LDS missionaries, the scene has been set and structured very carefully: the “where,” “with whom,” “what I can ably do,” and available resources are all carefully managed, thus facilitating the creation of the “missionary identity.” In addition, the communication in which missionaries engage both creates and affirms their identity as missionaries. Identities are created through both narrative and theatrical performance – in other words, both by what individuals say and by what they do (Down and Reveley, 2009). Steimel (2013) explains that messages designed to facilitate quick and lasting organizational identification should focus less on rules and regulations and more on the virtue of volunteer work or the organization itself. That is, organizational socialization is most effective when newcomers are consistently reminded of the transcendent values of the organization rather than merely learning the tasks required of them. LDS missionaries have very rigid rules they are expected to follow, and they review those rules regularly. They also spend a great deal of time studying the principles they will be teaching to prospective members and other contacts. They have meetings with other missionaries weekly to support and encourage each other. They are encouraged to write a weekly letter to the president of their mission and express successes, frustrations, doubts, etc. The mission president holds periodic interviews with each missionary to determine areas of need and to express confidence and support. Pepper (2016) found that the most influential person in the creation of a missionary’s identity is their first companion, or trainer. Whether the time with that trainer was positive or negative, it impacted the way missionaries felt about their role. In addition, the experience with IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 15 “native” companions was also critical, as it provided an opportunity for the missionaries to learn from someone who knew more about the culture and language than they did. When there was conflict in the relationship with the native companion, it strongly affected the experience of the missionary. Toward Organizational Exit Of the stages of socialization in Jablin’s model of organizational assimilation (1982, 1984), the least studied is exit (Kramer, 2011a). Studies of organizational exit have largely excluded volunteers and have focused on either employer-instigated involuntary exit – such as firing or laying off employees – or employee-instigated voluntary exit – such as leaving an organization to accept a new position in another (Kramer, 2011a). Employee exit. Cox and Kramer (1995) were among the first to study the communication that occurs leading up to and during an organization’s decision to dismiss an employee. They found that supervisors were more likely to fire an employee who had violated restrictive standards rather than permissive standards. In other words, an employee who was stealing was more likely to be fired than an employee who failed to meet sales quotas. The supervisors reported that, with the exception of particularly grievous violations of standards, they engaged in several behaviors to help the employees modify or improve their performance in order to retain them in the organization. Their study, however, dealt exclusively with employees, and did not look at organizations that might want to end a relationship with a volunteer. Even so, it is likely that in volunteer organizations, some behaviors are more likely than others to convince a supervisor or leader to force the volunteer out, even when the organization has invested time and resources into that person. Doerfel and Connaughton (2006) examined voluntary turnover of employees in organizations and found that the stronger an individual’s identification with the organization IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 16 was, the less likely they would be to leave. An important finding is that when an individual’s communication relationships “encompass qualities that reveal willingness to help each other and supportiveness” (p. 23), they are more likely to stay in the organization. Volunteer exit. Hinderaker (2015) criticized organizational research that focuses solely on employees: Such a definition of membership restricts our understanding of organizational phenomena in several ways. First, it ignores value-based organizational relationships such as faith communities. Second, it binds our observations of organizational experiences to the exchange of resources and does not allow for consideration of reverse pay memberships (e.g., tithing, dues). Third, it limits our ability to engage in comparative studies between organizational memberships of differing pay status. (p. 92) Volunteer Now (2012) identifies several reasons volunteers give for leaving their organizations. Some of these are a lack of understanding of expectations or the reasons for them, a feeling that the organization was taking advantage of the volunteer, a lack of support from the organization, and a lack of expressed appreciation from the organization. More can be learned by examining the research of several others who have studied volunteers in organizations (Kramer, 2011a; Roesch, Spitzberg, & Dwiggins-Beeler, 2006; Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Among their findings are that contextual and personal barriers can lead to dissatisfaction among volunteers (Roesch et al., 2006); job alternatives may predict a volunteer’s intent to leave an organization (Mitchell et al., 2001); and that the exit process for volunteers can be casual and fluid, meaning that members might leave and return according to their needs (Kramer, 2011a). Full-life experience exit. Employees and volunteers are the primary subjects of socialization research, including research on exit. We should not neglect, however, to consider organizational members who fall into the full-life experience category, such as deployed military IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 17 personnel, Peace Corps volunteers, Doctors Without Borders volunteers, Teach for America participants, religious missionaries and others. Hinderaker (2015) terms these “totalistic” organizations, and argues “that the values, practices, rituals, and relationship associated with membership not only extend into the member’s everyday life, but play a primary role.” She calls these relationships value-based, and says they require complete member loyalty and that they “tend to involve primary relationships that bind the member’s family and friendships to that organization” (p. 93). Hinderaker (2015) presented two examples of totalistic organizations: high reliability organizations such as police and fire departments, and religions. Her studies specifically identify the LDS church as a good example of a totalistic organization, and she examines the exit process of members who choose to leave the church. Her findings have relevance to the topic at hand, as it could be argued that a mission is even more totalistic than membership in the church. Missionaries have very little identity outside of “missionary” during the term of service. It is expected that gospel study and missionary work will take up all of their time, with the exception of a portion of one day a week, which is set aside to take care of more “worldly” concerns such as laundering clothing and sending emails to family (Missionary Handbook, 2006, p. 19). Hinderaker (2015) examined the exit process of members who choose to leave the LDS church, but doesn’t address those who choose to leave their mission experiences. She found that the main reasons individuals began considering leaving the LDS church were personal trauma, disenchantment with clergy, and doctrinal disbelief. Before they exited the LDS church, members sought reasons to stay. They “tested” exit by quitting certain practices or leaving temporarily and then returning. They also doubted themselves and their decision, and engaged in behavior that concealed or hid their doubts and decisions. Research exploring the full range of reasons why missionaries begin considering leaving IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 18 their missions is not available. Because of the rigid structure of the missionary experience, it is highly unlikely that missionaries would be able to “test” exit (Hinderaker, 2015), although they may very well quit following certain rules or engage in covert behaviors to conceal doubts. Dis-identification (Costas & Fleming, 2009) is a process that occurs when individuals come to believe that their “real” self is not reflected by the identity they live or portray to others. They must then reconcile these incongruences or restructure their identity to be “authentic.” The researchers explore how such an individual could perceive the true self as undesirable and seek to dis-identify or self-alienate from it. In the case of LDS missionaries, this could occur when missionaries (who are tasked with teaching about the LDS church, and are expected to profess that they believe – even know – it to be “true”) find that they no longer believe what they are teaching. If they continue to teach as if they believe it, they are not being authentic. Yet if they admit the truth, they can no longer fulfill the role of missionary. Societal and cultural pressures (i.e., the stigma of returning home early) may persuade them to attempt to dis-identify, or detach from those feelings or realizations. Hinderaker and O’Connor (2015) describe the exit process of former members of the LDS church as a “long, nonlinear, multiple-year road” (p. 522). In addition, their exit is “informed by the strong attachment to organizational beliefs and the members’ awareness of the high relational costs of exit” (p. 525). The “strong attachment” and “high relational costs of exit” are not unique to members of the LDS church, or even to religions in general. Members of other full-life organizations exhibit similar characteristics. For example, Bubolz and Simi (2015) studied gang exit. They found that when gang members enter a gang, they do so with expectations regarding protection, familial support, and economic success. When their expectations weren’t met within the organization, it caused dissonance in their identity, which led to anger. This anger ultimately motivated them to IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 19 leave the organization. Although missionary service is completely different from gang affiliation, because of the full-life dedication of members, missionaries may experience similar reactions when their expectations of missionary life are violated. Those who enter missionary service do so with their own expectations of the benefits of service, which in some ways may even parallel gang members’ expectations of protection, familial support, and economic success, as the LDS culture seems to encourage service in large part for the “blessings” that may be obtained in the future. The experience of leaving such an all-encompassing experience may have implications for LDS missionaries as well, even though the motivation for leaving may be entirely different. Missionary exit. While participation in the church might be fluid – reflecting Kramer’s (2011a) assertion that boundaries in volunteer organizations are not always clear – the missionary experience boundaries are much less flexible. When missionaries receive their “call,” it comes with an established date for entrance to one of 15 Missionary Training Centers (“Missionary Program,” n.d.) around the world, and it is anticipated that they will serve for a designated length of time. When missionaries exit the mission before the anticipated date for any reason, they may or may not be able to return to the same geographical mission, or even to any mission. Certain allowances are made for a missionary who may need to return home for temporary treatment of a medical issue or other matter, but even then, there is no guarantee that the missionary will be able to return to the same mission. An assignment may instead be made to a location closer to home. Some missionaries in this circumstance even live at home and engage in other church service. In any case, leaving a mission carries with it the possibility that the mission experience has permanently ended. Haski-Leventhal and Bargal (2008) introduced the terms “ejection” and “retirement” to IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 20 describe the exit of volunteers from emotionally intense experiences. They found that volunteers who leave the organization early (ejection) generally do so for one of three reasons: not fitting in with other volunteers, unfavorable attitudes from their social environment, or lack of suitability between the volunteer and the organization. They also found that the organization rarely initiates this process, because it is “emotionally and practically difficult for all parties” (p. 84). Volunteers who leave after a year or two of volunteering (retirement) feel a deep sense of loss but also a sense of relief when they leave. In addition, the volunteers felt a deep connection to the youth they had helped, and retained a great deal of concern for them both individually and collectively. Some comparisons to LDS missionaries can be made. Missionaries might be “ejected” from the mission experience due to incompatibilities. Other finish the allotted time and experience “retirement.” They feel deep connections and concern for those with whom they worked as missionaries, and “return home as informed ambassadors of the nations and cultures where they served” (“Missionary Work,” n.d.). For most missionaries, their exit is planned, which means they leave due to their term of service ending (Davis & Myers, 2012). The two years or 18 months is up, and they “retire” from their mission. Some missionaries, however, end this service earlier than anticipated. Most of them return early because of mental or physical health issues that need to be treated. A 2013 study at Utah Valley University found that of 348 men and women who returned early from LDS missions, 36 percent said they came home because of mental health issues. Another 34 percent cited physical problems (Doty et al., 2015). There are other reasons that missionaries return home early, although official information about specific reasons is not available to the public. Even so, Swain (2015) claims that the top five non-health-related reasons missionaries come home are: 1) Unresolved sins that took place before missionary service began; 2) Disrespecting another culture; 3) Physical abuse among IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 21 missionaries (e.g. fighting with one’s companion); 4) Leaving your companion; and 5) Sexual sins that occur during missionary service. Because ERMs are likely to be asked by others in their congregation or community about the reason for their early return, the first research question is presented: RQ1: How do early-returned missionaries explain their return to others? Reintegration Limited research was found on the reintegration of full-life organizational members after leaving their organizations. Several studies exist examining the reintegration of deployed military members when returning home (Knobloch, Ebata, McGlaughlin, & Ogolsky, 2013; Knobloch, Ebata, McGlaughlin, & Theiss, 2013; Knobloch, Basinger, Wehrman, Ebata, & McGlaughlin, 2016; Theiss & Knobloch, 2013). Of particular interest, Knobloch et al. (2016) studied the reintegration of deployed military members into their daily lives and previous family relationships. They found that the “postdeployment” stage, or the first six months after a member returns home, is characterized by a brief “honeymoon” phase, followed by “awkwardness and frustration” as the returned family member and those who remained home work to establish new daily routines. It is likely that returning LDS missionaries experience “re-entry shock,” similar to that experienced by study abroad students who return home (Davis & Chapman, 2007). Even though some missionaries serve within their own countries, there is arguably a culture that is unique to full-time missionary work, and leaving it requires adjustment to non-missionary life. Those who serve in cultures not native to them will potentially have even more adjustment to make. This readjustment period may be marked by symptoms such as depression, uncertainty, confusion, restlessness, a desire for isolation, or negative feelings toward family and friends, (Davis, Desiere, Naughton, Payne, & Valianos, 2001). IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 22 Callahan (2004) found that LDS missionaries who returned from European cultures had the easiest time with re-entry, followed by missionaries who returned from Central and South American cultures and other third-world areas. Missionaries who returned from Asian cultures, especially Japan and Taiwan, had the most difficult time. The primary complaint from the RMs was that their family and previous friends no longer knew them in the same way. They also all communicated a sense of cultural loss, which seemed to refer to both the culture they had left as well as the structured lifestyle of the mission. Just as volunteers need messages that focus on higher values and goals of the organization from their leaders to assimilate quickly and efficiently (Steimel, 2013), it is also likely that missionaries who return home benefit from appropriate messages from various sources, such as parents, mission presidents, local ecclesiastical leaders, and other members of their congregations. It stands to reason that the messages they receive from these and other sources affect the level of identification these missionaries have with their wards and the church organization as a whole as they attempt to re-socialize. For those who returned home earlier than anticipated, those messages may be even more critical as they attempt to understand and express their identity. Given that there is limited understanding of the reintegration process for RMs in general, and for ERMs specifically, the second research question is presented: RQ2: How do early-returned missionaries experience the reintegration process? Post-mission identity It can be argued that organizations do very little to prepare their members for exit. In business, it is incumbent upon the employee, not the organization, to prepare for life after exit. Kramer and Danielson (2016) did an examination of how volunteer zoo docents learned and developed their roles, and then refined that understanding as new volunteers entered the organization. This study is an example of the study of socialization of volunteers, but fails to IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 23 discuss how their roles change as they prepare to exit the organization. Likewise, very little research is available detailing organizational exit of the type that occurs when a missionary returns home. Perhaps missionary service is unique in that missionaries who return home are still members of the larger organization, and it is assumed that they are fully socialized and integrated into that larger organization. As long as they continue to attend services and participate in other aspects of the religion, there is no exit. Avance (2013) found that active, heterodox, and former LDS church members all used parallel narratives of “testimony” to explain and defend their current identity. She argues that LDS teachings and culture influence what it means to be Mormon, but that the individuals themselves construct their religious identity through their narratives. Sharing narratives and stories provides solidarity (Whatule, 2000) and may help to explain the appeal of such groups as Sick RMs, Purple Heart RMs, and various subreddits that act as online support groups for missionaries who return home early due to illness or other medical needs, and desire a support group as they reintegrate into their former lives in the face of cultural misunderstanding or unacceptance. The presence of such forums indicates that ERMs seek to express their identity in narrative forms and in a supportive and understanding environment. According to Social Identity Theory as explained by Ashforth and Mael (1986), there are several characteristics that may influence the groups with which people identify themselves. These characteristics will be discussed as they could apply to the group of “returned missionary.” First is the distinctiveness of the group’s values and practices in relation to those of comparable groups (p. 24). RMs have experienced other cultures, and may even speak foreign languages. This might make them more open to different ideas and perspectives. It is common to hear RMs (especially those who are recently returned) speak about the importance of helping the full-time missionaries serving in their local congregation. RMs often travel to nearby congregations to IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 24 speak to them about their experience and offer encouragement and testimony. The second characteristic is prestige of the group (p. 25). A title of “returned missionary” in the LDS church is culturally one of status – RMs have proven their obedience and have presumably reached a level of spiritual maturity that prepares them for future roles as spouses, parents, and leaders in the church – particularly, in the case of men, as Priesthood leaders. As indicated earlier, RMs may be seen as more suitable for dating. The next characteristic suggested by the authors is salience of the out-group (p. 25). An RM has presumably experienced something that those who are not members of the group can never quite grasp. It is common in LDS church meetings to hear phrases such as, “Those of you who served missions can probably relate to this.” This instantly creates an in-group and an out-group, as those who have not served missions are perceived to just not quite understand a particular concept or particular experience. Whether or not members of the out-group can, in fact, understand, seems to be overlooked by members of the in-group. The final characteristic of this group is the lack of traditional causes of group formation. Unlike other organizations, members of this group do not need to have common backgrounds, neighborhoods, or goals, or even like each other. They do not need to socialize with each other in order for them to identify with the same group. RMs as a group reflect the characteristics identified by Ashforth and Mael, yet not all RMs necessarily have equal standing in this group. Because some return early, there may be a perception – both from the organization/culture and from the very missionaries themselves – that one who returned before the full two years or 18 months is not really an RM. This may create another out-group: early-returned missionaries (ERMs). These young people don’t quite have the same social status as the in-group, and certainly don’t enjoy the same benefits. In recent years, the church has made efforts to assure missionaries who come home early IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 25 due to mental or physical health problems that their service was still honorable, that they are still “returned missionaries” and can claim that title unequivocally. Church-owned media and websites otherwise affiliated with the church have published several articles offering support for this group of missionaries, as well as advice for their families and ward members (Casco, 2015; Oakey, 2014; Olsen, 2011; Wright, 2015). In response to an individual who expressed feelings of failure for only serving four months before returning home, Holland (2016, March 19) posted a video online in which he said, I want you to be proud. Appropriately proud. I want you to take the dignity, and the strength and the faith that came from your four months and cherish that forever. I don't want you to apologize for coming home. When someone asks you if you're served a mission, you say, yes. You do not need to follow that up with, but it was only four months. Just forget that part and say yes, you served a mission. And be proud of the time that you spent. . . I want all of you, anyone out in the audience who would wrestle with this issue, to have that feeling of self-worth and of a successful mission honorably offered to the Lord, regardless of the period of time involved. I encourage that and want you to feel that way forever. There has been little if any formal public support for other ERMs – those who returned due to factors that were within their control. These factors include but are not limited to those outlined by Swain. The cultural pressures to serve, as well as the perceived and real post-mission benefits to those who serve, indicate that those who return early may identify themselves differently from those who serve until the end of the anticipated term. ERMs whose status and identity have not been addressed by the church may experience great confusion as they seek to define and express their identity. Accordingly, the third, fourth, and fifth research questions are presented: IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 26 RQ3: How do early-returned missionaries share their experiences? RQ4: How do early-returned missionaries claim their returned missionary status in different contexts? RQ5: What do early-returned missionaries suggest as additional support, policies, or resources that might be provided by the LDS church and/or its leaders? Summary of the literature and research questions While a great deal of research exists about organizational socialization, studies that pertain specifically to the exit process are relatively limited and generally focus on employees. Those studies that do have volunteers as subjects tend to overlook full-life volunteer experiences. Although many studies exist that examine various facets of LDS missionary life, there has until now been no examination of the way ERMs understand their identity as it relates to other RMs and to the LDS church organization as a whole. The purpose of this study is to expand existing research by examining Social Identity Theory as it applies to missionaries who leave a full-life experience while still maintaining membership of the larger organization. A restatement of the research questions follows: RQ1: How do early-returned missionaries explain their return to others? RQ2: How do early-returned missionaries experience the reintegration process? RQ3: How do early-returned missionaries share their experiences? RQ4: How do early-returned missionaries claim their returned missionary status in different contexts? RQ5: What do early-returned missionaries suggest as additional support, policies, or resources that might be provided by the LDS church and/or its leaders? Method Qualitative research methods are best suited to this particular study, as the circumstances IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 27 and experiences of ERMs require contextual and detailed examination. Creswell (2007) said that qualitative research allows us to “empower individuals to share their stories, hear their voices, and minimize the power relationships that often exist between a researcher and the participants in a study” (p. 40). In this section, I will discuss the protocols for selecting and recruiting participants, the instrument used, and the procedures for data analysis. Concerns of credibility will also be addressed. Participants and Procedures This study is partly autoethnographic. I have been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for my entire life. I am also a returned missionary, having served an 18-month mission in Portugal and Cape Verde beginning in September 1999. While I did not return early from my mission, I did witness other missionaries leave for various reasons, both health-related and not. In more than 15 years since I returned home, I have seen many missionaries begin to serve, but return home before their term of service was ended. I have witnessed these ERMs struggle to find their place in our congregations because they felt they were harshly judged and even ostracized by fellow members. In addition, there appears to be a lingering suspicion among some individuals that those who return for health reasons are actually using that as an excuse in order to maintain their status within the church and avoid being judged by fellow members. In other words, they are viewed by some as not really being sick – they just couldn’t handle it. In addition to some reflections on my own observations, I solicited the experiences of others through interviews. Participants included LDS missionaries who returned early from their missions. I accessed these participants using network sampling, sometimes called snowball or chain sampling (Creswell, 2007, p. 127). Essentially, I contacted friends of friends in order to identify potential interviewees. The following statement was posted on my Facebook wall on IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 28 three separate occasions over the course of two weeks. It was a public post so that it could be shared by anyone who saw it: Please share: I am conducting a study of early-returned LDS missionaries and how they see themselves as they reintegrate into “normal life.” If you have returned home early from an LDS mission for any reason – but especially if that reason is not health-related – I would love to speak with you. Please message me privately on Facebook or email me at cami.a.sabin@gmail.com. Your name and experiences will be kept confidential. From these Facebook posts and the subsequent sharing of them by my contacts, I was able to interview 22 ERMs. The 11 males and 11 females ranged in age from 19 to 40, with a mean of 30.8 and a median age of 32. When they started missionary service, they ranged in age from 18 to 22, with a mean of 19.9 and a median of 19. One female returned home early twice, and her two periods are service are counted as two separate missions. Thus, the 24 terms of service ranged from two weeks to 23 months, with a mean of nine months and a median of eight months. Fourteen participants lived in Utah at the time they began missionary service, with six others leaving from California, Maryland, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia. The remaining two were living in Japan and Canada. Twelve were assigned to missions in the United States, with six assigned to areas in the Western U.S., five assigned to areas in the Eastern U.S., and one assigned to an area in the Midwest. The remaining 11 participants were assigned to areas outside of the United States, with three being assigned to Asia, three to Western Europe, one to Eastern Europe, two to South America, one to Canada, and one to the Caribbean. One of my contacts posted the call for participants on several forums that are focused toward heterodox and former members of the LDS church, and I interviewed at least four people who contacted me through those postings. The effect of this may be to skew the data toward IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 29 information that is prejudiced against the church and the missionary program. On the other hand, those postings gave me access to a group of individuals that otherwise would likely have been excluded. The information these participants shared is vital to a thorough understanding of the ERM experience. Elimination of any one of these participants would result in data that is less dense and less rich. Given the fact that each participant had a unique set of circumstances that led to their return, it is highly likely that any other potential participant would also have a unique experience. However, the sample size of 22 did reach saturation in that new factors were not introduced by the last participants to be interviewed. The combination of factors was unique, but the factors themselves were not unique. Data Collection The study of identity in communication is constrained by what is visible. In other words, identity must be studied by examining the way a person communicates about themselves and others through discourse, narrative, storytelling, etc. (Ybema et al., 2009). Consequently, the best way to study identity of ERMs is to provide them an opportunity to engage in communication regarding their experience, which is the reason that the data will be gathered by qualitative interviews. Interview questions focused on the experiences these missionaries had had as they left missionary service and returned home. Specifically, questions addressed the ways ERMs express their identity in relation to those missionaries who served the entire anticipated time. I wanted to understand how they position themselves in the LDS church – whether they claim the title of “returned missionary,” and why or why not. A list of questions is attached as Appendix A. Appropriate follow-up questions were asked in order to clarify or add depth to the responses. Eight interviews took place in person, and 14 took place over the phone, depending on IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 30 the schedule, location, and circumstances of the participants. All participants signed Informed Consent forms prior to the interview. Those who were interviewed by phone emailed the signed consent form or sent photos of the signed consent form in which the signature is visible. There was one exception, in which the participant was unable to access the Internet prior to his phone interview. In that case, I asked him on the recording if he had received and read the Informed Consent Form, to which he said yes. I then asked if he had any questions about it, to which he responded no. Finally, I asked if he gave his consent to be interviewed. He responded yes. I asked him to state his name and the date for the recording. That recording was ended and saved with the other electronic Informed Consent documents that had been sent to me. A new recording was started to conduct the interview without the use of his real name. All interviews were recorded, and transcripts were made of the recordings. Pseudonyms are used in the reporting of the data to preserve the anonymity of the participants. These pseudonyms are clustered using the first initial of their names. Those who returned early due to physical or mental health issues have been designated as such by the first initial “H,” and those who returned for non-health reasons have been designated by the first initial “N.” Pseudonyms also convey the self-identified gender of the participants. Data Analysis Once the transcripts were prepared, they were organized in alphabetical order according to the pseudonym assigned. Then they were numbered 1-22. Citations indicate the interview number and the line numbers in an [interview:lines] format. Transcription of the 22 interviews resulted in 244 pages of data, which was subsequently coded and analyzed. During data analysis, the researcher “hopes to make progress on three fronts: data management, data reduction, and conceptual development” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011, p. 243). In this section, the process of data analysis is explained. IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 31 Data analysis followed a constant comparative analysis structure outlined by Charmaz (2006). In this process, comparisons are made at every level of analysis. Data are compared within and between interviews to identify similarities and differences. I engaged in a three-step coding process, including initial coding, focused coding, and axial coding. Charmaz states that “coding is the first step in moving beyond concrete statements in the data to making analytical interpretations. We aim to make an interpretive rendering that begins with coding and illuminates studied life” (p. 43). Prior to coding the data, I organized the interview questions according to the research question they addressed. Then as part of the initial coding process, I categorized the responses according to research question. This made it easier to analyze the data accordingly. I also coded emotions the respondent mentioned, as well as other key words or phrases that were significant, even if they did not fit precisely under an RQ. The data were carefully reviewed four times. Each time, codes were combined, refined, clarified, and organized. Themes emerged, and patterns and contrasts were identified. This led to the second step of the coding process – focused coding. In this phase, codes are identified which represent the most frequent or most significant themes that emerged from the data. Those codes are used to re-examine participants’ experiences and interpretation in order to “condense data and provide a handle on them” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 59). The final phase is axial coding. During this process, the data that has been fragmented and examined individually is put back together according to the “axis” of the category. The researcher links categories with subcategories and seeks to explain the relationships between them. Examining the data in this way creates a complex and nuanced view of the themes that have emerged. During this process, as in the previous two phases of coding, the data are constantly compared with each other and with previously identified themes in order to extract as IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 32 much meaning as possible. Credibility Standards of reliability and validity used in quantitative research are difficult to replicate when the study relies on qualitative methods. Some researchers (Eisner, 1991; Lindlof & Taylor, 2011) have instead discussed credibility, and established standards by which one can evaluate whether the results of a qualitative study are correct and dependable. Creswell (2007) outlines eight strategies in which qualitative researchers can engage in order to validate, or demonstrate the credibility of their research studies. He recommends that researchers follow at least two of these strategies (p. 209). In this particular study, I follow three of the recommended strategies. An explanation of those three strategies and the way I engaged in them follows. Clarify researcher bias. According to Creswell (2007), a researcher should “comment on past experiences, biases, prejudices, and orientations that have likely shaped the interpretation and approach to the study” (p. 208). My experience as a member of the LDS church and as an RM gives me insight into both the organization and the culture, which would be very difficult for an outsider to obtain without many years of study and even participation. Because of this insight, I am capable of asking relevant questions that will focus on particular aspects of the culture that would otherwise be overlooked by outside researchers. In no way do I equate the culture or individual beliefs and attitudes of church members with the official positions of the church. However, I also recognize that those same cultural attitudes have their origins in statements and policies of past LDS leaders. As with other marginalized groups, progress made on the official front has yet to be fully embraced and represented culturally, and some would argue that there has been insufficient progress officially. I took great care to accept the participants’ interpretation of their experiences and critically IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 33 examine the findings of this research, regardless of whether or not it fits into my own perceptions of cultural versus official attitudes. I value my membership in the church, but I also recognize that some members feel marginalized both by the organization and the culture. Those feelings deserve validation, and it is important to highlight and contextualize their experiences to increase understanding and perhaps illuminate potential areas for further research. Member checking. The second strategy is member checking, which is essentially when the researcher goes back to the participants and “solicits participants’ views of the credibility of the findings and interpretations” (Creswell, 2007, p. 208). By inviting the participants to review the initial findings, the researcher helps to ensure that the results are an accurate representation of the participants’ feelings and experiences. Lincoln and Guba (1985) consider member checking to be “the most critical technique for establishing credibility” (p. 314). After my preliminary analysis was completed, I created an electronic document for each participant in which I recorded the way I had categorized their responses. For each participant, I also included the quotes I was intending to use from that person in order to support the coding I had done. Because the analysis at this point was preliminary, I also noted that I would possibly be using additional quotes when I wrote the paper. I contacted each of the participants of the study and asked them to review their own file. This was done in order to ensure that my interpretation of their responses accurately reflect their experiences. I was able to email or send messages via Facebook to 21 of the 22 participants. The remaining participant no longer has a Facebook account, and that is how we had previously communicated. Of the 21 participants to whom I sent the files, 19 responded with feedback. Five asked me to make small corrections such as removing filler words in order to clarify what was said. The remaining 14 said they were comfortable with the way I had categorized and characterized their responses. No one suggested or requested any changes that affected the IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 34 substance of the results. Rich, thick description. The process of using thick description begins by gathering rich data, which is the result of compiling detailed narratives. These narratives “reveal participants’ views, feelings, intentions, and actions as well as the contexts and structures of their lives” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 14). This rich data results in thick description, which is necessary in order to extract meaning from the various connections and themes (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). It is a “valued feature of ethnography” (p. 135), because it serves to help other researchers make judgments on the transferability of findings. The strategy of thick description was employed both in the gathering of the data (e.g. asking detailed questions and providing ample time for response) and in the reporting of the data. In other words, the reporting includes detail, context, and emotion. Results The data presented represent the results of all three phases of coding. The results will be presented according to RQ, both in general terms and also differentiating between male and female ERMs who returned for health and non-health reasons. After the data are presented according to each RQ, additional thematic and relational results that emerged during the analysis of that particular RQ will be presented. RQ1: How Do Early-returned Missionaries Explain Their Return to Others? The following interview questions correspond to RQ1: 1. Why did you return home earlier than your anticipated release date? a. Who made the decision that you would return home? 7. When asked why you came home early, how do you answer? a. Why do you answer that way? Question 1: Why did you return home earlier than your anticipated release date? IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 35 The chart below depicts the number of male and female participants who returned for health or non-health reasons. Health reasons Non-health reasons Males 3 8 Females 10 1 Health reasons included both physical and mental health. Physical health Mental health Combination Males Health reasons 1 1 1 Females Health reasons 5 5 1 Harmony is accounted for twice in this chart, as she returned early from one mission for physical health reasons, and from a second mission for mental health reasons. Physical health. Examples of physical health reasons include Hollie, who said, “I was sick at the time, and I couldn't get better. I found out later it was mold poisoning” [10:11], and Heidi, who said, “I was having problems with my knees. I was in a walking only mission, and kept having knee problems that we couldn’t seem to resolve” [6:11-12]. Mental health. Mental health reasons were primarily anxiety and depression. One example of this is Hailey, who said, “I got sent home because I have stress-induced anxiety and depression” [1:14]. Helen was another participant who experienced depression. She said, “Looking back at it, I was being emotionally abused by my companion, and I really just wanted to get out of the situation. And for some reason, the only way I could think of to do that was to commit suicide. So I kind of sort of was hinting about that to my mission president, and he came out and asked me if I’d been thinking about hurting myself” [7:12-15]. Combination. Two missionaries came home for a combination of physical and mental IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 36 health. One of these was Hope, who said, “I was having depression and anxiety, and also some back problems. But I probably could have made it if it was just back problems” [11:10-11]. Non-health reasons included pre-mission improprieties, doubts about missionary service, fights with a companion, and clerical error. Pre-mission improprieties Doubts about mission Fights with companion Clerical error Males Non-health reasons 3 3 1 1 Females Non-health reasons 1 Only one of the participants who returned for non-health reasons was female. There could be several explanations for this. Women are not under the same obligation as men are to serve, females who serve missions tend to not have the same doubts about church doctrine that might otherwise cause a missionary to return home early. They choose to serve missions because they truly believe what they will be teaching. In addition, the absence of pressure to serve at a certain age gives them the freedom to spend more time in preparation and in resolution of doubts and improprieties. Finally, because women have until recently not served until they were 21, they typically had more “life experience” before serving. Men may or may not have ever lived outside of their family home, while women were more likely to have completed all or most of a college degree, and may even have entered a chosen career field. This speaks to greater experience in dealing with difficult situations and in resolving conflicts with others. Pre-mission improprieties. As described earlier, the church has stringent standards that must be met by those applying for missionary service. Among these is refraining from sexual activity. Youth in the church are advised, “Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 37 with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body” (“For the Strength of Youth,” p. 36). Missionaries must either state in interviews with both their bishop and stake president that they have never engaged in such activities, or “confess” the actions and work with the church leaders to regain good standing prior to missionary service. Some missionaries do not disclose their pre-mission improprieties to their leaders, and this may lead to feelings of guilt later. Three participants returned home for improprieties that occurred prior to their missions. Among these was Ned, who said, “I came home early because of, well, worthiness. It was worthiness. There were some things that I didn't take care of” [16:13-14]. Doubts. Four participants returned because they had doubts about the truth of what they were supposed to teach, or about their own ability to be successful. Nick said, “I lost faith in the religion, and didn't want to waste any more time doing something I didn't believe in” [18:11]. Nilton said, “I don't think I was super into it when I left. My dad was the bishop, and I felt a little bit forced into going. And so ahead of time, had I just faced the music and admitted to my parents that I didn't really want to go, it may have, you know, maybe we could have headed some of the problems off at the pass. But as it was, I went ahead and did all the paperwork and went. And just throughout the whole process I just never was very comfortable there… So at some point, I finally just admitted to my parents that I wanted to come home” [20:11-18]. Fights with companion. Noah did not get along with his companion. He said, “My companion and I got in a big fight. I mean, I started, I grabbed like pretty much every dish out of the cabinet and I started throwing it at him, and I said, ‘Get away from me!’ I think the main thing that was the cause of me going home was I grabbed the car keys and, by myself, jumped in the car and took off. And you know, I came back, but I was just like, I can't handle this anymore” [21:30-34]. IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 38 Clerical error. Neal described the reason for his return as a “clerical error.” He said, “I got lumped in with a bigger group of missionaries that left. My mission call was changed last-minute… so it just kind of ended up being like this weird last-minute addition to the mission, and no other missionaries came in on the same transfer as me. And so my mission president just kind of assumed that I was going home with this other group. So when he bought all the tickets he bought mine with theirs” [15:11-15]. Question 1a: Who made the decision that you would return home? Self Someone else Combination Males Health reasons 1 2 Females Health reasons 3 2 6 Males Non-health reasons 3 4 1 Females Non-health reasons 1 Participants shared whether they made the decision to return home early by themselves, or whether they made it with the participation of another party. Some participants did not have a role in the decision at all. One participant, Harmony, is accounted for twice, as she returned home early two times. She made the decision herself on both occasions. Self. When asked who made the decision that they would return, seven of the 22 participants indicated that they personally made the decision. Nora said, “I basically woke up, and literally the first thought that popped into my head was, ‘You shouldn't be here. You need to be home.’ And I was like, ‘What the heck? That's really weird’… So basically there was a cycle. I would tell my mission president, ‘Hey, I have prayed about this and I need to go home.’ And he would say, ‘Hmm, I don't think so.’ Like, ‘You need to keep praying about it.’ So that went on for a month. It was exactly a month before he finally was like, ‘Okay, you can go home’” [22:24-26, 34-37]. IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 39 Noah had struggled for some time to get along with his companion. He had asked several times to be assigned a new companion, but his mission president had not granted that request. He reported that after one particularly angry argument, “I was like, you know, I'm just not going to call the mission president anymore, or ask the mission president to help me out. I said, I basically just told myself, ‘I am done with this.’ So I called the mission president and I left him a message saying, ‘I don't care what you say,’ I go, ‘I am done. And I want to go home. And I don't give a shit what you say’” [21:21-25]. Someone else. Seven participants said someone else made the decision that they would return home early. These were almost always church leaders, either the mission president or the stake president. In two cases, the decision was made by church headquarters. Newell said, “When I was on my mission, through some offhanded comments during a conversation with one of my companions, some things got said, and he reported that to my mission president. My mission president called me in, and we discussed it. And I was sent home rather promptly from there” [17:12-15]. Helen said, “[My mission president] told me the next morning that he had called a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and they had said that I should return home. So it wasn't even giving me a choice. He was just kind of was like, ‘No, it's a done deal, we've already got your plane ticket’” [7:20-22]. Combination. Nine participants said they made the decision to come home with the advice or counsel of their mission president. Heather said, “I would say it was a decision my mission president and I made together” [5:12]. Three ERMs reported that although their early return was presented to them as a choice, their mission president had already determined that they should go home. When asked who made the decision that he would return home, Hudson said, “My IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 40 mission president… After speaking with the specialist and kind of making an informed decision, and then speaking with the brethren as well, that's the decision that was made… At the very end they said, I don't know, they kind of made it seem like I still had the decision to go home, but you know, they thought that you know, it would be better if I went home” [12:23-30]. Nathaniel had a panic attack the day he arrived in his assigned mission area, and called his mission president. He said, “I called and just said, ‘Look, I'm not supposed to be here,’ meaning this isn't for me. And that's when my mission president probed and said, ‘Well, do you mean that there's something that wasn't resolved with the bishop?’ Or you know, resolved, that you should have. And it clicked in my mind, this is my ticket out. So I said yes. And he started you know, pretty basic things. Is it this? I said yes. He said okay, that's no problem. We'll talk tomorrow. It's fine. And I said, ‘Well, you know...’ And I let him escalate it basically it to the point where he said, ‘I can't deal with this on the mission. I have to contact your stake president.’ And they together made the decision to get me on a flight the next morning” [14:41-48]. Question 7: When asked why you came home early, how do you answer? And 7a: Why do you answer that way? Direct responses Vague responses Misleading Never asked Males Health reasons 2 1 Females Health reasons 7 3 Males Non-health reasons 5 1 1 1 Females Non-health reasons 1 Direct responses. Fifteen participants said they answer the question “Why did you come home early?” with a direct answer. This does not mean they tell the entire story – just that they don’t try to mislead others or hide information about the reason for the return. IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 41 Hugh said, “I say that I got sick… With the migraines it was a matter of sickness. So yeah, that's the answer. Along with the migraines, it was getting the different parts of a migraine. I got very nauseated and very dizzy all the time. Light sensitivity, so it was a matter of physical sickness” [13:79-83]. Harmony said, “I did a split mission, so I'd say, ‘Well, I had a foot injury [on my first mission] that just got really bad, and then I had a couple of breakdowns in the second [mission], and it was really bad.’ So I say exactly what the reasons were” [3:400-402]. Nathaniel said, “I openly will identify now that I only lasted through the MTC and I lied to get home, and never had any intention of going back” [14:198-199]. Vague responses. Five participants give vague responses to the question, “Why did you come home early?” They admit the early return but do not disclose the real or full reason. Henry came home for mental health issues as well as back problems. When asked what he says when asked about his early return, he said, “I will usually just say that I had some back problems” [8:135]. When asked why he responds that way, he said that people tend to judge others who struggle with mental health issues, and it is easier to explain his return by focusing on his back problems, which tend to elicit a more sympathetic response. Helen experienced suicidal thoughts as a missionary and returned home to receive mental health treatment. When asked what she says when someone asks why she returned home early, Helen said, “I would say something generic like I got sick and I had to come home. I didn't really get into specifics of it” [7:146-147]. Newell said, “I just told them mental health issues. I pretty much stuck with that since I came home. Because in my mind, the people that would ask me why I came home, for the most part I wasn't comfortable with them as an individual in our friendship or our relationship to really give them the dirty bits. Because they don't need it. That doesn't do anything for our friendship or IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 42 relationship. And I wasn't necessarily lying to them, because I did come home in part due to anxiety issues. So I felt that that was all that they needed to hear. There was no reason to bring up the other issues” [17:164-169]. Misleading responses. One participant said he intentionally misleads those who ask why he returned home early. Nilton, who never really acclimated to missionary life and chose to come home because of it, said, “I would tell them that I got sick, because I was still so worried about keeping up the appearances” [20:147]. Never asked. Nick said that he is never asked why he came home early, because people don’t know that about him. He said, “No one knows. Just you, my wife, family, ex-girlfriend, that's about it” [18:42]. Implications for the construction of identity. The justification for the first RQ is the fact that ERMs are likely to be asked by others in their ward or community about their early return. These symbolic interactions become a basis on which the ERMs begin to build their post-mission identities, and it is evident that some ERMs attempt to manage the interactions in order to maintain or project their desired identity. The vague and misleading responses the participants give when asked the question “Why did you come home early?” are particularly revealing. They indicate a desire on the part of the participant to be categorized by others in a way that seems favorable to the participant, as well as an effort by the participant to manage the interaction accordingly. This is an example of depersonalization, a cognitive process which occurs when individuals shed certain characteristics in order to more closely align with the in-group. By omitting information about mental illness, pre-mission improprieties, or their own lack of commitment to the mission, they appear to be attempting to manage their identities to avoid potential stigma or categorization by others. The attempt to manage the interactions was most clearly seen in these vague and IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 43 misleading responses. However, it can also be seen in the additional information the participants shared when they responded to the question “Why did you return home earlier than your anticipated release date?” In addition to answering the questions about why they came home and who made the decision, many of the participants also shared various factors that contributed to the early return. They told a story instead of just answering the question. For example, Harriet didn’t just come home early for health reasons – she was afraid to even begin her mission because she entered the MTC the day after 9/11 and was terrified of boarding a plane, and she’d had a premonition that she would return early. In addition, she came home after trying to resolve her health problems with the doctor, counseling with her mission president, and praying for guidance. All of these factors contributed to her return, even though in the end it was her health problems that were the cause of her return. Harriet is not the only one. Fifteen of the 22 participants explained their return by telling a story that recounted various contributing factors in addition to the information requested by the interview questions. Eight of these returned for health reasons and seven returned for non-health reasons. For those who returned for non-health reasons, they tended to include factors that influenced beginning missionary service in the first place. Five of the seven non-health ERMs who told stories in response to the question about why they came home included this information, while none of those who returned for health reasons did. To the non-health ERMs, the reason they went was as much of the story as the reason they came home early. The additional information provides context that lays the groundwork for later identification. By attributing the early return to a variety of factors outside of themselves, the ERMs provide justification for the return and thus exhibit a form of differentiation, which is the act of showing how an in-group with which one identifies is different from or superior to other IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 44 similar groups. In other words, by providing extensive context and highlighting external factors that contributed to the early return, the participants set themselves apart from the ERMs who come home early because of poor behavior while serving as a missionary. RQ2: How Do Early-returned Missionaries Experience the Reintegration Process? The following interview questions correspond to RQ2: 2. Tell me about your experience arriving home. Specifically, how were you received by your family? a. If you went to church, how were you received by your ward? 3. What support were you offered by your ward or stake leaders? 4. What was the hardest part about coming home early? 5. Was there anything that surprised you about your experience? 8. Do you feel there are opportunities that have been withheld from you because you came home early? a. Can you give an example? 10. Do you feel you are treated differently by your family than you would have been if you had completed the full 18 months or two years of service? a. Can you give an example? 11. Do you feel you are treated differently by members of your ward than you would have been if you had completed the full 18 months or two years of service? a. Can you give an example? Question 2: Tell me about your experience arriving home. Specifically, how were you received by your family? Positive reactions Negative reactions Mixed reactions No answer IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 45 Males Health reasons 1 2 Females Health reasons 6 3 1 Males Non-health reasons 4 2 2 Females Non-health reasons 1 Twelve participants reported that the reaction of their family to their early return was overwhelmingly positive; three felt the reaction of their family was overwhelmingly negative; seven reported mixed reaction from family members, meaning that either the reaction was positive from some and negative from others, or that the same family members reacted both positively and negatively at different times. One did not answer the question about the way her family reacted to the early return. Positive reactions. Of the twelve participants who said their family’s reaction to the early return was overwhelmingly positive, five of these returned for non-health reasons, and seven returned for health-related reasons. Heather said, “My family was super supportive. They were really great. We had been in communication for probably the last week and a half or two weeks of my mission, and they knew that I had been struggling, and so it wasn't like a huge shock to them that I was coming home. And my whole extended family was just super supportive. I came home the day before Thanksgiving, and so everybody was in town, so I got to see everybody, and it just felt very natural and normal. It didn't feel uncomfortable at all to be home, or to be with them” [5:15-20]. Hugh is the only member of the LDS church in his family. He said, “I think I have kind of a different experience with coming home early, because my parents are not members of the LDS church. So they were okay with it. There was no feeling of that sense of shame or guilt” IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 46 [13:19-21]. Newell said, “My family is very, I don't know if ‘liberal’ is the right word, but very accepting, very understanding. There was zero judgment from any of them. There was nothing but support from my family members” [17:29-31]. Negative reactions. Nilton and Neal were the only two participants who said that their families’ reactions were overwhelmingly negative. Nilton said, “My parents first of all were fairly devastated. You know, we never really had very frank talks about it, and I think they were under the impression that like, I was depressed or had some sort of mental problem” [20:30-32]. Neal especially struggled with his family. He returned home only about a month early due to the clerical error on the part of his mission president, but his parents didn’t believe that was the reason he returned early. He said, “My parents jumped to all sorts of conclusions about why I was getting sent home early. They didn't believe me, that it was just kind of a mistake. I think part of it was that they didn't really believe that mission presidents could make mistakes, you know. They saw them as these super inspired dudes. They just couldn't fathom that. So when I was like, ‘Yeah, he just kind of messed up,’ that was beyond their comprehension at the time. So they didn't believe me. They thought that something wrong had happened, that somehow at the end the mission president was like, sick of me or whatever” [15:51-57]. Mixed reactions. Seven participants said they received mixed reactions from their families. When Henry was asked if he felt his family members treated him differently after he returned home early, he said, “Not my parents and my siblings. I don't feel like they care. But I do feel like my extended family, my grandparents, my grandmother has served like, four missions. And we were never close after that. I felt like she considered me some kind of a failure for not being able to serve” [8:163-165]. Hailey said her mother and her older brother reacted negatively to her return. She said, “It IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 47 was more of like, a disappointed reaction. Kind of like, you know, you made the decision to go out, and you wanted to serve a mission, and now two weeks later you have to come home. And it's just a full-on disappointment of, you know, now you have to get a job, and it's just a lot of pressure for one situation” [1:38-41]. Nathaniel said, “It was a really strange reaction from most the family. Like, I had an older sister that was, we were pretty close because we had moved in the middle of high school. And so we were really good friends. And she was ecstatic that I was home. She was happy that I was home. My parents, it was just my parents and her that came to pick me up. My dad was pretty stoic about it. Not a lot of emotion, but he did make it clear that he was disappointed. My mom, you know, I don't really remember any strong reaction either way from my mom. And then I had another older sister. I have three older sisters. The one just older than me was the one that was excited that I was home. She was full of joy when I was home the next day. And my oldest sister, you could tell she was really sad that I'd come home, but she made it clear that she loved me and accepted me whether I went or not. And then I have one older brother, and he made it pretty clear that I was a disappointment to the family” [14:58-67]. Question 2a: If you went to church, how were you received by your ward? Positive reaction Negative reaction Mixed reaction Neutral reaction Males Health reasons 2 1 Females Health reasons 5 5 Males Non-health reasons 2 5 1 Females Non-health reasons 1 All 22 participants said they returned to church after coming home from their missions. IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 48 The reactions of their ward members were classified into positive, negative, mixed, and neutral. Neutral means that there was no noticeable positive or negative change from the way participants were treated before their missions. Essentially, they were welcomed back and treated as if they had never left. Of the 22 participants, six experienced noticeably negative reactions from ward members. All six were males, five of whom who had returned for non-health reasons. All of the females experienced either positive or neutral reactions from ward members, where males got reactions that were either positive or negative. Positive reactions. Nine participants said the overall reception they got from ward members was positive. Seven of these returned for health reasons and two for non-health reasons. Niles said, “At church, my ward was real receptive and real loving” [19:22-23]. Hugh said, “Going to church, I was pretty nervous about it, just because that stigma that I feel exists with early-returned missionaries. But no one really said anything, except one person said something, but overall, like, they just welcomed me back with open arms, and it was good” [13:21-23]. Hannah said, “My ward, you know, I went back the first day and one of the men in the ward hugged me, and I was like, ‘I can't hug... oh wait, I can.’ [laughter] They welcomed me too. People themselves never made me feel like it was a bad thing that I came home, and most people didn't know the whole the story. They didn't know that I chose to come home… I expected someone to feel shame for me, but nobody ever made me feel that way” [2:28-31, 75-76]. Negative reactions. Six participants said the reaction of their fellow ward members was overwhelmingly negative. Nilton said, “I remember specifically right after I came home, my parents took me to this fireside. And we saw some people from the ward. And this is right after I got back. And so you know, we sat down next to a group that was friends with my parents, and at IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 49 some point before it started they got up and kind of moved away from us. And you know, nothing was ever said, but I don't know. I was just making assumptions. I think maybe it was me projecting on them. I try to tell myself that, because I felt uncomfortable. But that same tension that you know, existed between my parents and me from not understanding why I was back was definitely felt between me and the ward members” [20:46-52]. When Nick was asked how he was treated by his ward members, he said, “Very harshly. One lady marched up to me and demanded her money back. She had given me some money to buy church clothing. I had a tie. I didn't have the $10 she gave me, but I did get a job and I paid everyone back that gave me anything… I had a lot of people ask me if my girlfriend was pregnant and if that's why I came home. Others told me that I was evil for leaving, and I should go back. If I was evil, why would me going back be a good thing?” [18:17-19, 26-28]. Henry said the negative reaction he received was probably more a perception on his part than actual negative treatment. He said, “I also ended up going to church, and people were shocked to see me at church. And you know, I was very uncomfortable at church. I remember that. I don't remember any specific circumstances or comments of that sort of thing. But I do remember that there was perceived, like I perceived that everyone was talking about me, and what was going on. So it was probably more of a perceived hostility and not so much that there actually was hostility. But I perceived hostility for sure” [8:44-49]. Mixed reactions. Noah is the only participant who described his experience with ward members as mixed. He said, “I would say I was kind of stand-offish a bit. I was probably like, ‘Oh they're probably going to lecture me or something.’ Some of them were like, ‘Hey, welcome back.’ Some of them were like, ‘Why are you home?’” [21:59-61]. Neutral reactions. Six participants described neutral reactions from their ward members. This means that their ward members did not react either positively or negatively. They just IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 50 treated the ERMs as they had before and didn’t make an issue out of the early return. All six of these participants were females. Hope said, “They pretty much treated me like I had served the whole time. They all welcomed me home. They didn't really treat me any different. It was really nice” [11:32-33]. Nora said, “Most of them, I don't think I was treated differently or viewed too differently… I felt like they all were like, ‘Whatever, she's back’” [22:105-106, 177] Question 3: What support were you offered by your ward or stake leaders? LDS Family Services Regular meetings with leaders Medical insurance None Males Health reasons 3 1 Females Health reasons 6 2 2 2 Males Non-health reasons 1 4 3 Females Non-health reasons 1 Participants reported receiving formal support from the church in three primary ways: counseling or support groups through LDS Family Services, regular meetings with ecclesiastic leaders, and medical insurance. Six participants said they received no offers of support at all. Some participants were offered more than one type of support from the church. LDS Family Services. Ten of the 22 participants said they were referred to LDS Family Services for professional counseling. Of these, eight went on to see a counselor or get involved in a support group sponsored by the agency. Hudson said, “My stake president and my bishop set me up with LDS Family Services and a really good counselor, and another doctor, you know. I don't know what his exact title was, but he kind of helped me with the more medical side of things. He presented you know, IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 51 medication if I chose to do so. But yeah, I had that support system in LDS Family Services, and they were awesome” [12:65-68]. After Harmony’s early return, she said, “And then they hooked me up with an LDS counselor who was in [a nearby city], and she was great. She was really lovely. She sat and listened to me for three hours the first appointment. She was just wonderful. So she was very much a help” [3:160-162]. Nilton said, “Immediately they sent me to LDS counseling. Like I said, they thought there was a major depression issue. And looking back, maybe I was depressed, but I don't know that it was anything major that I needed to get counseling for” [20:58-60]. Henry expressed a concern he had with LDS Family Services and the confidentiality of what he told his therapist. He said, “That never felt neutral to me. I never felt like I could go there and speak my mind without some sort of problem arising as a result of that. I also felt like it wasn't a safe space for me… My bishop was sometimes in the know of what was going on with me, and that felt like an invasion of privacy to me. So I didn't ever feel like I could be myself when I was doing counseling through LDS Family Services” [8:224-230] The two who did not accept counseling were Hillary and Hope. Hillary, whose mission papers said she was being sent home for anorexia, said “The church offered me counseling. They called me twice, I think, and offered for me to go see a counselor in [the closest large city]. But I lived two hours from [that city] and didn't have a car. So I wasn't going to drive up there and talk to a counselor about an issue I didn't have” [9:122-125]. Hope said, “I think I did have the option of doing LDS Family Services. And I think I was offered that, but it never really happened. Yeah, that's kind of how it went down… I think I just lacked the initiative” [11:35-36, 42]. Regular meetings with leaders. Six participants reported that their church leaders held IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 52 regular meetings with them to monitor progress and to offer guidance and counsel. Ned said, “The stake president had asked to kind of take over. He wanted to be, obviously continue to work with my bishop, but I go back with our stake president at the time and his kids. And so we had a very great relationship. And so the support was, you know, they'd asked that I go to church and do everything. I met with him weekly. We would meet weekly and have interviews. And that helped me a lot” [16:89-93]. Niles said, “I didn't go to any support groups or anything like that, but I did meet with my bishop once a week. We had a scheduled meeting every Wednesday night for about an hour. We got together and talked about my progress and you know, goals, etcetera, etcetera. And then about once a month I met with my stake president, kind of with the same purpose” [19:39-42]. Medical insurance. Two participants reported that their medical care after returning home was covered by church insurance. Hillary said, “You have, I believe, three months from when you get home to have help from the church, and after that, they don't pay for things, if you come home early on a medical release… I do like their policy, well for me anyway it was a blessing to have them help me with medical costs for things. That might have been unfair to the church, but I really appreciated it, because if we didn't have that, I would have never had the surgery, never have gotten better, because we wouldn't have had the money for it. So that was very, very helpful” [9:147-148, 417-421]. No support offered. Six participants said they were offered no support whatsoever from the church. When asked what kind of support he had received from the church, Neal said, “Essentially none. I was treated more like the family's son who returned home from his mission and he was going to go to school. So it was kind of zero” [15:116-117]. Helen was not offered support, but she also said she wouldn’t have been likely to accept it. She said, “I was not offered really, like, nothing. My mother had a long history of mental IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 53 illness, so she had already gotten me an appointment with her psychiatrist. I think I had the appointment like three days after I got home. And my parents were not big believers in the church's you know, family services. They were very much – my father is a physician, so they were very much you know, like, we don't need help from church psychiatrists; we need help from real psychiatrists. So I don't know what was offered to my parents to help me out. I know that nobody ever approached me personally with saying, here, the church will help you out with this or that. I just know that that was never even on our radar to go to any kind of church assistance. It was always going to be you know, medical personnel, and especially on the east coast you really can't find any medical personnel that are members. So even if I had gotten hooked up with LDS Family Services or something, it would have been mostly by phone. But that wasn't even an option my parents considered. They were, you know, my mom had a great psychiatrist, I was going to go to him. Or if it got to be too weird, whoever he recommended. It was never even an option for me” [7:83-94]. Question 4: What was the hardest part about coming home early? Personal feelings Family reactions Judgment/stigma Other Males Health reasons 2 1 Females Health reasons 7 1 3 Males Non-health reasons 1 4 3 1 Females Non-health reasons 1 Responses to Question 4 fell into four categories. Family reactions and personal feelings of inadequacy and guilt were the most common responses, followed by feelings of judgment and stigma from others. Other responses include adjusting back to normal life (including finding jobs, acclimating to the time zone or climate, etc.), having to answer the same questions over and IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 54 over, and, in the case of Nora, getting her mission president to agree to send her home. Those who returned for health-related reasons cited personal feelings more often than their counterparts who returned for non-health reasons, who cited family reactions and judgment/stigma far more often. Personal feelings. Ten participants said the hardest part of their experience was dealing with feelings of failure, guilt, and inadequacy for having returned early. Nine of the 10 returned for health reasons, and seven of those were females. Helen said, “I think the hardest part about coming early was, for a long time I didn't even understand why I was supposed to go on a mission if I wasn't supposed to complete it. I felt like I had wasted a lot of time. Again, because in my mind I thought it didn't matter how much missionary work I had done, if I hadn't completed my mission it was all kind of useless, in my mind. So I struggled with that for a really long time. Like, why did I even start this if I couldn't finish it? And I kind of felt like a failure, like I should have been able to stick things out. And I shouldn't have let this get to me. And I should have been better at completing things that I committed myself to. That was really, really hard for me” [7:98-104]. Henry said, “You know, I just really felt for a very long time like my perception of reality was really messed up somehow. I couldn't communicate well with the people around me. I think I had this idea in my mind that if I went home, things would be all better, and I would feel whole again somehow. I was definitely homesick on top of all the depression and the anxiety that I had been feeling, and the back problems. But yeah, I just felt this incredible disconnect from the world around me for a very long time” [8:68-72]. Newell said, “I think originally it was my own guilt and shame, because I was essentially – I was never told that because I was going home that I was less than everybody else, but that's what is implied in the church, you know. If somebody returns home, there's something wrong IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 55 with them. Or they're unworthy. You know, they didn't complete their two years, their obligation. They essentially didn't meet their potential. That's kind of how it felt when I left” [17:74-78]. Family reactions. Six participants said that the reaction of their families, particularly their parents, was the hardest part about coming home early. One of these was Nathaniel, who said, “I think the hardest part was really seeing my dad walking up in the airport when I got off the plane, because my dad grew up without a dad in his life. His dad left early on, and so my dad takes any, I guess you'd call them failures, that he sees in his kid’s life, he really takes that personally and kind of as a reflection on his lack of parenting, because he doesn't know how to, you know, in his words, ‘I don't know how to be a dad because I never had a dad.’ So I think seeing how it affected him and seeing just the disappointment, that he felt like he had done something wrong” [14:119-124]. Ned said, “The disappointment from my parents. You know, seven siblings, two of my sisters served, my two older brothers served, my little brother served, my dad served. It was such a norm of the family. And so to come home, and I was – so, my dad was married before he met my mom. And so I have three half-siblings. And I'm my mom's first son. So I think the disappointment from my mom was the hardest part for sure” [16:101-105]. Judgment/stigma. All three of the participants who cited judgment and stigma as the hardest part of coming home early were males who returned for non-health reasons. Nick said the hardest part to him was “crucifixion by 90 percent of the religious people I ran into that talked about it. I don't think many cared, but the ones that did, brutal… After the relationship with the girlfriend fell apart, I asked other girls out and was told that because I wasn't an RM, I wasn't worthy to date” [18:23, 28-29]. Question 5: Was there anything that surprised you about your experience? Positive Negative Treatment by No surprises Other IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 56 reactions of others reactions of others church leaders Males Health reasons 1 1 1 Females Health reasons 3 1 2 1 3 Males Non-health reasons 2 2 1 1 2 Females Non-health reasons 1 Participants were surprised by the positive and negative reactions of others, and by the treatment of church leaders and representatives. Other responses included the fact that the return happened so quickly; their own emotional response to the return; their experience not being unique; and the early return being advantageous to them in other ways. Positive reactions of others. Five participants said they were surprised that the reactions of others were more positive than they had anticipated. Heather said, “It all happened so fast that I don't think I had expectations for how it would go. Because I definitely wasn't expecting to come home early. But I would, if anything, I think I was just surprised at how well I thought it went, because I've seen missionaries come home and kind of, their lives just fall apart a little bit. They stop going to church. They feel like everyone's judging them. And I never really felt that. I just felt so supported and so welcome, that it didn't, you know, it went better than I thought it would” [5:78-83]. Niles returned home early in order to repent of pre-mission transgressions. He said, “I guess I was surprised with how welcoming and understanding people were, especially for my own family. That was one thing that really kind of prevented me from doing the right thing and getting it taken care of before I went on my mission. I didn't know how my family would handle IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 57 it. And they actually ended up being very, very supportive and understanding of the whole thing” [19:76-79]. Negative reactions of others. Four participants said they were surprised at the negative reactions of others. Two of these had returned for health reasons, and the other two for non-health reasons. When asked if anything surprised him about his experience, Hudson said, “Just how my folks handled it, I guess kind of surprised me” [12:104]. When asked if he had expected them to react a different way, he said, “Kind of more supportive, yes. And then at the time, when I left, I was dating a girl pretty seriously, and you know, she had the same reaction” [12:106-107]. The reaction of his girlfriend was also a surprise to him, and the relationship ended soon after his return. Newell had come home due to pre-mission improprieties. While he was on his mission, his mother had moved to a different state, so he returned to where she was living. His new ward was unaware at first that he was home early. Over time, he shared that fact with a friend, and the information was soon spread around the ward. He said, “I think the only thing that really surprised me was the, sort of the reactions from the ward – being very receptive at first and then completely flipping a corner and being two-faced and completely cold, I guess, after word got out” [17:100-102]. Treatment by church leaders. Five participants said they were surprised at the treatment they received from church leaders and representatives. Henry was surprised that there was no program or resources in place to help missionaries in his situation, even though his mission president had told him that he could return to his mission when he got better. He said, “I would say that the thing that really surprised me was just the disorganization. There was no program in place. I felt like there should have been, you know, IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 58 resources and help for me, and I did not feel that at all. I mean, I thought that the church was kind of saying, ‘Oh, go home, get better, come back, we'll help you,’ you know. And it was not like that at all. I felt completely abandoned by the church. That was probably the most surprising thing about the whole process, was just that there was no resources for me” [8:106-111]. Nilton said the church tried to get his family to pay back some of his travel expenses. He said, “It surprised me that for such a voluntary thing, the way that the church handled it on the back end was very interesting. Because we paid in, you know, we paid for the experience, right? And you know, and then afterwards they tried to turn around and charge us for a bunch of things. And yeah, I thought that was really surprising, that they would seemingly turn on somebody that really was asking for help” [20:120-124]. No surprises. Two participants said they were not surprised by anything during their experience. Nick said, “It was on par for what I thought would happen” [18:34]. Hailey was only gone for two weeks before returning from the MTC because of anxiety and depression. Her interview also took place only two weeks after she arrived home. She said, “It was kind of the same from when I left, because it's only been two weeks, you know. So it was kind of the same, and not very many surprises” [1:74-75]. Question 8: Do you feel there are opportunities that have been withheld from you because you came home early? And 8a: Can you give an example? Opportunities withheld Opportunities missed No opportunities withheld or missed Males Health reasons 1 1 1 Females Health reasons 2 5 4 Males Non-health reasons 2 4 3 Females Non-health reasons 1 IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 59 When asked if they felt opportunities had been withheld from them as a result of their early return, five of the 22 participants said yes and gave examples of opportunities that were specifically withheld by church leaders or others that would not have been withheld if the participant had finished the anticipated time. Ten others discussed opportunities that they missed because of their experience but that were not necessarily withheld from them by the LDS church or its leaders. Two shared examples that fell into both of those categories. Nine participants said they didn’t think any opportunities were withheld. Opportunities withheld. This category refers to opportunities that the participants would have been given if they had completed their missions, but because of their early return, those opportunities were rescinded. Four participants said they were denied opportunities by the church, and one said he was denied an opportunity by his parents. Noah and Harriet were not given assignments in the church after their return. Harriet said, “I didn't get a calling very quick after. And I know a couple of sisters and elders who came home after me, they got a calling” [4:391-392]. Harmony said other RMs she had known had received information from BYU, a church-owned school, about benefits such as reduced tuition that are offered to returned missionaries. In her case, however, she did not receive any of that information. She said, “As far as the church was officially concerned, I got nothing. There was none of the ‘Come to BYU and have reduced tuition’ or whatever it is… I certainly wasn't offered them. Because my friend went out the same time as me, and she got this stuff from the mail when she came home, from the church and BYU and blah blah, and like, so she came home just shortly after I did in 2002, and she got all of that” [3:178-179, 407-409]. Nilton’s parents did not give him an opportunity they otherwise would have. He said, “My parents paid for my other siblings to go to college, and I had to pay for my own, you know. IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 60 Like, these were real consequences that came out of it” [20:187-189]. Opportunities missed. This category refers to experiences the ERMs would have otherwise had, but that did not represent formal action by the church or others. They were just natural consequences of a shorter mission. Ten participants had responses that fell into this category. Hannah said, “I feel like I missed out on personal growth, because I didn't stay for the whole time. And that's what I regret the most is, is the relationships I could have built with people there, and the personal growth I could have experienced” [2:91-93]. Hillary said, “There are some things, like the language. I know if I would have stayed out longer I could have had the language better. And I would have had more opportunities if I had stayed out. I could have met more people, I could have been a senior companion… Mostly the language is just the thing that makes me really sad that I could be a little bit better at that, because I was just getting good at it” [9:269-271, 275-277]. Niles said, “Coming home from my mission and then taking that 10-month hiatus, and then going back to the mission field, that essentially added an extra year. And so I graduated from college a year later than you know, other people my age. I got a later start, I guess, on my professional life because of that. And you know, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I do know, I guess there are some probably some professional opportunities that I missed out on because of that year gap” [19:100-104]. No opportunities missed or withheld. Nine participants reported that no opportunities had been withheld from them as a result of their early return. When asked, Hugh said, “I really don't know about that, because like, when I came home, I got my calling as a ward mission leader, and I don't really feel that anything has been taken away from me at all” [13:86-87]. When asked if he felt opportunities had been withheld from him, Nilton said, “I wouldn't IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 61 say so. Once I got my life on track and like, went to college – I got married in the temple and all those things – and then like, moved away from the area, nobody knew. So you know, within the church there was no repercussion after that” [20:151-153]. Nick said that while no opportunities had been withheld from him personally, he has witnessed it with other people. He said, “No one knows about it with me, but I had seen it with other people I know that came home early. One interview I was part of, the guy disclosed that he returned home early. Afterward, a co-worker who was also in the interview said, ‘If he can't cut a mission, he can't cut it here either. Let's pass.’ I didn't say anything” [18:52-55]. Question 10: Do you feel you are treated differently by your family than you would have been if you had completed the full 18 months or two years of service? And 10a: Can you give an example? No difference in treatment Treated differently immediately after return Treated differently now Males Health reasons 3 1 Females Health reasons 6 4 1 Males Non-health reasons 3 3 5 Females Non-health reasons 1 Some participants said they saw no difference in the way their family members treated them. Others said they were treated differently after their return, and others said they were treated differently now. Participants answered as they saw fit, meaning I did not ask them to clarify whether the difference in treatment was temporary, or has lasted until now. Some participants offered this information, but others did not. For this reason, some participant responses fall into more than one category. No difference in treatment. Of the 22 participants, 13 said their families don’t treat them IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 62 any differently than they would if the participants had served the full term. When asked, most of these participants answered with “No,” or “Not really.” Only two went on to explain. Newell said, “They're supportive of any decision that I make, which is a blessing. But there was never any snide remarks, never any sadness or guilt or shame from any of them. That was a positive in my book, at least” [17:216-217]. When asked if his family treats him differently than they would if he had served the full two years, Ned said, “I don't think so. I don't think so. You know, I think the conversation, my family knows that I have real thick skin, and I come from a family that, we call it what it is, you know. A spade is a spade. And all my brothers-in-law served, my two sisters, my three brothers, my dad. And so missions are talked about a lot, and they talk about it as if, you know what I'm saying, as if I went. So I don't think so” [17:150-153]. Treated differently after return. Eight participants said their families treated them differently than they otherwise would have, but specified that it was in the time immediately after returning. Nick said, “There was a distinct change with my parents after I returned home. My parents never directly said anything, but their attitude towards me changed, like they had given up on me. For instance, before the mission if I were going somewhere they would ask where I was going and when I would return. I believe mostly to make sure I was safe. Post returning, I would tell them I was heading out, and they didn't question when I would return. Maybe it's because they felt that I had made big decision in my life and I could be trusted more? But if that was true, why would they ask the same returning home questions of my brother two years older than I?” [18:66-72]. When asked if she felt she was treated differently by her family than she had been before she began missionary service, Harriet said, “I think I did for a while. When my dad died, I had to IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 63 get away, and I went to a summer camp to work in [another state]. And I remember my sister saying, ‘Well how are you going to handle being away for a summer? You couldn't even handle being on a mission’” [4:436-438]. For three of those participants, the difference in treatment was not necessarily a bad thing. Hillary’s release papers said she was sent home for anorexia. Even though Hillary’s symptoms could not be explained by anorexia and she insisted she did not have an eating disorder, her mother took care to watch her. Hillary said, “She watched me when I first came home. I mean, I've always looked the same, but she watched to see if maybe they were right, if I'd developed some sort of problem, and I did eat less. But I was in pain. And I was kind of quiet. And so she kind of worried about me, but then she figured out, when I'd come up to her crying because my stomach hurt all the time, she realized that I wasn't just not eating because I didn't want to” [9:134-138]. Hope said her family was more caring than they would otherwise have been. She said, “I think the only difference is that I got more help and support from them because I was having a hard time. I think that if I had served the full 18 months they would have just been like, ‘You're home! Yay!’” [11:81-83]. Treated differently now. Six participants said they are treated differently by their families now. Five of the six are males who returned for non-health reasons. The other one is a female who returned for health reasons, but had only been home for two weeks at the time of her interview. When asked if his family treats him differently than they otherwise would have, Nathaniel said, “I think obviously, you obviously have to say yes, you're treated different, because there's the unknown of you know, if I would have gone on a mission, would I have come home and gotten married right away? Would I still be in the church? Things like that. But I IDENTIFICATION OF EARLY-RETURNED MISSIONARIES 64 imagine that my dad probably still believes a little bit that if I had completed my mission maybe I would still be in the church. My sisters, I've never gotten any indication from them that it affects their relationship with me at all. And my brother, I haven't talked with my brother in a couple of years. So I don't know that that hinges anything with me coming home early from the mission more than me kind of distancing myself from the church. So I don't know if he attributes it to that or not, but yeah, we definitely have a lot different relationship than before I went” [14:249-257]. Niles a