You cannot understand the human condition without understanding religion or religious arguments.
Stephen Jay Gould
Religious beliefs and customs often interest nonbelievers. Atheism often interests believers, as well. We circle one another, curious, and at times, antagonistic.
Although religion is a matter of faith, often both believers and nonbelievers utilize science and logic in the attempt to understand one another. Such a wide divide separates us, even sometimes separates believers, as well. It is inevitable that the divide also interests scholars. The Politics of Religious Apostasy is a collection of essays, edited by David Bromley, that probes one divide in particular, that of the ultimate betrayal, in the eyes of the believer – someone who once believed but now rejects said belief.
As sensitive as discussions between believer and nonbeliever can be even in generic terms, once the apostate enters the discussion, emotions often flare, on both sides. Both feel rejected and judged by the other. Both justify their current stance, as well as justify their judgments. Often the judgments remain fairly simplistic – apostates are evil; believers are stupid. These arguments offer little of interest. But once both sides attempt to delve more into the utilization of science and logic to bolster justifications, the story is more interesting, and potentially leaves objective scholarship abused in the wake.
Unless great care is taken with this particular set of essays, the temptation would be to blend together selective quotes in order to justify the divide. I will do my best not to do so in this application, but invite interested readers to do their best to obtain the book themselves so they can form their own conclusions.
The book begins, as it must, with Bromley’s own introduction, Sociological Perspectives on Apstasty: An Overview. The book must begin with this essay, as well as his next chapter, because the later essays rely on Bromley’s terms and specialized definitions. It would be very easy to misunderstand later essays if one did not take this fact under consideration. By and large, these essays address New Religious Movements (NRMs), although occasionally older, traditional religions are mentioned. These NRMs intrigued social scientists due to the dramatic impact they had on lives of converts, normally fairly young:
What was particularly perplexing to scholars was what appeared to be passionate religious commitment precisely among the young, highly educated individuals who were expected to be committed residents of the “secular city”. (p 3)
I was a young college student in the mid-seventies, a time period in which many of these NRMs were receiving a lot of media attention. I also remember the “Jesus Freak” movement that spread across college campuses during this period. During my own religious awakening, which revolved around Mormonism, I did talk with self-described “Jesus Freaks” in my small private college. I even attended a prayer vigil with this crowd to pray for one of their friends tragically injured in a car accident. After having been brought up in a mainstream Protestant faith that was quite formal and restrained, the seemingly chaotic, almost trance-like movements and muttered prayers was foreign to me. Try as I might, I just could not quite “get the hang of it”, and found myself better suited to Mormonism. I also recalled hearing of even stranger groups like the Moonies, and hearing tales of brainwashing and victimization. Several years later, on my way to my mission in France, I remember my stop-over in a major airport, probably in NY, and being stopped by both Moonies and Hare Krishna members. I talked with a young female Moonie for quite a while, and remember feeling that her eyes had a strange “look” about them – brainwashed? In retrospect, it was probably fatigue. Later, actually on my mission, I had the opportunity to talk again with some Moonies, this time a young married couple. They were very friendly to us, probably sympathetic to how difficult it was to knock on strangers’ doors to discuss religion. I was struck by the fact that she was French and he was from England. He barely spoke English, she barely spoke French. Their marriage had been arranged. I later heard about the mass “group weddings” Reverend Moon used to conduct for his followers, and assumed their marriage was arranged, but I no longer recall if they shared that information with us, or I just speculated it as a probability on my own.
Of course, living in the south, I well know that many people, particularly EVs, view Mormonism as about the equivalent of the Moonies or Hare Krishnas. Mormonism is a very young religion, but it has moved beyond that very early stage in which members are often uprooted from their families and strictly controlled. Of course, at that time, the most significant difference to me was not in what our respective religions demanded – after all, I was serving a full time mission in which my movements were strictly controlled and oral contact with family and friends almost entirely forbidden, except on special occasions. But the main difference to me was that I was a member of the “true” church, and they were not. But perhaps I would have been one of those young people who scholars would have expected to remain a committed resident of the “secular city”, and, although to a less extreme extent, abandoned that. Certainly I completely reformulated my life when I converted to the LDS church at the age of 19; that alone would probably interest scholars. But there is no doubt that being LDS in the south often leaves one feeling outside mainstream society – unlike Utah, Idaho, or many sections of other Western states, were being LDS is being part of mainstream society. Having been both “in” mainstream religious society as a Methodist, and then “out” as a Mormon, and again later as an atheist, the comments of Bromley regarding the power structure is interesting:
When the full range of religious organizations is examined, the importance of the exercise of power in constructing what is deemed legitimate and illegitimate religious becomes more apparent. It is in terms of this perspective that this volume was conceived.
This is crucial to keep in mind as a background drop for the other comments and citations I will proceed too offer. This book analyzes power relationships, and finds that social power dictates much in regards to how not only the believing members of a group are viewed by larger society, but how its apostates are also viewed.
In his introduction, Bromley stated:
The focus of analysis in this volume is the role of apostates in the controversy surrounding those contemporary new religious movements that are deemed “subversive”. Both “apostate” and “subversive” have very specific meanings here. The analytic category “subversive” is used in this volume to refer to organizations that are perceived and labeled “subversive” by oppositional groups as a tactic for status degradation that legitimates implementation of extraordinary social control measures. The typology of organization and corresponding exit role types identifies apostasy as a unique social form that emerges under very specific social conditions. Apostate refers not to ordinary religious leavetakers (the general referent) but to that subset of leavetakers who are involved in contested exit and affiliate with an oppositional coalition. The number of individuals playing this role in any given conflict may not be large; indeed, in a number of movements one or a small handful of individuals have dominated this countermovment niche. The role is distinguished not by the number of individuals occupying it but rather by its recurrence in situations of intense conflict to countersubversion campaigns.
Given the importance of the power relationships, Bromley proceeds immediately to share his terminology and descriptions in his next essay, The Social Construction of Contested Exit Roles: Defectors, Whistleblowers, and Apostates.
Apostasy may be defined in preliminary fashion as a role that is constructed when an organization is in a high state of tension with its surrounding environment and that involves an individual exiting the organization to form an alliance with an oppositional coaltion. While I am primarily concerned with apostasy from New Religious Movements (NRMs), a comparable analysis could be undertaken of apostasy in a variety of other social movement or institutional contexts. The distinctive qualities of the apostate role are demonstrated by comparing apostates with two other contested exits.
I shall argue that although, or precisely because, apostates typically constitute only a small proportion of leavetakers, apostasy is a significant phenomenon both socially and sociologically.(p 19)
Repeatedly, Bromley states that apostasy, under his definition, appears only under “very distinctive social conditions.” Those social conditions relate to the power structure of the NRM, and how the larger society views the NRM. In order to demonstrate this, Bromley next defines three types of organizations: Allegiant, Contestant, and Subversive. Of course, as is usually the case in real life, there is some movement between the groups, but “variations around the typological characteristics would be expected to constitute the rule rather than the exception and reveal the politically contested nature of actual organizational histories.” (p 21) This is particularly important to remember in the case of Mormonism, which has moved between all three typologies in its history.
Allegiant:
Type I (Allegiant) organizations are those whose interests coincide to a high degree with other organizations in their environments; therefore, most external organizations are positioned either as neutrals or as coalitional allies. Organizations which exemplify this category include therapeutic/medical organizations, mainline churches, colleges, professional organizations, and various voluntary associations. Allegiant organizations are able to exercise considerable autonomy in conducting their organizational missions. Possessing this status carries with it weight social expectations – that external groups and internal members will find little need or basis for serious or frequent claimsmaking against the organization. Allegiant organizations typically legitimate the exercise of their authority in terms such as “trusteeship” and “service”, and they engage in a variety of organizational practices intended to foster and sustain that definition
Under Type I conditions, both internal and external claims against the organization are difficult to muster for several reasons. First, the dispute settlement process is structured and managed by the organization itself, which enhances the capacity for organizational self-protection. The result is disparate containment as the organization is in a position to control the definition of and records pertaining to any dispute. (p 21)
Second, the organization is deemed by both participants and outsiders to be exercising legitimate authority, resulting in more stringent testing of claimsmaking against the organization. The burden of proof is squarely on the claimsmaker. (p 22
Due to the fact that the organization is seen as part of mainstream society, and has its power reinforced therein, and is autonomous, there are “unlikely to be established oppositional groups possessing a mandate to advance or adjudicate claims against the organizations. The absence of external allies means that any claimants that do exist have few resources available to pursue claims, whatever their motivation.” (p 22)
Clearly, as the author of a later essay, Arnaud Mauss specifies, the LDS church, in terms of its existence in North America, is by and large an Allegiant organization, although it may be waver into the Contestant category in some parts of North America (most likely EV dominated areas). It would be a serious misapplication of this theory to insist that the LDS church, particularly in the Western portions of the US, is anything BUT an Allegiant organization. By far, the state that produces the highest number of leavetakers is Utah. It would take a vivid imagination combined with intentional ignorance to pretend that the LDS church does not maintain mainstream power in Utah.
Contestant Organizations
Type II (Contestant) organizations have a moderate level of coincidence and, correspondingly, a moderate level of tension with other organizations in their environments. The clearest examples of organizations in this category are the plethora of profit-making economic organizations. Contestant organizations are dedicated to the pursuit of organizational self-interest, which yields an environment populated with both allies and opponents. They are able to exercise limited autonomy in conducting their organizational missions as the legitimacy of pursuing private interests is deeply embedded in property rights and in cultural themes such as “freedom” and “success”. While these organizations can successfully advance claims to pursue their particular organizational interests, countervailing internal and external claims challenging those interests also are accorded legitimacy. (p 22)
In Type II situations, internal and external claims against an organization are considerably easier to mobilize than in Allegiant organizations, but Contestant organizations still face some major constraints. They have specific, enforceable obligations that are codified in regulations, laws, or contracts. Dispute settlement most often involves the creation of external third parties that stand between the organization and various internal and/or external claimants. The result is dispute adjudication in which the organization has stipulated rights, but not unilateral control. The positioning of the regulatory unit between competing interests varies, but organizations inevitably lose some degree of control over dispute resolution because regulatory agencies agencies posses their own position and legitimacy, and translate disputes into categories consistent with their regulatory mandates. (p 23)
Subversive Organizations
Type III (Subversive) organizations have extremely low coincidence of interests with other organizations in their environment. Indeed, “subversive” is a label employed by opponents specifically to discredit these organizations. Organizations labeled Subversive are confronted by a broad coalition of opponents and few allies. The result is a very high level of tension between organization and external environment and concerted effort by opponents to label the organization as dangerous and pathological. Organizations that illustrate this type include some of the more controversial alternative religious movements, radical rightist and leftist movements, and various forms of underground economies. Organizations regarded as Subversive are accorded virtually no organizational legitimacy and therefore face continuous opposition and constraint in pursuing organizational goals. IN fact, their existence and functioning are regarded as inherently subversive to the goals and functioning of other “legitimate” organizations. (p 23)
Dispute settlement processes are substantially controlled by oppositional coalitions. Because organizations labeled Subversive are regarded as particularly dangerous, special control agencies with extraordinary authority are formed or existing agencies are granted expanded powers. The expectation is that violations will be frequent and serious, and the organization is likely to be confronted with unilateral, per-emptive, coercive control measures such as covert surveillance, planting of undercover agents, or even instigation of provocative incidents by agent provocateurs. Command over the dispute settlement apparatus means that the oppositional coalition controls the definition of alleged violations and can widely disseminate information collected during investigation and prosecution processes. The result is a dispute broadening process that incorporates a range of organizational attributes and practices as external control organizations define their missions in terms of repressing such groups, operate with numerous allies, and face few restraints.
From the perspective of their opponents, Subversive organizations embody quintessential evil and are considered to pose a maximum degree of threat to the established social order. They are portrayed as qualitatively different from other organizations in that evil is rooted in their essential qualities rather than in specific patterns of behavior. (p 24)
Clearly, as Mauss later points out again, the LDS church in its early days, particularly once it began practicing alternative marital patterns and communal living along with bloc voting was viewed as a subversive organization, and the state commanded quite a bit of power as an oppositional coalition, in combination with private citizens. This is a pattern that can be seen in some groups yet today, but the LDS church has obviously moved beyond this stage altogether.
It was important to provide this much information about the types of organizations because, under Bromley’s theory, the type of organization predicts the type of leavetaker, generally speaking.
In summary, the “three forms of organization delineated in the preceding section – Allegiant, Contestant, and Subversive – are distinguished in terms of the extent to which the organization is in tension with the surrounding environment and the extent to which the organization is able to control the process by which disputes to which it is party are settled. I have argued that the type of organization is strongly related to both external incentive to exercise control over an organization and its capacity to avoid such control.” (p 25)
Bromley clarifies that all these types of organization experience some degree of leavetaking, and as to be expected with any group made up of human beings, there will be conflicts and sometimes genuine grievances. Disputes are inevitable and all organizations tend to act in a self-protective manner. However, leavetaking always produces a degree of stress:
Finally, leavetaking is a source of considerable ambivalence (ie, “mixed emotions”) that must be resolved. Leavetakers are likely to harbor conflicting feelings about their former relationships, as participants in all types of organizations normally develop some degree of commitment to the organization and their position within it. Therefore, they may well remain attracted to the organization even while they feel compelled to exit from it. At the same time, each of the three forms of exit considered here involves some degree of formal rejection by the organization even though personal connections and relationships may remain. Further, external audiences express ambivalence towards leavetakers as their character and loyalty are called into question during the exiting process. The way that ambivalence is resolved varies by type of organization, but it is an important motivator for reconstructing role relationships and biographical narratives to account for such changes. Ambivalences thus may provide a significant motivation for exiting organization members to assume oppositional roles as a means of tension reduction. (p27)
When I lost faith in the LDS church years ago, I had very few people I could discuss the issue with. The only LDS people I had close contact with were a couple of members of my ward and family who already knew about the issues that were causing me to lose faith. That contact, however, due to living in separate communities (the ward covers a large area and I lived and worked in smaller communities outlying the main city) was infrequent. The main people I could talk to were my friends, none of whom were LDS or knew much about the LDS church. They had a lot of difficulty understanding why this process was so extraordinarily painful and confusing for me, because none of them belonged to a religion that taught “one trueness” in any fashion. For them, deciding to go to another congregation only posed very few problems, except under unusual circumstances (such as a parent being the preacher for one church and they attended a different one). However, movement between denominations is not unusual, nor is the characters of the individuals called into suspicion over it, by either representatives of the church or family members. So I was left largely on my own, trying to sort out all these conflicted feelings. I was so desperate to be able to talk to someone who “really understood”, I even wrote to the author of an EV anti-mormon book, although I disagreed with his theology. He was very kind and responded back, even contacting me again years later to check up on me, although since he was EV, I could not entirely relate to his situation. When people leave an organization to which they were once deeply devoted, it is absolutely normal to experience strong and sometimes conflicting emotions over the situation, and to need to talk about it with others. The idea that people should be able to leave the church with a “ho-hum” and nary a backwards glance is one of the stranger notions I’ve confronted.
On to the three types of leavetakers, according to Bromley:
Defectors
the defector role may be defined as one in which an organization participant negotiates an exit primarily with organization authorities, who grant permission for role relinquishment, control the exit process, and facilitate role transition. The jointly constructed narrative assigns primary moral responsibility for role performance problems to the departing member and interprets organizational permission as commitment to extraordinary moral standards and preservation of public trust. (p 28)
Before defecting, due to the attachment and sacrifice made for the organization, attempts to remediate the problem are made.
If remedial efforts are unsuccessful, the process of exiting involves negotiations between the member and organizational leadership rather than with external parties (although the reaction of outsiders may be assessed), and it may be constructed as an organizationally sponsored and controlled separation ritual. In cases where organizational authority is greatest, external parties support organizational processes with the result that the member has no recourse to external allies. In essence, the individual must request permission from organizational authorities to disaffiliate if the separation is to occur on favorable terms. Since the organization possesses a high degree of legitimacy and controls the dispute process, it can suppress contested exit by administering the exit process and the narratives that interpret this process The organization therefore is able to maintain control over cases that would be potentially discrepant with its privileged position. Given this high degree of control, it is difficult for members to locate others who might collectively reinterpret private troubles as organizational problems and mount organized protest. In the unlikely event that an exiting member opts to attribute problems to the organization, the burden of proof is squarely on the claimant, who lacks both internal and external allies. In essence, no matter what the validity of the defector’s claims might be in theory, the inability of the individual to articulate grievances and to validate and support claims leaves defectors without meaningful recourse. (p 29)
Once outside the organization, defectors are most likely to seek a transition into a new social network. The post-membership career therefore is of limited duration and directed at stabilizing personal life and reconstructing personal identity. To the extent that the former organization was the source of a distinctive lifestyle and identity, there is inevitably a period of instability as individuals find themselves between identities, and the former identity colors current identity- building efforts. The defector is faced with a negotiated exit agreement that renders personal opposition problematic, and in any event the absence of pre-existing oppositional groups significantly restricts the political and economic opportunity for a former member career. In some cases former members form ex-member support groups that operate to facilitate the period of role transition for others, and limited ex-members careers may be fashioned through administering such groups. (p 29)
The examples given are catholic priests and nuns who decide to abandon their vows and return to regular life, albeit within a catholic setting. Although Bromley does not discuss Mormon examples, it seems to me that many “Jack Mormons” who believe in the church but do not attend regularly or “keep the standards” might be called defectors. The definition appears to include a still existing view of legitimacy of the organization, which would exclude LDS leavetakers such as myself. People who leave the LDS church due to no longer believing its truth claims, using Bromley’s definitions, cannot logically be called defectors, whether or not they vocally criticize the church once leaving it.
Whistleblowers
The term “whistleblower” is adopted from its common usage in economic and political institutions. The whistleblower role is defined here as one in which an organization member forms an alliance with an external regulatory unit through offering personal testimony concerning specific, contested organizational practices that is then used to sanction the organization. The narrative constructed jointly by the whistleblower and regulatory agency is one which depicts the whistleblower as motivated by personal conscience and the organization by defense of public interest. (p 31)
While the intent of the whistleblower usually is to employ external allies to effect change within the organization rather than personally switching sides, the end result tends to be permanent marginalization or exit.
The process of exiting as a whistleblower differs from that of a defector in that the individual at some point begins active negotiation with representatives of an external regulatory unit. These units have oversight responsibility to a coalition of individuals or groups whose interest they represent, but they face a continuing problem in identifying organizational violations, particularly when the operating assumption is organizational legitimacy. (p 32)
Exposing illegal or immoral conduct within organizations is defined as a general civic responsibility, and members of the professions and civil service are specifically pledge to place public welfare ahead of personal interests. The reality, of course, is that organizations regard public exposure of normal deviance as disloyalty and commonly respond to whistleblowers by attempting to impugn their motives, tactics, and credibility. (p 32)
Whistleblowing involving religious organizations is relatively uncommon, and the form it assumes only approximates corresponding activity in economic and political organizations. Constitutional limitations on state regulation of religion precludes the kind of public sector regulation that is so prevalent in monitoring economic and political deviance. Further, because mainline churches are allegiant organizations, most have internal tribunals that regulate their own affairs. Appeals that in other institutional contexts would be directed outward are therefore turned inward. (p 33)
LDS leavetakers such as myself left due to no longer accepting the church’s truth claims as legitimate. Often these same people will be critical of the church for specific practices, such as “hiding history” or discrimination against homosexuals, or oppressing women. This could be thought of as a form of whistleblowing, and Bromley does offer this clarification:
One result of restrictions on external political regulation is that independent groups approximating regulatory agencies have been formed within the religious institution sector, most frequently formed by elements of the conservative Christian tradition. Within the conservative Christian community the sacred text is taken as literal truth; it constitutes the ultimate basis for authorizing social relations and serves as the source of the received spiritual traditions that underpins religious legitimacy. These churches therefore are implacably opposed to legitimating alternative versions of the sacred texts. Various conservative Christian organizations – such as the Christian Research Institute, Moody Bible Institute, Christian Apologetics and Information Service, and Spiritual Counterfeits Project – have been formed to defend the theological boundaries of “legitimate Christian churches”. The targets of these regulatory efforts traditionally have been sectarian churches such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh-Day Adventists. Given cultural support for religious diversity and tolerance and the increasing marginality of conservative religious forms, these religious regulatory units lack the public standing of their political counterparts. As a result, they are perceived as partisan and function without significant sanctioning power beyond the capacity to deny the mantle of legitimacy within their limited niche in the religious institution sector.
Sectarian churches have exhibited both high conversion and high defection rates, and one major source of discontent among members has been their high authority/high demand structure. Whatever the sources of disputes with these churches, numerous members exiting these groups have been recruited to brief whistleblowing careers. Religious regulatory units rely heavily on individuals who resemble secular whistleblowers in offering public testimony, but the basis of dispute is theological beliefs and related practices. Employing a standard of “theological truth,” these agencies reconstruct conflicts in terms of prior spiritual “deception” and subsequent recognition of “truth”. One of the most common forms through which religious whistleblowers offer testimony is printed tracts that regulatory agencies distribute as a means of denying legitimacy to what they regard as the ongoing deceptive practices in which “pseudo-Christian” churches engage. Typical titles include: “I was a False Witness”, “Apostles of Denial: An Examination and Expose of the History, Doctrines, and Claims of the Jehovah’s Witnesses”, “Set Free By Truth”, “One Mormon’s Journey to Christ”, “From Housewife to Heretic” and “out of Darkness, into the Sonlight”. For the most part, these whistleblowers pursue only brief careers, usually in the context of a transition between churches. However, some longer-term careers are possible in administering regulatory units or supplying the investigatory reports these units regularly issue. (p 35).
Although internet groups such as Recovery From Mormonism are secular in nature, this would appear to be the description that best fits them. Aside from the discussion board which provides the previously mentioned “support group” for exmembers (although still believing members scorn the idea of an exmormon needed “recovery” or “support”, I doubt that Bromley would take that stance), the group functions largely to provide expository information regarding church history and practices they deem problematic. This seems to fit the whistleblower model quite well. In that this information is provided through a low cost venue with volunteer authors of articles, there is no necessity for an actual “career” to adminster the unit or supply the reports. Note the use of “career” in these contexts.
Now to the group that has intrigued others:
Apostates
Caution is needed in the application of this term. It has a widespread commonly understood meaning as just someone who has abandoned a former belief system, but the definition is far more specialized here.
The apostate role is thus defined as one that occurs in a highly polarized situation in which an organization member undertakes a total change of loyalties by allying with one or more elements of an oppositional coalition without the consent or control of the organization. The narrative is one which documents the quintessentially evil essence of the apostate’s former organization chronicled through the apostate’s personal experience of capture and ultimate escape/rescue. It is the avowed inability of the former member of a Subversive organization to have done otherwise, a claim which is accepted by the oppositional coalition, that distinguishes apostates from traitors.
The high level of tension between organizations labeled Subversive and their surrounding environment means that individuals joining them almost inevitably distance from conventional social networks. Groups deemed Subversive most often constitute organized projects that posit and model and alternative version of social order that clashes sharply with the prevailing structure of social relations, and they therefore attract a range of individuals who are in resistance to the dominant order. (p 36)
This is an important point I want to dwell on for a moment. Throughout the book the organizations used as examples for Subversive organizations are those groups which literally remove members from the external society in some sort of communal living setting. Members often have limited contact with family members, who naturally are upset, concerned, and agitated over the very real “loss” of a family member. These groups have often have controversial conversionary methods, such as the Moonies, in which young people are targeted and invited to visit the group for a weekend or some other short period. During this time, intense attention, restricted sleep, and sometimes restricted diet, repeated chanting, has led former members to accuse the group of deliberate “brainwashing” techniques. This is what is meant by “capture”. And, as later passages will demonstrate, “escape” means literally just that.
Again, this could fit very early Mormonism, in which converts often left family and friends and moved to Zion, participated, at times, in communal-type living, and engaged in alternative familial systems, but is a very poor fit today. Target converts are not removed in any way from their normal environments.
However, a key difference between Subversive organizations and the other two types is that for the former there is a plethora of allies to whom exiting members can turn for support. Because the organization possess little legitimacy, it may be able to control the internal dispute resolution process as long as individuals remain members, but it has very limited capacity to control external intervention in exit and post-exit processes. One critical result of external intervention is that dispute and non-dispute-precipitated exits are converted into the former as external opponents actively recruit exiting members into the oppositional coalition, provide social networks through which exiting members can reinterpret personal troubles as organizational problems, and control role transition on favorable terms. There is likely to be a price for re-entry. Former members may have to confess to disloyal conduct or plead loss of free will as the result of subversive influence. The burden of proof is on the organization to refute claims by exiting members, and there may be little opportunity to do so. (p 36)
Once again, this emphasizes the fact that subversive organizations remove the members from normal social interactions. When the member leaves and wants “re-entry” into normal society, some sort of explanation is expected for the former socially deviant behavior. Again, today’s Mormonism does not fit this pattern at all. When people join the LDS church today, they do not remove themselves from normal social interactions. They stay with their family units, they don’t pick up and move across the country to live in a communal setting, they aren’t abandoning traditional family organizations. Hence, no sort of “confession” or “loss of free will” is required to re-enter normal society. This is a crucial point that will become even more important with the next point: the apostate narrative.
Given the polarized situation and power imbalance, there is considerable pressure on individuals exiting Subversive organizations to negotiate a narrative with the oppositional coalition that offers an acceptable explanation for participation in the organization and for now once again reversing loyalties. In the limiting case, exiting members without any personal grievance against the organization may find that re-entry into conventional social networks is contingent on at least nominally affirming such opposition coalition claims. The archetypal account that is negotiated is a “captivity narrative” in which apostates assert that they were innocently or naïvely operating in what they had every reason to believe was a normal, secure social site; were subjected to overpowering subversive techniques; endured a period of subjugation during which they experienced tribulation and humiliation; ultimately effected escape or rescue from the organization; and subsequently renounced their former loyalties and issued a public warning of the dangers of the former organization as a matter of civic responsibility. Any expressions of ambivalence or residual attraction to the former organization are vigorously resisted and are taken as evidence of untrustworthiness. Emphasis on the irresistibility of subversive techniques is vital to apostates and their allies as a means of locating responsibility for participation on the organization rather than on the former member. This account avoids attribution of calculated choices that would call for invoking the label of traitor. Further, a broad allegation of subversion allows a diverse array of opponents to unite under a common banner and formulate a variety of claims in terms that will mobilize or neutralize a brad spectrum of interests. Upon the rendering of an acceptable narrative, the oppositional coalition accepts pledges and tests of loyalty and professions of regret as the basis for reintegration into social networks to which it controls access (p37)
Again, this makes no sense with the context of leavetakers of modern Mormonism. Leavetakers of modern Mormonism are normally leaving when family members still remain believing Mormons. Hence, there is no need to construct a “brainwashing/captivity” narrative to explain why they abandoned family members to join the Subversive group. That is the purpose of the narrative – to explain the former betrayal to family members, who were left behind when the individual joined the Subversive organization. Now that the individual wants re-entry into normal society and family, he/she must provide a “narrative” that removes personal responsibility for the former abandonment. He/she was “brainwashed” and held “captive.”
Apostate Careers
Apostates generally have greater career possibilities than whistleblowers. Since they are exiting highly stigmatized organizations, however, many exiting members seek to make role transitions as inconspicuously as possible. Their capacity to move back into conventional social networks unobtrusively depends in large measure on the breadth, power, and aggressiveness of the oppositional coalition. (p 37)
Pause and think about this statement for a moment. Why would the apostate’s ability to transition back into normal society without fanfare depend on the power of the oppositional coalition? It depends on the power of the opposition due to the fact that the opposition has joined forces between disparate groups with the goal of bringing the abuses of the Subversive organization enough into the public eye that the moral outrage will force the government to take action. The oppositional coalition has joined forces with family members upset when their loved one abandoned the family unit to join the Subversive organization, along with mainstream religious groups opposed to the group theologically, along with other economic or political groups feeling threatened by the group for some reason. So the oppositional coalition WANTS to use the apostates to strengthen their cause – hence, it is more difficult for the leavetakers to re-enter normal society inconspicuously if the oppositional group is powerful, because the oppositional group wants to use the apostate to personalize the danger.
Exiting organizational members may be able to circumvent the oppositional coalition, or negotiations for re-entry may be conducted out of public view. In such cases the apostate career is muted and transitory. Even here, however, explicit or implicit confession that the organization is indeed subversive in character, renunciation of prior affiliation, and new declarations of loyalty are likely to be required. To the extent that the oppositional coalition confronts exiting members, or leavetakers pursue grievances against the organization, the apostate role assumes a more public form. Whether or not the transition occurs in or out of public view, it is likely to assume a ritualistic form. The exiting member’s identity and loyalty remain indeterminate, and rituals of passage are constructed to transform individual identity and validate the locus of social loyalty. In its public form apostasy primarily involves participation in various types of degradation ceremonies that feature moral denunciations of the organization, with the personal ordeal of the apostate as the testimonial centerpiece.
Protracted conflict between the organization and oppositional coalition creates opportunities for extended apostate careers. Apostates may pursue a variety of strategies to solidify their careers; consolidating their experience and acquiring credentials that support a more permanent social niche; reconstructing their position and experience within the organization, particularly status inflation, so that their testimony becomes more valuable in sanctioning the organization; modifying the narrative content so that it appeals to the specific interests of one or more elements of the oppositional coalition; and embellishing the narrative so as to maintain niche viability, particularly when the existence of a cohort of apostates creates role competition. (p 38)
Once again, the context of the Subversive organization helps this make sense. When the family member actually exited normal society to join a group that his family and the rest of society views as subversive and dangerous (and may actually be so), then the family and the larger society, when involved, want reassurances that that aberrant period is over, that that the apostate really does renounce the former group, that the threat of future re-abandonment is negated.
Bromley goes on to use the examples of particular religious groups and oppositional groups, such as the “anti-cult movement” (ACM). The ACM created career opportunities for apostates that often evolved into things such as professionally counseling exiting members. (or deprogramming members, although that approach has encountered legal difficulties).
Apostates from Religious Organizations
The NRMS that initially were at the center of the cult controversy – the Unification Church, Hare Krishna, and The Family (originally named the Children of God) – share a prophetic orientation and communal organization. Their ideologies predict imminent radical transformation of the social order, and they have organized as tight-knit communities that distance themselves from a world they conclude is corrupt and moribund. These movements not only reject the dominant forms of social relationship, they sacralize the antithesis by supplanting family relationships and secular careers with collectivist relationships and spiritual careers. (p 38)
I have to highlight this again. The groups that generally create the specific social situation that results in the evolution of “apostate” (in the Bromley sense of the term) are the groups that have removed themselves and their members from secular society and even biological familial ties. This is why larger society becomes so concerned and anxious over the situation, and why various groups band together to form an oppositional coalition that has, as its goal, eventual governmental intervention. Joining an NRM such as this usually results in abandonment of familial relationships and past social responsibilities and goals. This is why when the leavetaker “re-enters” society they are truly re-entering society in a fashion entirely different than an LDS leavetaker. This is why their families and social groups want some sort of explanation and justification for why in the world they abandoned them in the first place, and reassurance that it won’t happen again. This creates the need for the “apostate narrative”.
The new commitments (in the NRMs) are accorded the highest moral priority and insulated symbolically and organizationally from countervailing influence. Although the NRM controversy later broadened to include multifarious religious movements, as well as more established religious organizations allegedly displaying dangerous or destructive tendencies, it was these prophetic movements that served as the initial impetus for ideological and countermovement organization.
Particularly at the height of prophetic NRM mobilization, the core of committed members separated themselves from conventional society and poured enormous personal and collective energy into building models of an alternative social order. However, research on NRMs has consistently shown that for most individuals NRM membership has constituted a period of experimentation rather than long-term commitment. (p 39)
I emphasize this point in order to help readers understand the purpose of the later “apostate narrative”.
It was the families of NRM members that first mobilized to oppose NRMs in response to conversions that they interpreted at total, permanent changes in loyalty. Rather quickly a loose confederation of family-based voluntary associations formed, which gradually evolved into a national anti-cult movment (ACM) to orchestrate the countersubversion campaign\ against NRMs. The problem that the ACM faced was that constitutional protection of religious liberty precluded the creation of a governmental regulatory agency that could act for the constellation of groups with an interest in controlling NRMs. The ACM pursued a variety of strategies through which to legislate distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate religious groups and between conversion and brainwashing. However, these efforts were largely unsuccessfully. Even the apocalypse at Jonestown, which exceeded in carnage even the ACM’s direst predictions, failed to galvanize governmental action.
Left with few viable avenues of appeal to public officials, the ACM attempted to ensconce itself as a social control organization, assuming the functions of an information clearinghouse, lobbying group, accrediting agency, and policing unit. In these various capacities the ACM was variably successful. It did become a major source of public information about NRMs, significantly shaping public opinion. The countermovement also scored some successes in lobbying public officials. On a number of occasions state and federal legislative hearings and investigations were held that showcased ACM claims and grievances. Indeed, at the height of the cult controversy, media coverage and legislative hearings functioned as public degradation ceremonies dominated by elements of the countermovement coalition. The ACM also assumed a more militant, activist role as the deputized agent of families in orchestrating the physical extraction of NRM members. During the 1970s the ACM was relatively successful in extracting members from NRMs, but over time, resistance intensified to what amounted to delegation of police power to a private group.
The foundation on which ACM organization and its organizational initiatives rest is a cult/brainwashing ideology that labels NRMs as Subversive organizations by distinguishing what are depicted as pseudo-religious groups (“cults”) from their legitimate church counterparts and pseudo-conversions (“brainwashing”) from legitimate spiritual transformations. According to this ideology, rapidly growing cults are unprecedented in their totalistic organization, manipulative tactics, and psychological destructiveness. The most significant distinguishing characteristic attributed to cults is a potent psychotechnology (brainwashing techniques) capable of dramatically altering individual belief and behavior and of creating long-term emotional damage to anyone subjected to it. Unscrupulous gurus are ultimately responsible for developing these techniques to exploit innocent followers for their pleasure, power, and profit, with innocent and vulnerable young adults (“children”) as the primary targets. The rapid growth in size, wealth, and power of cults poses an even greater threat to both individuals who become enmeshed in them and to social institutions which they infiltrate. Strong countermeasures – warning families of the dangers, rescuing individuals incapable of extricating themselves, and revision of laws and constitutional privileges behind which they hide – are advocated. The cult/brainwashing ideology serves as the symbolic umbrella under which the disparate groups arrayed against NRMs unite (p 40)
When exmormons refer to being “brainwashed” in the LDS church, they are not normally referring to the conversionary process that anti-cultists accused the NRMs of utilizing. I remember this period, and NRMs were accused of inviting innocent, unsuspecting young adults to “camps” for a weekend or longer. At these “camps” these young adults were subjected to deliberate brainwashing through sleep deprivation, restricted diet, repeated chantings, and intense attention and pressure from believers. Exmormons, instead, aren’t even referring to a “conversionary” process of outsiders into Mormonism to begin with – they are talking about the intense social programming children receive in LDS believing families. These are two very different issues, and it is misleading to pretend that exmormons are referring to the same brainwashing event that NRMs have been accused of utilizing.
Bromley goes on to discuss why these anti-cult groups “need” apostates. Most of the members of the ACM were not ever members of the NRM. They are concerned family members, combined with other individuals with different agendas (such as theological agendas). It is through the apostate testimony that these groups provided evidence of their radical charges. This is why one particular “type” of story was needed. They did not need or want stories that simply shared a history of normal, usually socially accepted forms of “training” children to accept and follow parental beliefs. They did not need or want stories that had normal histories of the type of mistreatment and abuse of power that can be found in many socially accepted organizations. They needed and wanted stories with literal charges of brainwashing as a conversionary method, and stories with literal charges of being kept captive by the group and abused in some way in order to provide profit for the group. This is so fundamentally different than what is expected of exit stories shared among exmormons for other exmormons, that it is deliberately misleading to pretend otherwise. “Brainwashing” and “captivity”are not hyperbole in these stories; they are literal charges.
Apostate testimony is central to the entire range of ACM-sponsored social control initiatives. However, because the ACM lacks official authority to control NRMs and it reintegrate former NRM members into conventional social networks, it actually has incorporated only a small percentage of former members into the countermovement. By far the largest proportion of members exit voluntarily after some period of experimentation and typically seek a low-profile re-entry into conventional networks by resuming familial, occupational, and educational endeavors. (p 40).
Once again: the apostate has to reintegrate entirely back into “normal” society, including family, career, and education. The idea that these former members formed their entire identities based on NRM membership is not hyperbole or exaggeration.
Research on former NRM members suggests that their assessments of NRM experience span the entire range from positive to ambivalent to disillusioned. However, most leavetakers do not adopt an openly adversarial relationship with their former movements, and therefore it is the small segment of countermovement-affiliated former members that dominate the public arena.
The ACM therefore has recruited apostates through two other forms of exit, deprogramming and exit-counseling, that are more directly under ACM control. For both of these exit types, ACM-allied deprogrammers and therapists act as deputized agents of families to enforce demands for disaffiliation and to coordinate the role transition process. The key difference between the two is that deprogramming initially was a unilateral, pre-emptive action based on coercive control of the deprogrammee; it also came to be used as a confirmatory post-exit ritual, even when NRM members disaffiliated on their own initiative. Based on ACM ideology that NRM members had been psychologically subjugated through cult mind-control processes, the first
deprogrammings were organized as elaborate rituals resembling exorcisms. Early entrepeneur-deprogrammers, who offered their “rescue” services to families, treated deprogrammees as literally possessed, dangerous to themselves and others. (p 41)
I have been talking with other exmormons on the internet now for years. I don’t recall a single story that has the faintest resemblance to this description. Exmormons are normally disappointing and “betraying” their families by leaving the LDS church., not by joining the LDS church. There is no deprogramming, no external group looking for apostate stories to support their agenda.
Apostates whose role transitions are coordinated through ACM-sponsored identity transformation rituals typically fashion their personal sagas as captivity narratives. Although the specific details of these personal narratives vary, the following summary/synthesis of these narratives is one journey into and out of captivity: While operating in what they believed to be a safe place, such as a college campus or center or tourism, individuals who were innocently engaged in conventional activity encountered cult recruiters. Camouflaging their true identities and affiliations, the recruiters employ some combination of deception and manipulation to induce the individual to attend a cult-sponsored and controlled function, often under the guise of an educational, recreational, or therapeutic experience. Individuals are then induced to move to an isolated, cult-controlled location (such as a camp, retreat, or commune) where contact with or exit to the outside world is extraordinarily difficult. Once under the physical control of the cult, individuals are subjected to potent mind-control techniques (disguised as spiritual, community-building, psychotherapeutic training) that rapidly undermines their capacity for rational, autonomous decision making. After the initial programming process is completed, individuals, now in a state of psychological captivity, are deployed on various cult-sponsored missions to gain new recruits, raise money, or work in cult-run organizations and project designed to increase the leaders’ wealth and power. These often involve participating in a variety of activities that are illegal and/or subversive. (p 42)
It should be painfully obvious by now that this is an entirely different experience than that which exmormons recount. The vast majority of exmormons were born into the faith, never left “normal” society, retained familial relationships, obtained education and/or careers. If they were raised in a devout, traditional-believing LDS family, they subjected to intensive social training by their parents and church community. This training is undoubtedly more intense than the training received by children who grow up in more liberal faiths that do not espouse some sort of “one true” ideology. It is religions that teach, in some fashion, that their path is “the” right path and members are taught that it is crucial to eternal well-being that children remain in this path, marry other members on the same path, that tend to engage in more intense social programming. However, even this intense form of social programming is nothing like what is being described in relationship to NRMs and apostate narratives, even if the word “brainwashing” is used as hyperbole. Only individuals who had not actually read this book could be convinced otherwise.
The apostates’ recounting of their personal captivity and of the organizational atrocities they witnessed highlight countermovement lobbying campaigns, media reports, investigatory hearings, trial testimony, and deprogramming sessions. Successful moral status degradation influences the nature of the entire array of social control initiatives against NRMs. (p 42)
Now we see why oppositional coalitions “want” certain type of apostate narratives, and can apply pressure for the apostate to comply.
Some NRM apostates have been able to fashion extended careers as public figures. As the NRM controversy expanded and the ACM linked together a diverse array of movements as cults, former members began identifying themselves as generic cult experts. Through this tactic they are able to adjust to the shifting fortunes of specific movements, new sources of controversy, or changing public interest. For the most part these careers also are quite transitory as they lack career development possibilities, and there has been a continuing flow of members out of NRMs, which creates burgeoning supply of individuals to compete for available role opportunities. Through the 1970s and 1980s there was a continuing flow of opportunities to present testimony at church gatherings, public hearings on the cult problem, cult education programs sponsored by high schools and colleges, interviews with journalists, and ACM conventions. Occasionally, apostates extended their careers by mixing apostate and whistleblowing activity through participating in civil legal proceedings against NRMs. Particularly where plaintiffs have been able to link moral condemnation and personal captivity narratives to bases of legal action, principally infliction of emotional distress, merging apostate testimony and trial testimony has become possible. These trials often span months or even years, thereby in effect creating an extended career. Pre-trial or post-verdict settlements offer apostates a more secure economic base. The greatest career stability for apostates has derived from counseling-related activities as families mandate exit-counseling or individuals seek a means of resolving personal ambivalence. Initially, exit-counselors offered services based simply on their personal experiences. As this niche has developed, former NRM members have begun seeking professional credentials as therapists, with a specialization in what they define as cult-precipitated disorders. These apostate careers have demonstrated considerable longevity as practitioners possess greater credentials, legitimacy, and an economic base, and the role can be broadened to incorporate more conventional counseling practice. (p 43)
This gives us a cleared idea of what is meant by “apostate career”. As I have long suspected based on my earlier readings of available passages, before actually obtaining the book, “career apostate” does not mean someone who spends a lot of time talking about the former religion. It means someone who as actually developed a formal career based in opposition to NRMs. Keep in mind these individuals usually completely interrupted their lives, in terms of education and profession, to participate full time in the NRM. Upon their exit, it is not surprising some of them develop new professions based on opposition to NRMs.
Once again, in summary, Bromley states that, generally speaking, Allegiant organizations will produce defectors, Contestant organizations will produce whistleblowers, and Subversive organizations will produce apostates.