“God, I thank you that I am not like other people: even like this jock. I watch my language, am always worthy to pass the sacrament, am on the honor roll, and I give a tenth of all my income.”
As a note, I put this post in the queue for the 5th a long time ago, not realizing that it was General Conference weekend, I’ll keep it up, but in posting on General Conference Saturday I’m in no way trying to draw attention from what should be drawing your attention today.
With high school almost 20 years in the rearview mirror for me now it’s interesting to see individual trajectories and how they surprise or do not surprise me.
There are myriad topics that could stem from this theme (for example, who would have thought the X-Box junkie became the most objectively accomplished person in our graduating class?) However, given the subject of this blog, and the fact that my high school was nearly all Latter-day Saint, an obvious variable of interest here is later-life relationship to the Church.
And on this I noticed a seemingly paradoxical theme that I’ve also picked up elsewhere. Many (though not all) of the “goodie good” kids have left. These were the ones who were into seminary council (when that was a thing), drama, and The Beatles (in kind of a faux rebelliousness borrowed from their parents), and who actually read the book in English Lit.
However, in sort of a “first shall be last” situation, many (thought not all) of the (male) jocks who were into Eminem, four-wheeling, girls and more girls, are by all appearances now family men and many are active (and the ones that aren’t don’t have any particular beef with the Church), even though of the two groups the former was much more churchy and checked off many more of the boxes.
I don’t know why it turned out this way in my particular context, and I don’t want to extrapolate too much from the idiosyncrasies of my one experience (for my wife it was the opposite at her school). I’m not arguing that drama kids leave more than jocks do, or that drama kids are necessarily always the “goodie goods” like they were in my high school, but just to speculate for a moment…
For some of the kids in that very LDS environment being a kid who went to firesides and such was one of the things you did to be a Good Kid according to what the overarching subculture deemed to be good. Later in their lives when they are exposed to alternative frameworks they are just as likely to get into saving the whales, Palestine, or what have you. I’m not saying that these aren’t noble causes or that this explains all activism in these areas, just that it’s another moral target for a certain personality type that is drawn to causes.
In some cases their new paradigm places themselves within an Overton Window for which the Church’s position is outside of it, so they leave. In some cases the obnoxious companion on the mission interrogating you about why you were there is being obnoxious about another issue. The consistent theme is moral preening, stridency and righteous indignation. Of course that’s one extreme. I’m not saying all or even a large portion of the seminary council/ drama kids (or people who leave the Church) were that extreme, but it was a common theme, and many fell somewhere on that continuum.
On the other hand, the high-testosterone jock lifestyle with its often accompanying toxicities and issues was such that the stability offered by the gospel was clearer. Even if they’re not active themselves they often respect it (one calls to mind a statement by the greatest Mormon athlete of all time, Jack Dempsey, that he was “proud to be a Mormon. And ashamed to be the Jack Mormon that I am.”)
For them the gospel wasn’t another thing to excel at for an honors student that tried to excel at everything, but was a balm and anchor as they grew into adulthood after high school (especially for those who didn’t have a super stable family life), and as the Mormon “Sacred Canopy” is punctured, there will (hopefully) be fewer people who are disciples because that it what good straight-A honor kids do, and more people who are disciples because they have learned that without it they smart from the God-shaped hole in their life.
As a high schooler, I thought that the goodie-goods were my moral superiors, but as I see them age I realize that in many cases their churchy behavior wasn’t from any inherent advantage in spiritual sensitivity, but instead from a personality disposed towards moralizing, which can be turned towards good ends, but isn’t necessarily a virtue in and of itself.
As a middle aged man who attended a nearly all LDS high school I concur with many of your observations about retention and the reasons.
I am curious if the “goodie good” kids are both more likely to leave the Church, and also more likely to ascend in Church leadership when and if they remain. My sense is that’s true as they are the types of people who end up in the professional managerial class are more likely to be represented in leadership. In that case some of the behaviors you describe are just a risk/reward proposition for the institution cultivating this class. At the very least I have to question whether some of the behaviors you ascribe to them, not incorrectly, are institutionally promoted, especially among adolescents.
When you state that those from a “high testosterone jock culture” benefit from the “stability” of the “gospel,” it strikes me as a kind of moralizing that you claim the “goodie goods” stake out. Almost like the “high testosterone” folks need this gospel/church culture to tame their dispositions while the “goodie goods” don’t. That might be true, but I see it as a kind of moralizing for a class of people, not far off from what the “goodie goods” offer up. I also think their continuing respect for the institution, even after they leave, is just indicative of the political conservatism of the class.
Lastly, I disagree about the consequence of the sacred canopy collapsing. I think those in the “high testosterone” camp ended up staying in the institution post adolescence because the canopy existed with a sense of rigidity or familialism that promoted retention and tradition. Once that rigidity is gone IMO this type of person is less likely to serve a mission, where they gain stability and inoculation.
I second the part about more likely to ascend Church leadership if they remain, although there does also seem to be a generically accomplished class of jocks that tend to go into things like finance and do quite well who also tend to be in the leadership class (it seems like the Seventies in particular have had their fair share of college athletes).
“I also think their continuing respect for the institution, even after they leave, is just indicative of the political conservatism of the class.”
That’s probably true, but I would say that it’s indicative of a more general disposition that is upstream from political identity.
I do think that the promotion of education and secular accomplishment is, rightly or wrongly, part of the package of overall righteousness and goodie-goodness. (Less formally, the fact that I presume it’s been a long while since a blue collar worker became an apostle is more powerful than any general conference talk on the subject).
(Another aspect of this risk/reward is that I suspect people who are generically elite sometimes quietly take their foot off the pedal for Church-related stuff if it clashes with their professional aspirations or position among the cultural elite, threading the needle between ecclesiastical acceptance required for ladder climbing while trying to be one of the cool kids in certain circles).
Of course I believe that both sides benefit from the stability of the gospel, but the way it’s manifested for high-testosterone/jock culture is more obvious; for example, risky, sometimes criminal behavior, drugs and drinking, whereas for the professional goodie-good class you can check all the boxes of a stable job, no criminal record, a mortgage, a long-term pet, a long-term partner, etc. (Of course, in the absence of the writing in the sky telling me otherwise I don’t see why the latter is inherently superior to a more eat, drink, and be merry lifestyle of the jock class–frankly that lifestyle seems more fun).
My comment about the sacred canopy collapsing was directed towards the goodie-good class, but I do basically agree with your take on its influence on the jock class. For example, a common trope on the mission were jocks who barely made it on the mission, but once there they thrived under the structure. High school football coach-type mission presidents did wonders for these personality types.
You know it is an interesting time when the LDS call for civility when they act like terrorists. No, nobody is going to listen to the LDS anymore. We all know who you are. You are terrorists!!!!!!
Jim Bot detected.
As a former theatre kid and “goodie good” Mormon who left the church, this post feels kind of bigoted. You’re basically saying that people who put a lot of energy into the church in their youth and then leave were only ever invested because they needed something to excel at. You’re saying their goodness, whether expressed through church service or activism, is all performative. It’s the no true Scotsman fallacy that gets used on exmos all the time: you were never really sincere in your testimony otherwise you wouldn’t have left.
In the church, we don’t explicitly teach, “Leaving the church makes you a bad person.” But when you leave the church, you start to notice that idea expressed by church leaders, family, and friends all over the place. This post is a good example of that.
Here’s an alternative explanation for your observations: theatre is a place to explore the human condition that expands your empathy. Mormon kids who become involved in the arts are going to empathize more with the marginalized, then they’re going to read the scriptures about accepting, loving, and caring for the marginalized, and then they’re going to see their church leaders castigating, expelling, and bullying the marginalized, and that cognitive dissonance might compel them to seek out more empathetic communities. Meanwhile the jocks who value the hierarchical structures of sports teams and who value manliness find in the church an unapologetically patriarchal environment that celebrates said manliness and makes them feel important. If it sounds like I’m painting jocks with straw man stereotypes and making unfounded generalizations, you should read the OP’s description of goodie good drama kids again.
It’s a strange sort of empathy with the marginalized that abandons the one place you’re going to encounter marginalized people on a regular basis. I don’t know about your ward, but in mine there are lots of marginalized people – however you define it, we have it. If you wanted to, you could show up and do the work of welcoming them. But after a good number of people who are outspoken about their empathy stopped showing up, the people who are left to reach out and sit in fellowship with the marginalized now skew Republican and don’t always know the latest vocabulary. But they’re willing to give rides and reach out and welcome all the people who show up, and I tend to be more persuaded by the empathy of their deeds than by the empathy of outspoken protesters.
Jonathan, it’s an unfounded assumption that church is “the one place you’re going to encounter marginalized people on a regular basis.” That’s just a variation on the “where will you go” theme that discounts all the places where one can do good in the world. How about the workplace? School? Other churches? You could only argue there are more marginalized people in a sacrament meeting than a gay bar by arguing that in the gay bar, no one’s being marginalized (as opposed to at church).
But you’re not only deflecting from my point, you’re reinforcing my point by assuming that people who leave have false empathy. Come on, friend. We have an entire article of faith about allowing people the dignity to worship according to their conscience. When we demonize those who leave, we fail to live up to that article of faith and create unnecessary division in the families of the church.
I’m in no position to judge if you’re a good person or not, but leaving the church is a genuinely awful thing to do, and trying to pass it off as an act of empathy isn’t helping any. Apart from the covenant-breaking and the ingratitude towards and pain caused to people who have invested years in you, it’s no act of empathy to tell marginalized people at church that there is no God, or the church isn’t true, or the Book of Mormon is false, or whatever your take is. Then there are the sins of omission: If you have empathy for the marginalized, I can show you a lot of people in the chapel who could benefit from your fellowship. Do honestly think that Jesus’ question “Will ye also go away” was just a theme? And that the answer to Peter’s question “To whom shall we go” is “it doesn’t matter”?
The prodigal son was allowed to leave with no anger from the father, or charges of ingratitude, covenant breaking and so forth [at least, they aren’t included in the story]. And the prodigal son was later allowed to return with rejoicing.
To me, it seems uncharitable to point the finger at those who leave for their “covenant-breaking and the ingratitude towards and pain caused to people who have invested years in [the leaver].” It also seems uncharitable for those who leave to point the finger at those continuing on the path. We must respect the agency of those who come into the church, as well as those who leave the church. Let each person make his or her own choice, with charity to all.
I’m skeptical. If you look at actual research, there’s a mountain of data showing that college educated church members (which maps somewhat, though not perfectly, with the types of people you’re talking about) are dramatically more religious and also less likely to leave the church. Some of these studies ask about childhood religion, so it’s not just a selection effect later in adulthood.
The church has also done a number of internal studies that found that youth who attend seminary and are very involved in the youth program are much more likely to be active later in life.
But anecdotally, I do think that the go-getter type of person is more likely to vocally “leave the church” rather than just go inactive, for some of the reasons you discuss.
I have read studies showing the opposite. Those leaving the church, having faith crisis are mostly college educated
“leaving the church is a genuinely awful thing to do, and trying to pass it off as an act of empathy isn’t helping any. Apart from the covenant-breaking and the ingratitude towards and pain caused to people who have invested years in you,”
If this is what counts as LDS empathy and fellowship, please keep it to yourself.
On the question of the education/activity relationship, my understanding is that for Latter-day Saints it’s positive, although I don’t have the time right now to do a lit review to get the chapter and verse, especially since religiosity of people who still ID as LDS is technically a distinct variable from people who leave the Church. Also, Armand Mauss mentioned a study where they split it out by field and found differing effects, but I haven’t been able to find a cite for that (perhaps he was speaking from original analysis). I know I’m moving the goalposts a bit here, but that would make sense to me.
In continuing with the post’s theme of baldly stereotyping people, for the future MBA GAs of America, Mitt Romney clones whose favorite book is “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”, educational accomplishment is probably associated with staying in the Church (as is professional, feed-the-family education), whereas I wouldn’t be surprised if the more liberal arts type is associated with leaving. In sociology (with a few exceptions: https://sociology.uchicago.edu/directory/James-A-Evans), I feel like PhDs typically either leave the Church or work for BYU. So BYU’s Accounting program kicks you-know-what, and I’m sure the new medical school will as well, and if we ever get a dental school that will as well, but I don’t get the sense that BYU will have a top ten queer theory program anytime soon.
“In [some fields] I feel like PhDs typically either leave the Church or work for BYU.” Well, yes, but some of them first establish a track record of both academic success and faithfulness at other universities, and then get recruited by BYU.
Continuing with theme of running with the pattern observed in the OP despite also being suspicious of how representative it is: If “goodie-goodie” youth were willing to spend significant amounts of time and energy doing what the Church asked them to do just because that’s what good kids did in your high school (boy was your high school different from mine), why didn’t we, as a Church, do a better job of making sure they laid foundations that would prepare them to be faithful for the rest of their lives? Of course they have their agency and we can’t expect perfect results, but a negative correlation between high school Church activity and later faithfulness suggests there’s room for improvement.
Did they learn “moral preening, stridency and righteous indignation” in seminary? (I didn’t, but I’ve certainly been in Sunday classes that taught them.) Did we get hoisted with our own petard?
I have no idea what a seminary council did, but will serving on their ward’s missionary or temple and family history work committee alongside adults give them a better introduction to serving in the Kingdom?
(These questions are not meant as criticisms, but anyone who works with youth should be racking their brain trying to come up with ways to help them stay faithful.)
I’m in an early-morning seminary area, and I presume this was release-time seminary. Anecdotally, faithfully attending early-morning seminary seems to be a great predictor of faithfulness in the youth I know. (I say this despite being unsure we should be asking them to fight their biology in that way.) Of course that’s a combination of selection and the actual effect of the class, maybe heavily weighted towards selection.
I’m a little late to this, but my experience is basically the opposite, with one interesting “exception” (if it’s even that).
There was a small cadre of supposedly upright, righteous, super duper spiritual youth who got all the calling, all the praise, all the speaking assignments, all the spotlights, constantly held up as examples for the rest of us backward youth to look up to –
Except everyone knew they were sleeping around, doing drugs, etc. It was all a creation of their (in the ward/stake) politically powerful parents who apparently either were unaware of their kids’ behavior or cared more about their social positions than bringing their kids in line.
They weren’t a very big cadre, but they had outsize influence. And none of them are still in the Church.
On the other hand, I was both. I was the goody two shoes academic type who also did well in sports. Jock/Scholar or whatever combo you want to call it, and I am still in the Church, so – who knows?
I think the parents are the most important determiners. Whether jocks or potential MBA types or theatre kids or whatever, the ones who are still in the Church, I had noticed, were the ones deeply involved in their children’s lives rather than either ignoring the kids (and expecting the Church to do all the hard work) or else using the kids as props in their own personal dramas.
My experience was somewhat similar. No jocks in my sample size necessarily, but there were several of us on the fringes–not exactly excited about seminary, went to church because our parents required it, probably did things on the weekends that would make me worry a lot as a parent now. But eventually, we all righted the ship, went on missions, and are all still active now, some decades down the road. Meanwhile, many, but not all, of my classmates who were in seminary council and otherwise facially quite active, no longer participate.
My theory is different from the OP’s, and I think it’s about parents and when we got to be rebellious, at least in my case. We fringe teens all did our stupid stuff in HS so that by the time we got to mission age, we had it out of our system and were really making the decision to go of our own volition. On the other hand, many of my other classmates got to that first year of college and out from under their parents’ thumbs and started making all the bad decisions I had made 3-4 years earlier, mostly because it was the first time in their lives that they could since their parents regulated a lot of what they did before. Most never recovered to right the ship.
I don’t know that there’s a lesson to be learned here, but that’s my experience.
I saw the same thing, Jimbob: many of the kids who had grown up with the strictest rules crashed and burned as soon as they had the freedom to so. But I also saw that many kids who had been given more flexibility chose to be obedient both during their high school days and their adult lives. So I decided I would focus on teaching my children *why* they should make good choices and give them enough freedom to make them *their* choices.
But both my children left the Church, so what do I know? (Not that they ever broke the rules I would have set, other than Church-specific things. That wasn’t the issue at all.)
I appreciate many of the comments made in this thread. The OP castigages a type of person prone to ” moral preening, stridency and righteous indignation” without asking whether those attitudes were or are institutionally supported or fostered, and then claiming this type of person is more likely to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As Stephen acknowledges in his follow-up this person is also likely to ascend the hierarchy, prompting questions about the extent to which these are truly attitudes the institution abhors.
Also, it’s hard not look at this thread and see examples of “stridenty and righteous indigantion” from both former active members and current active ones. I spend enough time in LDS online spaces to know that this behavior is far from unique to former members. I’m not stating either side is right or wrong in their truth claims or failing in their behavior. I do think though that castigating these behaviors as a moral failing of left wing former members is wrong, especially when a cursory glance at LDS spaces shows the behaviors in abundance among members. Having recently listened to a few apologetic podcasts and Youtubers, I saw many examples of the behavior the OP classifies at problematic.
If the behaviors themselves are wrong I need a deeper recognition of the spaces that facilitate them, not just the personality types and why they occur to be more fair to what I see happening in the world.