- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I wrote the following in another thread: “I wonder if Fowler’s Stages can actually contribute to cynicism. Someone may come to this site, read about the stages, determine he/she is in stage 4, and then assume it’s good to work toward stage 5. To me, it makes sense to move toward stage 5 in other aspects of life (politics, etc.). However, it does not make sense to me to approach the Church that way.
“I can’t find any teachings in the scriptures about re-engaging in a 5th Stage manner.
This
“I believe it’s worth reconsidering the merits of Fowler’s Stages. It’s a useful reference to help describe where someone might be, but that’s about it for me. If it really is working for someone, then that’s cool. I’m not trying to stop that. I do worry that some might assume they should seek the 5th Stage when there might be a better way for them.
“Interestingly, I have not found an accurate description of a true believing Mormon in any of the Stages. I mean someone who has seriously reflected on, challenged, and taken responsibility for their beliefs. They have explicit faith rather than tacitly held beliefs. They have been through trials, yet embrace LDS orthodoxy and orthopraxy. I am not one of these, by the way.”
“I reckon there are different types of TBMs. I was not describing Stage 3 TBMs – those whose beliefs are deeply felt, but they have not reflected on them explicitly or systematically. I don’t see a Stage describing one who has done that and has taken ownership of their beliefs and embrace LDS orthodoxy and orthopraxy.”
So I know there have been discussions about this before, but it may be time for a new one. I am open to considering Fowler’s Stages more. Let’s discuss how the Stages relate to Mormonism/the Church.
I am taking the liberty of re-posting turinturambar’slast post from the other thread (if you post it, I will delete this one – it would be better with your awesome avatar). Others’ responses were valuable and I hope they post them here. turinturambar wrote: “I’ve had some more thoughts today about the Fowler dialogue going on in this thread (Should it be another thread? IDK)
Nephite is questioning the validity and application of Fowler’s theory to LDS faith. I think this is a reasonable approach. Every theory deserves critical examination, and recasting if it is found to be inaccurate, as well as great care in its application. I think that our leaders and our scripture assert that the best truth comes from revelation and not the theories of men. Thus–the danger in elevating Fowler to an almost scriptural level. I personally find his theory comforting, since I am no longer a traditional, literal believer (due mainly to several life circumstances). The theory seems to account for my spiritual state: as much as I would like to go back to the way things were, I can’t. The symbols have been broken. The first symbol to be broken for me was the infallibility of teachings of the Brethren.
Let me give an example (one that I hope doesn’t turn into a competing discussion): Many of the Brethren have taught things relating to my life situation (gay) that I have found to be false through an “experiment on the word”. I planted those seeds, nourishing them with care for many, many years. I reaped something very different than they claimed. They claimed that I had agency over my sexual orientation. They claimed that through diligence and faith, I could change my sexual orientation. They were flat out wrong. I reaped years of depression, frustration, self-loathing, and declining health instead of happiness and peace. Once I realized that they could be so wrong about something so important (considering the central importance of heterosexual relationships in the Plan of Salvation), I began to see other things that were wrong. At that point, I began to question my apologetic answers to other issues in the church: BoA, Joseph Smith, BoM issues, etc. Those symbols broke, and my “committment” to the Church was threatened.
I can’t go backwards from here. To do so would be to dismiss the truths that I have learned. I know these things now, and to go back to literal belief would cause me great pain as my intellectual integrity would be threatened. I would never be able to be happy again.
Nephite Shawn seems to be getting at an important question RE: Fowler (Shawn, please correct me if I am misunderstanding this): Since Fowler Stage 3 is what works best in the Church, shouldn’t we try to stay there? Does staying LDS mean staying in Stage 3 at all costs? There are two shortcomings of Stage 3 belief: the loss of personal autonomy in belief and decision-making, and the danger of encountering inconvenient truth. The first issue raises some cause for alarm, but I’m not going to write about that right now. The second, the encounter with inconvenient truth, seems unavoidable for the Church as an organization in our current society. This is the Information Age. The internet has made the search for information very easy. The truth is out there–the unvarnished, uncorrelated, uncensored truth in all its paradoxical glory. Though there are clearly “anti-mormon” sites with agendas to destroy the Church, there are plenty of no-spin facts out there to shake a Stage 3 Mormon’s symbols. Fear of less-than-faithful info about the Church may deter some, but I think that ultimately, the Church is going to have to come up with a plan to help people when their symbols break, if they want to keep these people. Telling them to merely put the symbols back together and pretend they never broke in the first place isn’t going to work. Humpty Dumpty ain’t going back together…
From my understanding of cognitive development theories (like Fowler’s), you can reach long-term equilibrium in a stage, but once a transition to the next one has begun, you can’t go backward. The Church’s current message seems to be: don’t look at that information! Don’t trigger a faith transition in yourself! I think this message is ultimately going to be ineffective. We can’t go back to a geographically and doctrinally isolated Church. We’re in an information-driven, globalizing world now. People are going to read these things. And they’re going to become disaffected by the literal approach to life and faith of Stage 3.
Stage 4 is a potentially dangerous place to be, and if a person chooses to stay there, they have bitter and cynical life ahead. But a person has to go through the autonomy of Stage 4 to get to Stage 5, which is a much better place if a person wants to stay connected to the Church. I think that in order for a Stage 4 LDS to stay LDS, they are going to have to complete the demythologizing and personal identity/autonomy development of Stage 4, so that they can reclaim the broken symbols of Stage 3, and make a conscious, personal choice to recommit. A Stage 5 LDS is a part of the Church because he/she has made a conscious choice to live an LDS life, to practice LDS worship, and to explore the depths of the newly taken up symbols to come closer to Christ/God.
So, what do I think about Fowler? I think his theories account for a lot of my issues, and give me hope that I can choose to stay LDS in an intellectually honest way for myself (now that the symbols are broken).”
turinturambar wrote:I think that in order for a Stage 4 LDS to stay LDS, they are going to have to complete the demythologizing and personal identity/autonomy development of Stage 4, so that they can reclaim the broken symbols of Stage 3, and make a conscious, personal choice to recommit. A Stage 5 LDS is a part of the Church because he/she has made a conscious choice to live an LDS life, to practice LDS worship, and to explore the depths of the newly taken up symbols to come closer to Christ/God.
I want to respond more later, but now I have a question. Does being in Stage 5 necessary entail rejecting or discarding any core doctrines or practices of the Church? I really don’t know.Quote:Does being in Stage 5 necessary entail rejecting or discarding any core doctrines or practices of the Church?
It all depends on how someone defines “core” – and if what is rejected or discarded is a particular interpretation or the meaning behind the doctrine or practice. I can’t think of a single concept or principle of what I view as pure Mormonism that I’ve rejected or discarded – even though there are some interpretations or cultural constructs I don’t accept as eternal truth.
There are lots of LDS members I know whom I believe to be what Fowler would term as Stage 5 – and I think there have been more than a few apostles and First Presidency members in that category (including one President from my own lifetime that comes to mind immediately).
I don’t want to go back and copy all my comments from the cynicism thread but I’ll copy this one to provide some background discussion and questions if anyone more familar with the stages of faith than me wants to respond to these points: wayfarer wrote:I have to confess that
after a bit of banned adult beverages, it is hard to take arguments over “stages” seriously…Fowler suggests a model of faith maturity — it is a good one, but not perfect. Alma suggests that we need to try out our faith, and by implication, discard stuff that doesn’t work for us.He doesn’t say that, but certainly implies it. Joseph said that we would have no creeds, but we should accept truth, from wherever it comes… And i see fowler as one source…In this context, “true belief” needs to be reevaluated…When we embrace “I don’t know” we are on the Way of truth and life. We are also no longer “True Believing Mormons”. And you know? That is ok, and healthy. I can see why some TBMs would object to the idea of Stages of Faith if it sounds to them like it is saying that it would supposedly be better to stop believing in the Church because that’s allegedly a higher level of faith. I can see why some complete non-believers would not appreciate the idea of glorifying faith and giving the impression that there is a higher and more advanced level of development than where they already are. So many will understandably see the Stage 5 description about appreciating paradoxes, mystery, nuances, and the meaning behind symbols as nothing more than a fancy way of suggesting that we should respect and entertain nonsense.
However, I can also see why many here would find these Stages of Faith very useful to describe the worthwhile goal of getting over the typical initial disappointment and bitterness of a faith crisis and finding peace. What I take away from this Stages of Faith idea is not really that one stage is automatically better than another or that it should be everyone’s goal to move on to the next stage as fast as possible but instead that people will often be perfectly content to remain in stage 3 or stage 4 their entire lives unless something happens or they find sufficient reasons to make it almost impossible for them to look at their previous religious beliefs quite the same way anymore.
Nephite wrote:Does being in Stage 5 necessary entail rejecting or discarding any core doctrines or practices of the Church? I really don’t know.
Yes. They would. IMO. At least as how most active members see things. IMO. They would have to either reject or significantly modify the “unofficial” and sometimes OFFICIAL view of the membership.
Examples.
Family proclamation.
Polygamy.
Temple worship.
Word of wisdom.
14 F’s.
Tithing.
Garments.
Priesthood.
Patriarchal order.
Revelation.
Scripture…GC.
etc etc.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:Nephite wrote:Does being in Stage 5 necessary entail rejecting or discarding any core doctrines or practices of the Church? I really don’t know.
Yes. They would. IMO. At least as how most active members see things. IMO. They would have to either reject or significantly modify the “unofficial” and sometimes OFFICIAL view of the membership.
Examples.
Family proclamation.
Polygamy.
Temple worship.
Word of wisdom.
14 F’s.
Tithing.
Garments.
Priesthood.
Patriarchal order.
Revelation.
Scripture…GC.
etc etc.
In my recent reading, it seems that Fowler’s theory is more concerned with
howa person believes than whatthey believe. IOW, specific beliefs and faith content are not the issue. For folks in Stage 5, symbols take on a different meaning–no longer literal, but open to nuance and possibility. A Stage 5er is no longer obligated by their worldview to believe in a specific way, but can choose to recommit to symbols and practices that were broken by the movement into Stage 4. I think the issue of authority does present a problem. A Stage 3 Mormon believes in literal priesthood authority, whereas a Stage 5 Mormon no longer does. The Stage 5er can choose to submit to priesthood authority, but his/her worldview isn’t necessarily dependent on that authority. The other issue I see is that, in the universalizing trend of a Stage 5 person’s approach to belief, he/she might no longer feel the need to proselytize for the LDS church in the same way.
I agree with Chad on the “at least how most active members see things” issue. The nuanced belief of Stage 5 drives Stage 3ers nuts. A Stage 5 person will be hard-pressed to receive approval for their new world-view/epistemology from anyone in Stage 3. (I just read an interesting research study on this–“Stages of Faith and the Perception of Similar and Dissimilar Others”. I’ll have to write about it soon.)
cwald wrote:Nephite wrote:Does being in Stage 5 necessary entail rejecting or discarding any core doctrines or practices of the Church? I really don’t know.
Yes. They would. IMO. At least as how most active members see things. IMO. They would have to either reject or significantly modify the “unofficial” and sometimes OFFICIAL view of the membership.
Examples.
Family proclamation.
Polygamy.
Temple worship.
Word of wisdom.
14 F’s.
Tithing.
Garments.
Priesthood.
Patriarchal order.
Revelation.
Scripture…GC.
etc etc.
amen my brother. And amen to what ray and Turin said.Shawn, please read 3 Ne 11:31-40. I will venture to say that much of what you think is core LDS doctrine is not the Lord’s doctrine.
Mature, authentic faith and pure Mormonism isn’t for everyone. When the hosts of israel could not accept a higher law, the Lord gave them what they wanted: a lesser law full of outward observances. Since the death of Joseph Smith, maybe even before then, LDS have not received further light and knowledge in direct revelation, but rather, institutionalized, correlated speculations and Talmudic church policy and rules.
You can choose to enjoy the mere husk of faith in sticking to and defending these policies and commandments of men taught as doctrine, but as for me, I prefer the kernel.
I think it’s important to point out that I can accept just about everything on cwald’s list, IFI have ability to interpret and define them on my own terms. Some of them I absolutely love. Old-Timer wrote:I think it’s important to point out that I can accept just about everything on cwald’s list,
IFI have ability to interpret and define them on my own terms. Some of them I absolutely love. Yep. Absolutely. The key point, IMO, is the caveat “own my own terms.”.
The question, for this discussion…does the lds church, generally speaking, allow it?
Answer…NO. They do not.
Hence…the need to evolve either back into a stage 3, OR, out of stage 4 to a stage 5, if there is any chance of remaining LDS.
IMO of course.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
IMO, Fowler stage theory is a way of looking at faith from a late Stage 4 or more likely a Stage 5 perspective. The theory itself operates in a stage 5 way of analyzing faith mechanics. So right off the bat, it produces a lot of resistance from people who are focused intensely on figuring out what is correct faith (their group’s faith, Stage 3) ORwhat is true vs. false (Stage 4 personal spotlight of truth). There are people in the LDS Church who transition through stages 4 and 5 that never make much noise about it, who don’t leave the church, and who continue to look orthodox on the surface. You don’t have to reject your faith content (beliefs) to change stages.
It’s just much more likely that vocal people who transition and reject some aspects of their faith content will be found online in chat groups, on websites or that produce podcasts about their faith. They are the ones that want to talk to everyone about it.
One of the key aspects of a Stage 4 style of faith is the intensely focused spotlight beam of personal truth (an analogy used by Fowler). Whatever fits into the bright, crisp circle of light from that beam is “true.” Whatever falls outside it is false. There is true and false. Everything has to get sorted into those two piles, but now the sorting is done by the person with their own tests of truth. Previous Stage 3 ways of looking at things revolve more around their group’s story about truth, and fitting things into that or not.
Stage 4 is also the starting point where someone begins to look at their beliefs from an outside perspective. They can separate their self from their group and their worldview, like stepping out of the water to look back into the fish tank. Or as Fowler describes it, they step out of the flow of the river, onto the shore, and can look at the river (which is their faith).
and then they can jump back into the river and swim using whatever stroke method works best for them. cwald wrote:Old-Timer wrote:I think it’s important to point out that I can accept just about everything on cwald’s list,
IFI have ability to interpret and define them on my own terms. Some of them I absolutely love. Yep. Absolutely. The key point, IMO, is the caveat “own my own terms.”.
The question, for this discussion…does the lds church, generally speaking, allow it?
Answer…NO. They do not.
It really depends on who your leaders are. This is the luck of the draw. I have experienced a lot of kindness and patience. Others, haven’t. IMO Priesthood leaders often seem to be chosen because they can get things done the Church’s way, not because they necessarily have any special theological or spiritual development. Many leaders are Stage 5–they were often ones that went through a gentler, more “behind-the-scenes” Stage 4. I wish that all our leaders were Stage 5…
turinturambar wrote:Nephite Shawn seems to be getting at an important question RE: Fowler (Shawn, please correct me if I am misunderstanding this): Since Fowler Stage 3 is what works best in the Church, shouldn’t we try to stay there? Does staying LDS mean staying in Stage 3 at all costs? There are two shortcomings of Stage 3 belief: the loss of personal autonomy in belief and decision-making, and the danger of encountering inconvenient truth…
From my understanding of cognitive development theories (like Fowler’s), you can reach long-term equilibrium in a stage, but once a transition to the next one has begun, you can’t go backward. The Church’s current message seems to be: don’t look at that information! Don’t trigger a faith transition in yourself! I think this message is ultimately going to be ineffective….
…I think that in order for a Stage 4 LDS to stay LDS, they are going to have to complete the demythologizing and personal identity/autonomy development of Stage 4, so that they can reclaim the broken symbols of Stage 3, and make a conscious, personal choice to recommit.
I don’t think members of the Church are encouraged to stay in Stage 3 because we are taught to seek our own testimony. That is different, however, from engaging in a full-blown Stage 4 investigation. I agree that one cannot go back to Stage 3. Once beyond that Stage, beliefs will no longer be held tacitly.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Does being in Stage 5 necessary entail rejecting or discarding any core doctrines or practices of the Church?
It all depends on how someone defines “core” – and if what is rejected or discarded is a particular interpretation or the meaning behind the doctrine or practice. I can’t think of a single concept or principle of what I view as pure Mormonism that I’ve rejected or discarded – even though there are some interpretations or cultural constructs I don’t accept as eternal truth.
There are lots of LDS members I know whom I believe to be what Fowler would term as Stage 5 – and I think there have been more than a few apostles and First Presidency members in that category (including one President from my own lifetime that comes to mind immediately).
I wish had not used the word “core.” I am thinking of pretty muchany officialdoctrine or practice. Anyway, please name some of these GAs! Chad, thanks for the posting that list. Can some or all of those be considered “broken symbols”?
turinturambar wrote:In my recent reading, it seems that Fowler’s theory is more concerned with
howa person believes than whatthey believe. IOW, specific beliefs and faith content are not the issue. For folks in Stage 5, symbols take on a different meaning–no longer literal, but open to nuance and possibility. A Stage 5er is no longer obligated by their worldview to believe in a specific way, but can choose to recommit to symbols and practices that were broken by the movement into Stage 4. I think the issue of authority does present a problem. A Stage 3 Mormon believes in literal priesthood authority, whereas a Stage 5 Mormon no longer does. The Stage 5er can choose to submit to priesthood authority, but his/her worldview isn’t necessarily dependent on that authority. The other issue I see is that, in the universalizing trend of a Stage 5 person’s approach to belief, he/she might no longer feel the need to proselytize for the LDS church in the same way.
If someone goes through Stage 4 and comes out believing in symbols literally, believing in literal priesthood authority, is that person still a Stage 5er?I am confused about something: aren’t symbols supposed to be understood symbolically? Isn’t it clear to every LDS adult that the waters of baptism do not actually wash away sins? Some things are not mean to be taken literally, right?
Nephite wrote:turinturambar wrote:I think that in order for a Stage 4 LDS to stay LDS, they are going to have to complete the demythologizing and personal identity/autonomy development of Stage 4, so that they can reclaim the broken symbols of Stage 3, and make a conscious, personal choice to recommit. A Stage 5 LDS is a part of the Church because he/she has made a conscious choice to live an LDS life, to practice LDS worship, and to explore the depths of the newly taken up symbols to come closer to Christ/God.
I want to respond more later, butnow I have a question. Does being in Stage 5 necessary entail rejecting or discarding any core doctrines or practices of the Church?I really don’t know. It sounds like Fowler was simply trying to explain the typical evolution and development of people’s faith as they mature and repeatedly re-evaluate what they really believe. The important thing to me about this idea is not symbolic meaning and vague abstractions but simply the fact that people will often encounter serious problems with their religious beliefs they have mostly picked up and adopted from others and Fowler is just trying to describe how many of them react when this happens. So the real question to me is not how compatible is Fowler’s Stages of Faith theory with Mormonism but how compatible is traditional Mormonism with real life? For example, how much awareness and understanding of the world around them and how things really work can an average Church member have and still continue to believe in the core LDS doctrines?
How much knowledge about the background history surrounding the Church and its doctrines can the average member or investigator have and still be willing to give what it teaches the benefit of the doubt? My impression of the most knowledgeable TBMs I see is that they generally do not care enough about most of these questions to ever seriously investigate them in detail to begin with and most of the ones that are aware of some of the apparent inconsistencies have had to employ all kinds of complicated rationalizations and “plausible” denials in order to defend the Church and feel better about it in spite of the problems. So it looks like depending on having most Church members not notice or worry too much about some seriously problematic issues is what it currently takes to make traditional Mormonism compatible with real life because to some extent the Church simply will not accept anything less. Personally I don’t think this reflects very well on what the Church has become at this point (Luke 8:16-17).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.