Are you cynical…whose fault is it?

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

…This is the perfect example of why I am so cynical and skeptical of the church…surely, faithful members, leaders and family members have to understand why so many of us are like this? My god, reading stuff like this article and the comments…is it any wonder that NOMs like myself, and so many of you, are so cynical and skeptical? Should TBMs be surprised at all…I mean, can’t the church acknowledge and accept any of the blame or credit for making me this way?…This conference…once again…it’s always the doubters fault. It’s always the one who falls away fault. And once again this conference, I got told I was never converted to begin with, and that I just need to toughen up and live the gospel and quit wanting to sin…Is the church to blame for it’s members cynicism? And if so, does it need to acknowledge and accept any of the blame or credit for making me cynical and skeptical?

I guess I don’t believe saying things that sound negative or highly critical is automatically cynical or even inappropriate. For example, I like to say that Church leaders have quite often demonstrated that they didn’t really know what they were talking about in hindsight. To me this is not really cynicism as much as a simple matter of fact. By itself this statement would not be such a big deal if not for the fact that the Church has given Church members the impression that Church leaders should almost always be right and their authority and accuracy should not ever be questioned.

Was Jesus cynical when he said the Pharisees were misguided? To me an example of real cynicism would be if someone says the Church is mostly just a profit oriented corporation and Church leaders are guilty of deliberate fraud. I have actually heard accusations like this and worse from bitter ex-Mormons and NOMs. However, I don’t think this reaction should really surprise anyone either given the way the Church teaches tithing combined with only sanitized history and doctrines so then many members inevitably end up feeling like they were deceived unfairly once they see some contradictions.

So yes it is absolutely the Church’s fault if some of us do not react positively to what we see and even suspect the worst about past or present Church leaders. The truth is that the Church provides the environment active members experience for better or worse. However, to me it looks like the Church almost has a mind of its own and because of that most of the top leaders don’t really know any better because they are basically caught up in these traditions themselves and surrounded by other members that support and reinforce these beliefs so I don’t know what it would take to really get through to them or who or what to blame anymore for some of the glaring problems that exist in the Church.

[Anonymous]

turinturambar, thanks for your insight. Though Stage 6 people are compassionate to all, the writings of Paul and Mormon do not reflect other aspects of Stage 6, IMO. I agree there are many references to re-commitment in the scriptures and in General Conference, but I have not found anything about a Stage 5 approach.

Ray, I didn’t mean to imply that this site advocates “complacency or cynical withdrawal” or that this site doesn’t help people. Fowler’s publisher is not sponsoring this site, is it? 🙂 My point is that there is a danger in Stage 5 of the possibility of “a paralyzing passivity or inaction, giving rise to complacency or cynical withdrawal.”

Ilovechrist77, I am sorry. From previous interactions, I have learned that cwald is okay with direct statements and we are okay.

So why am I even bringing this up? In my view, I found a potential source of cynicism and 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.

[Anonymous]

Nephite wrote:

…So why am I even bringing this up? In my view, I found a potential source of cynicism and 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.

From what little I have read about the stages of faith so far it sounds like most TBMs would be classified in Stage 3 but some could still be in Stage 4 or possibly even Stage 5. Personally I would define TBM as mostly believing in the traditional restoration story and the basic authority of prophets and apostles. As I understand it Stage 4 is mostly about taking ownership of your own beliefs and a fairly common side-effect of this process is actually increased certainty that you have it all figured out and a general lack of patience for other beliefs that disagree with your own views that you are now more personally invested in than ever. To me that explanation describes many TBMs I know perfectly just as much as any skeptic. On the other hand, it sounds like Stage 5 is mostly about becoming more comfortable with the true uncertainty and complexity real life often presents so while this stage is not necessarily impossible for TBMs to reach it is definitely not encouraged much in the Church at this point so that’s why I think it would be more rare for someone to reach this mindset without leaving the Church or at least abandoning the type of strict literal belief the Church pushes so hard. Some of my thoughts about how the Stages of Faith relate to Mormonism are in the following thread:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2131

[Anonymous]

turinturambar wrote:

A Stage 5 Mormon is the perfect person to build relationships with other faith communities, and to bring enormous spiritual strength and power to his/her own faith community–if he/she overcomes the paralysis of analysis…

This is something that I would aspire to. Perhaps I should be more proactive in leveraging the personal contacts that I have made in other faith communities as bridges between faith communities. The first thing that comes to mind is to let the Pastors that I associate with know that I could help facilitate an inter-faith service/humanitarian project. In a previous town, I persisted in wanting to participate in the quarterly Christian “sing-speration” despite being initially rejected as representing a non-Christian group. By the time I moved, the “Mormons” were regular participants. Any other ideas on how I might help to build bridges?

[Anonymous]

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. LDS true believers “know” the church is true. In so saying, they are using a technical definition of “know” that distorts reality. They do not know it, because there are things in the church that are not true. There are also a lot of things that are true, and a third category, bigger than the first two, that we don’t know. LDS are culturally forbidden to admit they don’t know, but that isn’t really the doctrine, is it? Yet I know of no testimonies that say “I don’t know”.

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.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

From what little I have read about the stages of faith so far it sounds like most TBMs would be classified in Stage 3 but some could still be in Stage 4 or possibly even Stage 5. Personally I would define TBM as mostly believing in the traditional restoration story and the basic authority of prophets and apostles. As I understand it Stage 4 is mostly about taking ownership of your own beliefs and a fairly common side-effect of this process is actually increased certainty that you have it all figured out and a general lack of patience for other beliefs that disagree with your own views that you are now more personally invested in than ever. To me that explanation describes many TBMs I know perfectly just as much as any skeptic. On the other hand, it sounds like Stage 5 is mostly about becoming more comfortable with the true uncertainty and complexity real life often presents so while this stage is not necessarily impossible for TBMs to reach it is definitely not encouraged much in the Church at this point so that’s why I think it would be more rare for someone to reach this mindset without leaving the Church or at least abandoning the type of strict literal belief the Church pushes so hard. Some of my thoughts about how the Stages of Faith relate to Mormonism are in the following thread:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2131

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.

[Anonymous]

Nephite, that’s OK. I’m glad you two resolved your issue.

[Anonymous]

Nephite wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

…As I understand it Stage 4 is mostly about taking ownership of your own beliefs and a fairly common side-effect of this process is actually increased certainty that you have it all figured out and a general lack of patience for other beliefs that disagree with your own views that you are now more personally invested in than ever. To me that explanation describes many TBMs I know perfectly just as much as any skeptic.

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.

That’s what I’m trying to say, I don’t see that much of a difference between what you describe and general descriptions of Fowler’s Stage 4. It sounds like what makes Stage 4 different from Stage 3 is not so much the specific beliefs people settle on as much as the fact that they really evaluated and adopted their own beliefs in a personal way rather than being a case of mostly just accepting what they are told at face value and going along with everyone else. That’s why I think a TBM could fit the Stage 4 description fairly well if they seriously questioned what they have been taught but rather than rejecting the official group beliefs they somehow managed to resolve whatever questions or issues they had at least enough to end up really adopting the central group beliefs as their own personal beliefs.

I think there are actually many Stage 4 TBMs like this especially if they are returned missionaries because they have often had to really defend the Church in their own mind. Similarly I think some TBMs could easily fit the Stage 5 description fairly well because they do fully understand that some things aren’t nearly as easy and simple to explain as they once thought and that some questions have not been answered very well but they remain essentially TBM by compartmentalizing different concerns and only backtracking on a few peripheral issues like polygamy because they think it doesn’t really matter anymore and is “in the past” and they mostly feel good about the Church now. Personally I think some members like this have had profound spiritual experiences that basically trump any skeptical or rebellious thoughts in their mind so that makes it easier for them to shrug off logical issues with some of the strict literal teachings the Church likes to insist on without getting completely weeded out.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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).

[Anonymous]

I am starting a thread about the Stages under General Discussion so this one can stick with cynicism. I hope you all will copy and paste relevant responses into the new thread and then continue the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer wrote:

The answer is to seek the truth, and by knowing both sides of the story, realize that extreme positions simply don’t work.

I’m cynical of extreme positions and absolute claims of truth, including statements like the Church leaders perpetuate a big lie, or that they have never been wrong.

Christ taught us the truth will set us free. I think it frees us from negativity and carrying around unhealthy cynicism.

A healthy does of cynicism helps protect me from unrealistic expectations in others, so that I can re-engage authentically with proper boundaries, and open my heart to others.

But I’m not interested in the “blame game”. I’m interested in making choices to find happiness considering where I see blame all around, including within.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Wayfarer wrote:

The answer is to seek the truth, and by knowing both sides of the story, realize that extreme positions simply don’t work.

I’m cynical of extreme positions and absolute claims of truth, including statements like the Church leaders perpetuate a big lie, or that they have never been wrong.

Christ taught us the truth will set us free. I think it frees us from negativity and carrying around unhealthy cynicism.

A healthy does of cynicism helps protect me from unrealistic expectations in others, so that I can re-engage authentically with proper boundaries, and open my heart to others.

But I’m not interested in the “blame game”. I’m interested in making choices to find happiness considering where I see blame all around, including within.

+1 obviously.

critical thinking is not a blame game: it is seraching it it out in your mind…

[Author]

Posts