In 30 words or less, what does Stage 5 mean to you?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

You have to keep your mouth shut. It’s an eternal principle in Stage 5. Otherwise you get into trouble at Church.

I believe that is Stage 4 faith.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

My own experience is that the church finds authenticity refreshing

YES!! Charity and genuine honesty make a good concoction. Brutal honesty puts others at church on the defensive. “Fake it til you make it” makes others at church OK, but leaves you internally conflicted and upset.

But there is a way to go through the transition, stay in the church, and be tolerated and feel completely honest with your heart.

I believe it takes Timing, Dosage, and Tact.

There are times it is not right to voice all the concerns or truth you’ve discovered (such as in the middle of Gospel Doctrine, or at my son’s baptism).

There are times when it is right, but those I’m talking to can only take certain doses of it without feeling uncomfortable. As Brian often says, you build up social credit in your account, and you find others welcome and enjoy your different views if it isn’t all the time and draining the account. So, at times, it should be done in digestible doses. I don’t think a stage 5 person feels compelled to vomit it all at once, dosing it out can be not only effective, but also respectful to others’ faith.

Tact is always important. If trying to convince the other person you have found something no one else knows about and they are all unenlightened…it ain’t gonna be tolerated much. If it is open, charitable, honest, and tactful…others may not agree, but they can respect your position, even if they think you are wrong. When they know your intentions are pure, they can welcome you to the fold, without fearing you present a threat to the other sheep.

It is probably unrealistic to think there is no reaction from the church, perhaps it even impacts callings for you. But at Stage 5, some of those things are less important because it is a personal journey, and you realize what others say is about them and their view of reality, not about you. But it absolutely is tolerated at church, if the timing, dose, and tact is done properly.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

You have to keep your mouth shut. It’s an eternal principle in Stage 5. Otherwise you get into trouble at Church.

I believe that is Stage 4 faith.

How so?

[Anonymous]

First, my disclaimer is I am a novice and still learning about Fowler’s theory, but my understanding is that stage 5 is conjunctive faith…joining various opinions. Believing I must “shut up or get in trouble” does not fit in with that stage.

Quote:

Stage 4’s ascendant strength has to do with its capacity for critical reflection on identity (self) and outlook (ideology). Its dangers inhere in its strengths: an excessive confidence in the conscious mind and in critical thought and a kind of second narcissism in which the now clearly bounded, reflective self overassimilates “reality” and the perspectives of others into its own world view.

I believe claiming all the church will react if you are not silent is that second narcissism, and overassimilates views of others in the church to an assumption that there is no tolerance for the authenticity Hawkgrrrl spoke of.

It has not been my experience. I can speak my mind, with timing, dose, and tact…and remain. In fact, my Stake President said he respects me and my views…and I pretty much opened up to him and he understands where I’m coming from, even if he disagrees. I have not been shunned, although I know of some people in the ward that don’t understand me, but those voices do not make up “the Church”. Those critical voices make up one part of the church, and other parts of the church are loving and inclusive…and I feel I represent another liberal part also trying to be inclusive…but we can all live under the same tent.

Stage 5 is not about hiding, withdrawing, being silent, or being dishonest to not let troubles be revealed. It is about engaging in a way that allows me to have my view of faith, and allow others to have their view…and valuing the diversity.

But without the internal peace or knowing how to deal with differing opinions, it is hard to be in the midst of the others because it can be so painful…so we just shut up, stand and fight, or withdraw in sadness and anger. That is Stage 4.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

First, my disclaimer is I am a novice and still learning about Fowler’s theory, but my understanding is that stage 5 is conjunctive faith…joining various opinions. Believing I must “shut up or get in trouble” does not fit in with that stage.

I think that’s a bit harsh wording, although I take some responsibility for encouraging it as I said “keep the mouth shut” or similar.

While I agree that certain divergent thoughts can be accepted, they have to be shared diplomatically. You can’t just speak with the same freedom that can when espousing standard Mormon doctrine. Because Stage 5 is very personal and perhaps different for everyone, I don’t think you can say carte blanche that you should be able to speak your mind if in Stage 5.

For example, Ray came out with an interesting idea a while ago. For women, he suggested giving a prayer of faith for someone who needs it, going so far as laying their hands on their head as a priesthood holder might — without invoking the priesthood. Just give a prayer of faith in that stance.

Now, this would be find in a household, but if you shared this openly as an acceptable way to give a prayer of faith, I’m pretty sure you’d be lambasted by someone in authority.

So, for me, the litmus test of Stage 5 is whether the idea brings you peace — not whether you can share it publicly without some form of censure from the traditional believers.

[Anonymous]

I am the first to admit that I am mostly in stage 4, and that my views are colored by my ‘teenagerdom’, as hawkgrrrl puts it, but no matter what stage you are in, there are some things you simply cannot say ‘at church’. You will have gone beyond the pale. Deconstruction leads you to all kinds of possibilities, and sometimes conclusions, that will never be acceptable in that context. For example, my journey is leading me inexorably to the conclusion that Jesus is symbol, albeit a very important one. And while I accept and believe that for many people the literal reality of Jesus and the atonement is the bedrock of their faith, I don’t think it can ever be for me. Now tell me, where in our LDS culture can I share that? As an coment on a sunday school lesson? As a sacrament meeting talk?

[Anonymous]

doug, I think the overlap that I see is that you can go ahead and believe Jesus is a symbol, and you can accept that certain others will not benefit from hearing those specific words, so you can choose a way to express your faith that fits or choose not to express it, not because that is tricky or deceitful, but because that is what is helpful. Does Jesus being a symbol change the blessings of the sacrament? No. Baptism? No. Temple work? No. Callings? No.

What kinds of circumstances would require you to express specific truths to stage 3 thinkers to make them see it your way? What would require we all agree on literal or metaphorical interpretations? Stage 3 and 4 might include that perception, but stage 5 is not interested in that.

I have faith in Jesus Christ.

I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon and it teaches me about Jesus.

I love the church, and know that it helps me be more Christ-like.

Those ideas can be shared in sunday school or over the pulpit whether you believe Jesus is a symbol or a literal person. You pick the time, dose, and tact to engage with others in a healthy way.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

doug, I think the overlap that I see is that you can go ahead and believe Jesus is a symbol, and you can accept that certain others will not benefit from hearing those specific words, so you can choose a way to express your faith that fits or choose not to express it, not because that is tricky or deceitful, but because that is what is helpful. Does Jesus being a symbol change the blessings of the sacrament? No. Baptism? No. Temple work? No. Callings? No.

What kinds of circumstances would require you to express specific truths to stage 3 thinkers to make them see it your way? What would require we all agree on literal or metaphorical interpretations? Stage 3 and 4 might include that perception, but stage 5 is not interested in that.

I have faith in Jesus Christ.

I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon and it teaches me about Jesus.

I love the church, and know that it helps me be more Christ-like.

Those ideas can be shared in sunday school or over the pulpit whether you believe Jesus is a symbol or a literal person. You pick the time, dose, and tact to engage with others in a healthy way.

Heber, if I had your address I would send you a nickel. That’s the kind of thing I need to hear, I think. And I’ve been here before, but never with enough momentum to get over the hump, so to speak. I will probably keep bumping into this issue for some time, but what other choice do I have? I think that once you realize that a truth or principle is ‘only’ symbolic, and only as real as you let or want it to be, the issue of whether something is ‘real’ or not becomes deliciously irrelevant. Though that puts me roughly where I want to be, it’s shaky ground. All it takes is one jarring note at church and I’m back on the defense, protecting my new-found freedom against an external authority that seems to want to force me to accept everything at face value, which I am incapable of doing.

[Anonymous]

There are things that can be said privately that can’t be said publicly – in ALL groups of any kind. That’s just social communion. Otoh, I say things all the time in church that others would have a hard time saying without pushback, because I’ve had to do so all my life and have become really good at doing it in a productive, acceptable way – and because everyone knows I’m a “faithful”, orthoprax member and not a threat in any way.

Stage 5, to me, is about being comfortable with reality (mine and others’), even when there are parts of reality (mine and others’) that I am trying to change. It’s not expecting more than people can do (including myself). It’s an empathetic orientation – even when there are things that I am trying to change. It’s judging carefully and minimally (only as much as is absolutely necessary) and always keeping open to the possibility that I might be wrong in even those judgments.

Stage 5, to me, is close to “perfect (whole, complete, fully developed) faith” (with “perfect faith” bordering on true knowledge being Stage 6) – recognizing the limits of my (and others’) understanding and being at peace with those limits. That “limitation peace” is the foundation of growth, since it allows me to puruse “further light and knowledge” while being okay with my (and others’) dark sight in the moment.

Stage 5 is knowing what you know, believing what you believe, understanding that you don’t know what you don’t know, etc. – and realizing that every one of those lists is subject to change – and being at peace with that possibility.

Stage 5 is being totally fine that not everyone is Stage 5.

[Anonymous]

You exceeded the 30 word limit.

My comment about ‘saying’ out loud what we all know cannot be said out loud was purely rhetorical. I have no more intention of doing that than I do of showing up to church in a non-white shirt. Sorry, I mean than of doing something crazy. While it’s fine that some are this way, it’s simply not in my nature be the kind of person that does that. However, part of being involved with a church, or with any other organization, is being involved in that organization. That implies a cooperative effort, and at some level a sharing of the heart. I’m hopnig that someday I will beyond this, but the looming uncertainty that keeps coming up is that it seems false and foolish to attempt that when at core my beliefs are at odds with, even diametrically opposed to, the basic tenets of the organization I am trying to remain involved with.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

You exceeded the 30 word limit.

My comment about ‘saying’ out loud what we all know cannot be said out loud was purely rhetorical. I have no more intention of doing that than I do of showing up to church in a non-white shirt.

I laugh at this as a blue shirt is my signature at work and at Church. Not out of rebellion, out of convenience — all my white ones have problems with them, but my blue one’s don’t! I wonder what the higher ups are thinking of me…beyond the evidence I already have that they see me as off the radar!

Quote:

However, part of being involved with a church, or with any other organization, is being involved in that organization. That implies a cooperative effort, and at some level a sharing of the heart.

I agree — for full Stage 5 thinking. On the other hand, I don’t see the Church really caring too much about their end fo the cooperation part — the effort and resources tend to flow one way on average — toward the Church. Granted, there are welfare funds, but with respect to the committed members, I don’t see the kind of partnership/cooperation you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

…To me, stage 5 is walking away from teachings and counter-teachings to find one’s own truth. It’s the internal state, not whether one is in or out of a specific church, that marks that path. Stage 4, conversely, entails counter-teachings. It’s like teenagerdom, finding the cracks in what you thought was solid and rejecting it for its opposite. It’s giving up one flawed teacher for anyone teaching that it was false.

doug wrote:

I am the first to admit that I am mostly in stage 4, and that my views are colored by my ‘teenagerdom’, as hawkgrrrl puts it, but no matter what stage you are in, there are some things you simply cannot say ‘at church’. You will have gone beyond the pale. Deconstruction leads you to all kinds of possibilities, and sometimes conclusions, that will never be acceptable in that context. For example, my journey is leading me inexorably to the conclusion that Jesus is symbol, albeit a very important one. And while I accept and believe that for many people the literal reality of Jesus and the atonement is the bedrock of their faith, I don’t think it can ever be for me. Now tell me, where in our LDS culture can I share that? As an coment on a sunday school lesson? As a sacrament meeting talk?

Personally, I don’t know if Fowler would say that Stage 4 is mostly bad or that Stage 5 would typically be the best thing for everyone. The way the LDS Church is so demanding and unfriendly toward any opinions that don’t agree with the standard orthodox TBM point-of-view sometimes it is almost impossible to avoid some feelings of aggravation and bitterness involved with changing beliefs when constantly confronted with this inflexible and uncompromising attitude. Also, it seems like many atheists and agnostics wouldn’t have much reason to appreciate this particular model because if they don’t see the value of faith for them to begin with then what good would it be to develop some kind of more sophisticated faith in that case?

The main thing I get out of this idea of stages of faith is simply that it is not that unusual for people to go through some difficulty adjusting when new information and experiences lead them to re-evaluate some of the things they have always been told and expected to believe by some group they identify with. It seems like it is fairly common for people to go through a rebellious and/or skeptical phase without completely rejecting some of the things they initially struggle with permanently but the LDS Church certainly doesn’t make it easy for people to navigate through experiences like this by insisting they are completely wrong and need to repent or else they are out of luck.

[Anonymous]

Nothing.

I haven’t really got anything out of the Fowler’s Stages. They mean nothing to me.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

I haven’t really got anything out of the Fowler’s Stages. They mean nothing to me.

That’s pretty good Stage 5 thinking too! Seriously, I think that’s a good example of not getting caught up in labels or groupings. Sometimes, things don’t matter to us, even if others are passionate about it. I have never seen Sambee attack anyone about disproving Fowler or trying to persuade others to agree with his interpretations.

Sometimes, Sambee’s response is perfect…what does it mean to me…Nothing. If Fowler/Mormonism/Church is meaningful to you…more power to ya. (My words from what I see about Sam’s responses).

[Author]

Posts