Episode 25: Fowler Stages of Faith

This topic really should be done in more than an hour time slot. Nice job though. There is so much to explore with this topic, especially when Fowler is fit into the colorful world of Mormonism.

I am trying to find a way to stay in the church even though I don’t believe in it anymore. But it is hard. Really hard. So stage 5 used to be something I longed for. Now, I’m not so sure. It is a struggle just getting through church these days, especially fast and testimony meeting. All the Joseph revering, I know the church is True garbage makes me want to puke. There is very little any teenage girl KNOWS, but when it comes to this one great cosmic truth, they KNOW it with every fiber of their being. *shiver*

Randall,

How long has your wife known about your new knowledge?

Have you asked her if your membership is more important than her relationship with you?

She has known about it since our anniversary trip last June. I have systematically broke down her testimony, but I don’t want to make it too abrupt. We had a long talk last night and it is clear she wouldn’t leave me if I left the church but I could see the pain in her face. I can endure this for a while, but not sure indefinitely. However, John Dehlin is kind of my mentor (I have listened to every single mormonstories podcast) and I have talked to him about it and he always recommends taking it slowly. The next step will be showing her the “In the Shadow of the Temple” video.

I wish I could find a way to stay in the church happily and maybe I will, but right now the church is structured in a way that doesn’t accomodate us Stage 4ers.

The hour flew by so fast. I really enjoyed discussing this topic with the other panelists. It might be cool to do a topic on just Stage 4 and Stage 5 as it applies to Mormonism some time.

Randall, I totally feel for you bud. Hang in there. If I could recommend anything, try not to focus so much on changing your wife’s testimony, or worrying about what everyone else at Church is thinking and believing. We all have our own Church going on inside of us, even the orthodox “Stage 3″ type members. They just can’t see it. They can’t yet see their system as a system of beliefs. Most never will. The change and transition towards peace with this relationship to all others, it all happens inside us. We can not make other people understand us. We can only try to understand others. That doesn’t mean agree, just value and love them.

Randall,

John Dehlin’s advice is good. Take it slow.

In my case I stopped attending within weeks. My wife said she could see how tough it was for me to sit through the BS and agreed it would be best for me to stop attending.

She had read Palmer, Larsen, and Mormon Enigma by then.

It took her nearly three years to finally see that religion in general was bunk and in the end, it was religion in general that she needed to break free from, not really mormonism.

She said the hardest thing to realize was that religion is not needed to raise good kids.

We are now an “agnostically” leaning atheist family and nothing has really changed. We just don’t to church anymore. Everything is still the same with the exception of hanging more and more religious millstones around the neck of our children.

Our motto is “Live your life for today, when you are alive, don’t live your life for when you are dead.”

Excellent podcast. I originally heard of Fowler’s Stages of Faith on Mormon Stories years ago and find it fascinating. I really need to read more on it. Anyway my thanks to the panel for their input.

I do have a question. Many on the panel spoke of moving from stage 4 to 5 as an more enlightened return to the former belief system— one where the individual is aware of all of the flaws and sees the symbolic value of the former beliefs rather than taking them as literal. Some did mention that a return to the belief system is not necessarily required though— that the stage seems to be more of an ability to see SOME value in the belief system despite the error and flaws.

Does stage 5 require a return to the former belief system? Could say an exmormon choose another belief system (perhaps atheism or universalism) in which he/she sees the value in symbols and belief and thereby be a stage 5er….or does he have to choose to go back to the LDS Church…according to Fowler?

Thanks again.

No Badseed, a change in stage is a transition from one type of structure to another. The content of one’s faith is a different question. Fowler talks about *how* someone believes, not what they believe. So someone moving from Stage 4 to Stage 5 might very well change the content of their faith at the same time they change the structure (i.e. leave the Church and go to another). They could leave, or they might stay in the Church. Stage 5 is about diving back into faith content with eyes wide open.

Fowler clearly differentiates between structure and content. The LDS Church is a form of faith content, as in the specific details of faith. Fowler’s stage theory talks about the framework or perspective of a person’s faith regardles of the content. His theory applies to atheists too. Atheism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Buhddism, those are all the specific content elements of someone’s faith. People with those faith contents work with them from different view points. Those are the Stages of Faith.

I just want to add something in very explicit terms to what everyone said in the discussion and what Brian has said in his comments:

Stages 5 and 6 are NOT about rejecting and leaving religion. They are about finding peace with faith – and faith encompasses those things that one doesn’t know, whether inside or outside of religion. Everyone, and I mean everyone, “knows” things based on how they individually interpret that word – based on their own personal mindset and experiences. Stages 5 and 6, at the core, are about letting go of the need to define faith and knowledge for others and finding peace with one’s own outlook – one’s own “faith”, again whether inside or outside religion.

I do not mean this next statement to be judgmental in any way, but “working” on breaking down someone else’s faith or belief structure is not a sign of being in Stage 5. Learning to accept others regardless of differing belief structures is. Learning to share without expectation of change in others is. Learning to value difference, even when that difference is illogical to one’s self, is. Needing to have everyone agree with you to be happy is rock-solid Stage 3 – and it is no different in theory and practice for someone who leaves Mormonism than it is for those on the far end of active Mormonism who deny there is any good anywhere else. Iow, within Fowler’s Stages of Faith, an active crusader against Mormonism is no different than an extreme, 100% good-vs-evil Mormon – since both of them believe they are 100% right and everyone who disagrees with them is 100% wrong.

I’m not saying all people in Stage 3 are bad – not even close. I haven’t even discussed the vast majority of Stage 3 people in my comment – only the extremes who see no good in and reject what they personally can’t believe. It’s learning to remove the value judgments we naturally associate with distinction like this and stop seeing this issue as immutably linear (that everyone must go through Stage 4 to be enlightened, good people – that going through Stage 4 is better than being in Stage 3 for everyone) that is the core of Fowler’s Stages of Faith, imo – at least for those who have to plow through Stage 4 to get past it.

Finally, the “worst” stage is Stage 4 IF it is an ultimate destination. I’d rather live in Stage 3 eternally than Stage 4 eternally, and if I had to live in Stage 3 eternally I’d rather it be a positive, peaceful Stage 3 than a negative, bitter Stage 3 – which is what happens when many people slam head-long into Stage 4, can’t get past it and rebound back to their former Stage 3 simply with a different perspective.

Polygamy Porter – you’ve described the two different ancient belief systems very well (carpe diem vs. memori morti). Both views were about remembering your own mortality, but they tackled that from two different angles: opportunistically (pleasure driven) or cautiously (guilt driven). Funny how the more the world changes, the more it stays the same. Neither of these views is really espoused or eschewed by a religious construct. You can live either way (either live pragmatically to make your life the best it can be or live cautiously, afraid of making mistakes) regardless of religious belief or lack of it. Within Mormonism, the carpe diem philosophy is best typified by the expression “Men are that they might have joy.” Memori morti types do seem to like an open mike for their doomsaying, though.

Another point on Stage 4 within organizations – NO organization welcomes Stage 4s. An organization is self-sustaining, and Stage 4s are by nature critical and destructive of the organization. Buddhism, in a sense, teaches individuals to go toward Stage 5 through Stage 4 (the saying “If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him” could be interpreted as encouragement to let go of Stage 3 and proceed to Stage 4). But Buddhism is not an organized religion per se. It is an individual path. For those who go from Mormonism through Stage 4 and into another organized religion, they are just as likely to go into that new religion as a Stage 3 (because religions can really only accommodate Stage 3s).

What “Kill the Buddha” means to me is that we have to get past the point of obeying and learning and to the point where we become the Buddha. As a child really only becomes an adult on the death of a parent, so the student only becomes the Buddha (teacher) on the death of the Buddha (teacher). Jesus “Killed the Buddha” when he transcended Judaism. But you don’t “Kill the Buddha” until you are ready to become the Buddha. That’s the difference between enlightenment and the Menendez brothers.

Good comments. Thanks for the clarifications.

While I understand the general idea of the stages I’m still a little fuzzy of how to identify them without a religious structure. Guess I’m stuck on the word “faith”. Looks like I need to read Folwer’s book.

Ray

I think I may have overstated my breaking down my wife’s testimony. What I meant by that is I want her to understand WHY I am moving away from the church or no longer believe in its divinity. So I have, piece by piece, revealed the things that trouble me most. What honest person, when confronted with all the BS in our history, wouldn’t have their traditional Stage 3 testimony broken down by that? So in an attempt to have her understand me, I have, in effect, broken down her testimony. If she wants to stay in the church and still believes it is divine, I will respect that and support her. I just don’t know how long I can keep up the charade.

However, that is an excellent point Ray and I agree with it.

A quick distinction that just struck me.

On the podcast, someone mentioned (I couldn’t tell who) that a Stage 5 person returns to the faith with a clear understanding that it’s not true. I’d say it’s yes and no. A person who is re-engaging the belief system from a Stage 5 perspective recognizes the problems with the belief system, yes…but the reason she re-engages it is because she finds much truth in it.

This truth, however, is likely on a less literal and more symbolic level than, say, a person in Stage 3 would recognize.

I think I was guilty of that Katie L. I immediately reached up to try and pull my foot out of my mouth You just couldn’t see that in an audio-only podcast.

Stage 5 faith just isn’t so much concerned anymore about something being factually true or not, not as the central focus of one’s practiced faith. True vs. False, Either/Or, One or the Other, “this is just that” — Those Stage 4 dichotomies lose relevance over time to some people, and they move to Stage 5.

Stage 5 knows the symbols are relative objects. Does that make them false? Well, it sort of does. What happens when we allow our self to be vulnerable again and just listen to what a symbol has to say to us? We might find it actually mediates a transcendent idea that we find valuable. That makes it true. Stage 4 asks “So which is it? It can only be one or the other.” Stage 5 answers this question with a solid and comfortable “C. All of the above”

The transition from 4 to 5 is often prompted by being tired of the flatness of the color and flavor of faith caused by hyper rationalism, from deconstructing everything into pieces, and from constantly pointing out that the great and powerful Oz is “just” a man behind the curtain.

I think one of the best examples is the Christmas holiday. Why would a grown adult participate in the Christmas holiday when they know that Christ wasn’t actually born on December 25th, and there really isn’t a man named Santa Claus that flies around delivering presents? It’s either true or it’s false, right? It’s false. But then we might find out that participating in all the holiday fun actually brings us “peace on earth, goodwill towards man.” (whatever that means). We end up experiencing the “Spirit of Christmas.” We loop right back around to Christmas being true still, even though we know that Santa Claus isn’t real.

I’m just happy to get a MENENDEZ BROTHERS reference from hawkgrrrl, awesome!!!!

Great job again, guys.

Logan…you have the 2nd coolest Mom ever (Hi Mom!!!!).

So glad you did this. Brian…way to represent!

As the SportsCenter sportscasters like to say, “Uuuuseful.” Very useful.

One suggestion on how it might have worked a little better: Have one person run through all the stages quickly — five minutes or less — before delving into the deeper discussion of each of them. Something to keep in mind if there’s ever a similar podcast in the future.

Thanks for this: I am amazed how much better I feel about my own struggles with Mormonism when I hear others debating some of the same issues I have faced. Two things occur to me after reading Fowler and listening to your discussion.

(1) In response to the “what if you belonged to a wholly evil religion” scenario, I question whether there has ever existed a belief system that did not provide something good to someone. Even Scientology must be “useful” to someone in order to exist. From my perspective, religions become “worse” as the benefits they provide shrink in comparison to the cost (in cognitive dissonance) that I have to pay for them. As I grow and develop, my inner “budget” changes, and some charges that I used to cover happily become deal-breakers. The really important question to ask, in my humble opinion, is this: “what are the costs I am paying for the religious benefits I enjoy now?” I find this approach helpful not only in organizing my own evolving religious persona, but also in trying to understand the religious orientation of other people: some folks will pay just about anything for emotional security, and I do not think that makes them necessarily evil, although it might eventually if they do not learn to control (and to some degree transcend) that need.

(2) Stage 6 seems unreal to me. Maybe this is arrogant, but I do not set people like Gandhi (or even Jesus) categorically apart from the rest of us. I agree with Lois’ suggestion that there are many people of the most developed faith all around us, and I fail to see how accidental popularity (or some less quantifiable “dynamism” and/or “zeal”) makes some of these people more developed than the rest of them.

Thanks again for a really nice podcast.

Excellent podcast!

I would only take issue with a couple of things.

I thought the panel was a bit too dismissive of the RLDS/CoC attempts to transition from past Stage 3. I think that they have done an admirable and courageous job.

Personally I see Church politics, schisms and cycles of growth and pruning as the inevitable result of having to deal with “messy” and imperfect human beings striving to pursue truth and happiness.

Numbers and dollars no longer impess me anymore when it comes to issues of veracity.

Finally I thought that the panel was ENTIRELY too dismissive of John Larsen’s point about Fowler’s Stages of Faith ignoring the whole matter of ultimate truth – or if you prefer, “reality”. A metaphor built on psychosis is psychotic no matter how you spin it. And the prescription for psychosis is evidence.

In that light, the panelist who suggested that the ONLY religion that would qualify as being “100% false” is Scientology must be unaware that Joseph Smith, Jr. has been labeled “the 19th Century L. Ron Hubbard” just as many times as L. Ron Hubbard has been labeled “the 20th Century Joseph Smith, Jr.” the parallels between the two men and the religions that they founded are stunningly consistent.

Again the prescription for psychosis is evidence and NEITHER religion can point to a shred of credible evidence to support it’s claims. So any Mormon that throws Scientology under the bus will only turn around to find their own glass house shattered.

Please don’t get me wrong, I find much in Mormon culture and the LdS Church that’s good and, IMO, should be salvaged and enhanced. However, to claim that there is credible evidence that supports Joseph Smith, the religion that he founded and claims of the LDS movement is a bit much! It’s JUST as credible as a Scientologist making the same claims.

What years were you in Cape Town? Who was the mission Prez at the time? Clearly, it was before when I was there, but I’m curious. I served there from 03-05.
My first area was PE… Was Jim BP of Kwa Nobuhle?