Four years ago I started to question things I’d been taught in the Church because I received an answer to prayer that I believe conflicted with church teachings. I started questioning almost everything, but never the core foundation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the basics of the Restoration. I thought it was more accurate to describe my journey from straight arrow orthodox to open, questioning, and unorthodox as a “faith transition.” I see things differently, but never felt there was any type of “crisis.” My lenses just shifted dramatically. You could say I navigated Givens’ “The Crucible of Doubt” path on my own before I read the book earlier this year.
It has come to my attention in the last 24 hours that not all people define “faith transition” the same way. Apparently there is a connotation that I’ve left the faith, or if I’ve stayed I no longer believe in Mormonism, just general Christianity and I’ve decided to stick around for other reasons. I’m trying to measure the amount of fallout or work that I have to deal with – I’ve been very loud and public about describing my last four years as a “faith transition.” It became apparent yesterday that I am misunderstood when I say that fairly often.
- If you see someone describe themselves as going through a faith transition . . . is that a neutral term? describing a loss of faith? gone inactive? a Dehlin-ite?
- If I’m 100% active and don’t foresee myself ever leaving but certainly think there is space to faithfully agitate/critique . . . does “faith transition” accurately describe me or am I unintentionally giving myself a lot of baggage? What do you think is a better or more accurate term? Less orthodox? More open and questioning? A “Givens” type of Mormon?
Wheat & Tares 
I’m not sure there is a better term for what you have experienced than faith transition. From the perspective of a more literal, orthodox, correlated, obedience-first believer, they are going to interpret your transition as a movement away from faith, becoming less faithful, no matter what you call it. It reminds me of the distinction between Iron-Rod Mormons and Liahona Mormons.
The LDS Church seems to be emerging from a several-decade period of correlation and focus on unity of belief. Perhaps we are moving into a period where diversity of belief and a variety of faiths and ways to be Mormon will become more acceptable. There are already wards and stakes where that is the norm.
It all depends on what you transition to, and whether that place is acceptable to those who judge you. Most all LDS would agree that someone transitions out of the faith if they are baptized catholic and look to the pope and Christ’s representative rather than President Monson. Most all LDS would not take the same view if someone transitions from believing that blacks were less valient in the pre-existence (official doctrine in years past) to believing that the ban was based on racism (current church position per the essay). And many other ‘transitions’ will have varying judgments based on the views of those who are judging (e.g., transition to ‘BOM is scripture but not history’; transition to ‘Polygamy was necessary but not part of the eternal plan’; etc.)
In all, it is important to remember that there is no such thing as ‘faith’ in the abstract. Faith only exists when connected to some person, event, or other point of trust. And faith is only seen through actions. Thus, when one plants seeds in the spring they show faith that rain will come. If someone prays to Baal for deliverance from cancer, they have faith that he has power and the will to cure. Thus, when someone has a faith transition, they are losing faith so much as placing faith in something else.
Members need to come to grips with the 9th AoF:
“A very encouraging portion of the ninth article of faith we have been considering is its conclusion, “We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” Elder Boyd K. Packer stated: “Revelation is a continuous principle in the Church. In one sense the Church is still being organized. As light and knowledge are given, as prophecies are fulfilled and more intelligence is received, another step forward can be taken.” (The Holy Temple, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980, p. 137.)”
GENERAL CONFERENCE
CONFERENCES
OCTOBER 1989
Continuous Revelation
James E. Faust
I like the previous post where it implies faith == trust. As one’s faith transitions it implies you are leaving Christ. Instead of “faith transitioning” you should say “my understanding is enlarging or growing or changing and that your testimony is stronger than ever”, otherwise you are in the process of apostacy and if you cause others to doubt you will be ex’d.
LDS Mormonism is a tribe, (one of several Mormon tribes). The gospel is doctrine. Spirituality is one’s egoless connection to God and others. It’s a mistake to conflate any of them.
The LDS church routinely conflates all three, attaches worthiness tests and check lists to them and glues the mess together with endearing folklore and propaganda. This dumpling is expected to be swallowed whole to considered a “faithful” member. A faith transition only differs from a faith crisis in the speed in which the dumpling is deconstructed and critically analized.
1) I think that faith transition has taken on a euphemistic definition…in other words, I can see how some people would translate “faith transition” as simply being a less blunt way of saying “faith crisis”.
2) I think that there is enough ideological policing within Mormonism that one must be very careful how one speaks to various audiences. Like, to me and to you, it is probably very clear that folks like Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, etc., believe “differently” (but still believe). And yet, I do not think that either of them would describe their beliefs as different, or describe the process by which they have acquired those beliefs as a faith transition. Maybe you can find in their writings or their presentations evidence to the contrary, but I would imagine that it would only be implied, if anything.
To the contrary, I think that they present their beliefs as so thoroughly and authentically Mormon that the beliefs need no caveats. The reason I think this is the case is because I think this drives a major criticism from many disaffected folks: the criticism is that Givens etc., present as mainstream Mormons when the critics believe they are not mainstream.
Putting it simply…the moment you start prefixing your Mormonism, you are raising attention to the fact that you yourself feel different. But I think the major key to Givens et al is that they don’t feel — or, at the very least, they don’t present — as different. Their clout in some sense depends on their ability to present or pass as normal, mainstream, etc.,
Kristine,
“If you see someone describe themselves as going through a faith transition . . . is that a neutral term? describing a loss of faith? gone inactive? a Dehlin-ite?”
Yes
“or am I unintentionally giving myself a lot of baggage?”
Yes
That is my two cents for what it is worth. I think the question i would ask if i were you, is what would Elder Bednar think? Or better yet, given your past work experience with him, write him a letter and ask him what he thinks.
A lot of good feedback already.
Joel: I agree that no matter what, to the orthodox my faith is seen as less than even though to me it feels stronger with a more sure foundation
Dave K: I like the description of trust. I did experience a loss of trust in the organization, but not in the Gospel – as they became to separate organizations to me.
Hoff: I’m definitely experiencing the side effects of that in my ward. I like how you describe it as after questioning more, my faith became stronger
Andrew: I wish I’d read that a few years ago. Everything I hear the givens say my response is “yessss!” Or “exactly!” But they do seem to get a pass from the orthodox. My parents buy their books, for heavens sakes.
Ken: done and done. I don’t think the details are any of your business though. Let’s just say it made it to him, he read it over and over again, and sent me a response. And I still feel good about where I’m at.
…I think that they [folks like Bushman, Givens, etc] present their beliefs as so thoroughly and authentically Mormon that the beliefs need no caveats.
So they are sheep in sheep’s clothing? Or appear to be? Does the difference matter?
Interesting side note: I think the orthodox love Al Fox so much bc she’s an opposite faith transition (towards orthodoxy in a very large shift) not only was she cool with tats, now she wants to be just like me.
Andrew S: It sounds like what you’re saying is that the Bushmans and Givenses of Mormonism manage to describe their faith in a way that is safe to the more orthodox in the church while also reaching out a hand to the more unorthodox. Like Jesus, they speak in parables that have different levels of meaning to a mixed audience. They probably also adjust their message to their audience, so the testimony they give in sacrament meeting is very different than the interview they give in the Guardian. And they seem pretty adept at avoiding crossing certain red lines, like never saying that the Book of Mormon may not be historical.
It’s a bit frustrating to me to have orthodox family members sending me things written by Bushman or Givens, when it seems obvious to me that the Mormonism being proposed by Bushman and Givens is very different than the Mormonism believed by my family members or supported by the institutional Church. My response is that they are preaching a form of Mormonism that doesn’t exist and is rejected by the institution, and that the degree to which you are allowed to live and believe in this alternate Mormonism is largely predicated upon your social standing in the community (it helps to be white, male, married, in a leadership calling, in a liberal ward) and your ability to mask and code the language you use to describe your beliefs. But they don’t seem to see the discrepency. For what it’s worth, I think that Teryl Givens is more orthodox than Richard Bushman.
Sigh. Just more labels being thrown around,
I have no idea what you mean by orthodox and I have no idea who Al Fox is. It would be nice if links were provided when you reference stuff. Or maybe it is intended to make some of us feel like Stupid Outsiders.
I don’t know or really give a flying flip what a “faith transition” is. I accept that each and every one of us have a different path on our spiritual journal. I don’t expect everyone’s experiences to be the same.
And I expect everyone to question the church on something. Wouldn’t it be unhealthy if they didn’t? So I don’t see how that is any different than the rest of us, and why a label is needed.
Why don’t you just say that you received an answer to prayer that you believe conflicted with church teachings? Rather than trying to find a label to fit the situation.
How about this Naismith:
I’d like a way to describe the last four years of my life that started with an answer to prayer an ended four years later w my feet on the ground but seeing EVERYTHING with new eyes: church history, doctrine, practices, fellow religions, etc. the foundation of my faith was rebuilt and my identity was destroyed and also had to be rebuilt – and I am wholly a new person, stronger and more sure of where I stand. Etc etc
But when I’m commenting at church I just want to refer to that in four seconds because I’m actually trying to make another point but knowing that I started questioning things makes my comment more relevant but I don’t want to take up ten minutes of the lesson time when I know others have valid things to say to. Brevity is next to godliness. So.
Call it labeling. Call it trying to be concise. I don’t care, but I need something that will practically be able to describe my experience without commandeering the space every time I want to refer to it.
Also: when you say you expect all members to question the church – in my family and friend circles you are an anomaly. By and large the response to my “changes” in “faith” I was told “when the prophet has spoken the thinking has been done” and to never read anything that hasn’t been published directly by the LDS church.
And I assume you know what Google is.
I’m assuming you’re referring to the conversation at Keepa yesterday?
I think it is very normal for a testimony to morph and adjust with your life experiences. Most members would find it acceptable if you limited the expression to personal trials and growth. After thinking about it awhile, I agree with Andrew that it would be easy to misconstrue a faith “transition” as a complete removal of your testimony from one place to another. For a lot of mainstream members who do not see nuance (you either follow the leaders or you don’t), it implies that you no longer believe the tenets of the church even if you claim otherwise. I think Andrew’s right that the Givens have been able to delicately chart this territory because they never give they impression they are not mainstream, just people who understand how difficult circumstances can sometimes cause you to turn inward and examine/strengthen your existing testimony.
There is also a jargon issue. The term “faith crisis” or “faith transition” doesn’t really exist in the orthodox/mainstream vocabulary that I can tell. It tends to be used on the bloggernacle, especially with the more progessive/liberal side of Mormonism (I guess someone could say a Dehlin-ite). If a member hears you using the same unusual words like their friend or relative who left the church over progressive issues (other terms: agitate, orthodox, heterodox, orthopraxy, heteropraxy, etc.), they are going to start viewing you with suspicion. An example, a friend who privately admitted she was struggling in her faith pointed to the idol worship of leaders, trusting in the arm of flesh, the church leaders being only interested in corporate interests, and the lack of teachings about Christ and receiving the Second Comforter. I didn’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out which books she’d been reading.
I think that’s what bothers me about that new aggregator; it assumes that there’s only one way to be orthodox.
We should all be in a “faith transition” as we’re supposed to be learning more as we go. The Church doesn’t give a lot of absolutes, as much as some like to take even the slightest suggestion and run with it as if all of existence depended on it. Those who treat all TBM/orthodox/liahona/iron-rod/whatever the same do as much of a disservice as those who treat all who have left the Church the same.
I think if it’s starting to sound like if I lead with what I believe in, my testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it would then be acceptable to refer to the fact that I started studying church history or engaging and questioning deeper than I had before. Or to refer how I believe we all have different faith journeys and paths.
I have an idea. Why don’t the Givens’ write a book about how to present successfully as traditional mormon. They’re doing a bangup job with their doubt firesides helping people stay . . . now that I’m staying – how do I not ostracize/alienate myself? I guess that’s what they are showing a pattern of in all of their books and interviews – the words they use, how they introduce difficult topics.
brb; going to relisten and reread everything they’ve ever done
{sigh}
Since it is not talked about in Sunday or in the Ensign most members who don’t participate in online discussions would probably assume it is transitioning out of the church. From their perspective, you grow in light and truth, not transition.
In my experience it is a negative connotation.
I keep that in mind when using it based on who I am talking to.
Most importantly, regardless of what labels we use to describe ourselves, our actions are our greatest example of our faith.
” I think the question i would ask if i were you, is what would Elder Bednar think? Or better yet, given your past work experience with him, write him a letter and ask him what he thinks.”
Kristine, I hope you get it all sorted out. It took me too many decades before I realized the truth for me is/was inside me. One person’s prophet is another person’s spiritual con man. Today’s authorized spiritual leader is tomorrow’s Paul Dunn.
BTW, I enjoy reading your ideas on W&T.
Before Frank made his comment I’d been thinking about that Mormon Spectrum site as well. It uses very typical progressive terms and describes the spectrum as orthodoxy on one end with a general progression of leaving the church. It really leans heavily on the idea that Mormons generally leave the church for liberal/progressive reasons. Mainstream is a good descriptor for orthodoxy for a reason. If you think of it like a bell curve, then mainstream members are the large central portion. On the left you have people becoming disaffected for secular/progressive reasons, and on the right you have people becoming disaffected for conservative/fundamentalist reasons. Last year the church didn’t just excommunicate outliers on the far left, they were also cleaning house by excommunicating outliers on the far right.
re 9,
Howard,
I do not think Givens, Bushman, et al as being wolves in sheep’s clothing (or…sheep in sheep’s clothing?), because at the end of the day, these people do want people to stay in the church, and do not really suggest big reforms for the church. I mean, to the extent that people can lose faith over Rough Stone Rolling…maybe?
To the contrary, the main criticism I see from a lot of disaffected folks is that they are engaged in mental gymnastics, that “if they know all that they know, then they should leave the church,” or that they benefit from priesthood roulette or other rationalizations for why they still stay.
re 11,
Joel,
I generally agree with your comment. But in a hopeful sense, I hope that by being able to continue to publish, etc., they are able to show that their form of Mormonism isn’t necessarily rejected by the institution…it just has to be presented in a delicate manner. I dunno though…I think it’s difficult…priesthood roulette is real.
re 15,
Mary Ann,
I love your comments that the very use of certain terms (e.g., orthodox, agitate, etc.,) is suspicious.
I think “faith transition” carries too much Dehlinite baggage, a euphemism for loss of traditional faith and/or rejection of core LDS claims. Better to make clear what one does believe instead of relying upon vaguely defined terms.
I really don’t I understand your response Andrew given a wolf in sheep’s clothing is a very different thing than a sheep in sheep’s clothing, I made no reference to a wolf.
re 23,
Howard,
my bad. i read your “sheep in sheep’s clothing” as a typo, caught it late, and only made a parenthetical comment noting that I had caught that.
but yeah, no, I don’t think the analogy applies.
I think the term is 1) loaded and yes, usually taken as shorthand for “faith crisis” or “apostate”, and 2) will go over the heads of all non-bloggernacle members.
I suggest that you clarify what you mean by faith transition. “I’m transitioning away from giving a damn what you judgmental orthodox folks think about me.” Another way of saying “faith transition” might be just “growing up.”
But in seriousness, I would say that you deepened your perspective, that you began to understand church beyond the standard Sunday School answers, or that you saw the difference between the church and the gospel more clearly.
“all non-bloggernacle members.”
I’m a fairly long-term bloggernacle guy (commented on The Metaphysical Elders back in the day, first comment at Times&Seasons way back in 2003 or 4), and I still find it a vague but loaded term. I’d steer away entirely.
Dammit. I feel like such a dork. A family member told me he cringed every time I used the term but that didn’t mean much because he cringed every time I mentioned the seer stone, too – but now that it’s in the ensign it’s a-ok.
I do feel like I’m not my final place in understanding the gospel and I’m on a path. I need to start describing it that way, I suppose.
It’s one of those loaded terms that is usually equated with I used to be TBM, now I am going to believe whatever the heck I want. But it’s typically a transition out of the Church.
Reminds me of the phrase, “we’re very family-oriented.” Which appeared to mean “we don’t really keep the Sabbath like most folks in the Church.”
“By and large the response to my “changes” in “faith” I was told “when the prophet has spoken the thinking has been done” and to never read anything that hasn’t been published directly by the LDS church.” I would suggest people quit trusting in the arm of flesh. Also, what exactly is the point of the holy ghost if we aren’t supposed to seek individual guidance? People need to grow a brain.
It appears we are developing new vocabulary to describe the spectrum of faith for individuals for the day in which we live.
I guess that shouldn’t be a surprise. We have many ways to describe individuals sexual, intelligence, education,and financial condition–why not their Mormon faith?
It seems the further we moves from the scriptures, the more need for this sort of thing emerges.
I think the faithful should focus on the language in scripture. For example, the term conversion as defined in the Book of Mormon should say all that needs to be said about faith transition.
I do feel like I experienced a change of heart – truly converted. You guys are nailing it today.
“But when I’m commenting at church I just want to refer to that in four seconds because I’m actually trying to make another point but knowing that I started questioning things makes my comment more relevant but I don’t want to take up ten minutes of the lesson time…”
Perhaps if you gave an example of when this mattered, some of us could understand better why this would be needed.
I am not seeing how it would matter. I can imagine you in a church lesson, making an astute comment, and the other people around you are listening. If they feel the Spirit as you speak, how would anything else matter?
Especially given how often that kind of thing Goes Wrong and the “transitioned” person comes off as so much smarter than the mindless sheep around them, it seems that just making the comment would be Enough.
I think Joseph Smith experience faith transitioning all the time. He probably still does.
“I don’t think the details are any of your business though.”
I didn’t ask for them.
As for general statements, you are the one broadcasting them over the internet and asking for opinions. I just offered my opinion per your request.
Kristine– exactly. How you start a story sometimes determines what kind of narrative it appears to be.
I’d say I went through a faith transition (and I’m happy to use the term, because in my case at least, Andrew S is right — it included a bit of a faith crisis). I’d also say that my personal faith in the church’s fundamental truth claims is stronger now than ever. But merely asking questions and recognizing that some things I was taught were half-truths or actually wrong didn’t strengthen me. I chose to keep the course and received a few spiritual witnesses that convinced me I was making the right choice. With time I’ve also come to see things that really troubled me with new eyes, and even if I don’t have complete answers, I feel I have more understanding.
The problem I have with the term “faith transition” is that the people who usually use the term
1) have generally come to conclusion on most issues (namely that other people are wrong, even if they themselves don’t necessarily know what’s right)
2) tend to have a superior or patronizing attitude toward others who haven’t questioned the things they have
3) seem to appreciate questions and doubt more than the jigsaw pieces of understanding and faith
4) present as rather cynical
I’m probably guilty of 1, 2, and 4 (obviously), but hopefully not 3.
I have to say that I have always cringed when you (Kristine) have referred to your “faith transition” because I think most people transition out of the church, and that is what I always think when you use it. I’ve read you enough to know that you don’t mean it that way, but I wouldn’t couch my faith in those terms. I’d rather say I used to be an orthodox Mormon, but now I am an Unorthodox Mormon. Some people have referred to me as a TBMH, True Believing Mormon Heretic, or UBM – Unorthodox Believing Mormon. Neither of these terms seems to have stuck, but I’m fine with them concerning my beliefs, and think you might be in the same boat with me.
Maybe instead of being a “by the book” Mormon you could call yourself a “by the heart” Mormon. A “spirit of the law” Mormon. Something like that?
“I think if it’s starting to sound like if I lead with what I believe in, my testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it would then be acceptable to refer to the fact that I started studying church history or engaging and questioning deeper than I had before. Or to refer how I believe we all have different faith journeys and paths.”
You’ve just written the book yourself.
“I’ve had my faith mature as it has been tested and find myself with more charity and love towards others now, with a stronger testimony than I had before.” will lead off in a way that works very well for what you want to say.
I’ll note that the other approach “I’ve had a faith transition, but I’ve still got a testimony, but I’m going to make a comment you won’t agree with” will put people’s teeth on edge and will probably get someone who uses it misunderstood unless they fit one of the stereotypes above (because it will make people think of the stereotypes).
Ken: I know you didn’t ask, but you telling me to ask bednar was a bit pushy so I pushed back.
Naismith: for example, when I’ve borne my testimony I’ve referenced that I’ve had questions etc that have resulted in rejection from family and friends and I’ve leaned more on Christ instead for acceptance. So on Sunday our RS lesson was on Ichtdorf’s on being genuine – and we discussed why we aren’t more authentic and vulnerable and genuine. I brought up that there is real fear of rejection for whatever part you have that is different. Several women who have college age daughters have reached out to me for advice on their daughters experiencing the same questions. So my talking about it seems to help people.
Kristine A.
I think you raised a good point–on why we aren’t more authentic, vulnerable etc.? i really feel we all miss out on the potential to grow–become more Christlike–because mostly all we do is regurgitate lessons without revealing ourselves. Our laymen (not professionally educated/trained preachers) led meetings become so sterile, and frankly, boring. My favorite meetings, by far, are the ones where people reveal the struggles they’ve had and how they worked or are working to overcome them–hospital for sinners, so to speak. Depending on the issue, I can learn that a) I’m not alone or b) cultivate more empathy, sensitivity and less judgmentalism.
I do think church leaders and church culture perpetuate the idea that the leaders are inspired, therefore the thinking is done, don’t go looking for “trouble.” I also agree as others have pointed out that “faith transition” is likely to have a negative connotation.
My FWIW – the phrase “faith transition” seems to come across as “I was ignorant of (insert issue/church history/doctrine) but now that I’ve studied it, now I know more about it than you.” Why not simply say you are on the road of conversion, since in the end, that’s all that really matters?
I’m a former atheist who converted to Mormonism. I was listening to Mormon Stories Podcasts and read the StayLDS forum and similar sources before I ever decided to get baptized. It was such resources that showed me an approach to the gospel that I could relate to and make sense of. I would not say that I experienced a faith crisis, although certainly a transition. I don’t quite like the negative connotation of calling it a crisis, since at least for me these more unorthodox resources even were instrumental in my getting baptized. I’m now a fully active church member, and since I joined the church fully aware of the difficult issues, I’m confident that won’t change.
“for example, when I’ve borne my testimony I’ve referenced that I’ve had questions etc that have resulted in rejection from family and friends and I’ve leaned more on Christ instead for acceptance.”
Leaning on Christ rather than what other people think is an important point, but why not discuss THAT rather than the particulars of how you came to that conclusion?
Which do seem to bring some baggage, apparently.