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?