Last August, Kristine wrote about labeling her personal experience a “faith transition”:
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.
She unfortunately discovered that other people interpret “faith transition” very differently:
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.
Where did “faith transition” come from?
The concept of transitioning seems to have originated with the application of James Fowler’s Stages of Faith to Mormonism. Dan Wotherspoon explained:
With the 1981 publication of Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning, James W. Fowler presented a road map of sorts for faith transitioning, a descriptive schema that places “faith” (our way of making sense of life, of engaging transcendent values and meaning) alongside other areas of human development and the models that describe them. As they encounter this schema, many people undergoing faith transitions find hope that if they don’t turn away from the difficulties and pain, they will emerge into new and richer perspectives and sense of peace in the face of all of life’s complexities.
Fowler outlined 6 developmental stages. Essentially, as you “matured” in your religious worldview, you would move (or transition) to a higher developmental stage. In a 2002 Sunstone article, Wotherspoon described it as a journey towards “spiritual adulthood.”[1]
More recently, the linear stages of faith model was the focus of Thomas Wirthlin McConkie’s Navigating Mormon Faith Crisis published late last year. In an interview with Jana Reiss, McConkie said,
Development is often a hidden factor in these faith transitions that we see so commonly in the church, and if we understood them better, we would respond in much more appropriate and constructive ways…. Think about faith transition as new growth, a delicate bud that’s just breaking ground. We’ll trample it like a weed if we don’t see it for what it is.
So in relation to the religious developmental stages model, a “faith transition” refers to growth in religious world view. This can refer to growth towards a deeper, more nuanced, and stronger testimony of one’s belief system, or it can refer to deeper, more nuanced understanding leading to conversion to a different belief system. Both are valid options. In this sense, Kristine’s use of the term “faith transition” in describing her journey from orthodoxy to a more unorthodox understanding of Mormonism makes perfect sense.
Why do people now interpret “faith transition” as a euphemism for leaving the church?
One reason, as Andrew argued responding to Kristine’s post, is that claiming a label of “faith transition” immediately causes tension:
[T]his is an issue that runs through the faith crisis and faith transition narratives. There is an element introduced of fundamental difference — the person believes differently, practices differently, whatever. But by introducing this element of difference, one creates the divide that one was trying to avoid.
A commenter on Andrew’s post, Parker, explained further:
Within Mormonism you would not expect to hear someone refer to a “faith transition” as a way of expressing that their testimony has become stronger. The common language is to say my testimony is growing or getting stronger. When a Mormon uses the term “faith transition” to describe their perception of the Church most Mormons see it as a sign of questioning or a testimony crisis (“faith crisis,” in general terms)… It doesn’t matter how loudly and vociferously you proclaim an unwavering testimony of the “gospel,” you are considered somewhere on the edge…
The other reason is that people are already using the term “faith transition” as shorthand for exiting Mormonism. Over at Zelph on the Shelf, their “20 Tips for Handling Your Faith Transition (and Helping Others Handle it)” are helpful suggestions to those who’ve decided to leave Mormonism. At Mormon Spectrum, only the description of post- and ex-Mormons mentions the idea of “faith transitions,” and the transitioning process is related specifically to transitioning away from the church. While the official Mormon Transitions website says it serves Mormons “moving towards a more liberal, progressive form of their faith” as well as those “leaving the church altogether,” it becomes clear when browsing their website that their resources are mainly for post- and ex-Mormons. Even those not in the post-Mormon realm equate “faith transition” with switching to another belief system.
Faith transition versus… something else
So if “faith transition” now means leaving the church, we are left with a void. Bill Reel previously explained that those who go through a faith crisis (even when retaining a strong testimony of the church) are changed:
Once one has been opened up to the complexity and nuance of our faith’s history, theology, and doctrine one can never go back to the way things were. Rather they have to be permitted to take their faith apart and put it back together in a way that works. It will look different, it will seem strange to others, and yet it will be real to them.[2]
Is there a shorthand way to describe that difference? That change? A friend described it as “repacking,” like repacking a suitcase with some things left out, keeping the most important.
If we stick with the developmental stages model, we can simply describe our changed testimony as more mature or more evolved. We can arrogantly humbly declare ourselves a step closer to spiritual adulthood. My gut says any declaration of growth, enlarged understanding, deeper conversion, overcoming of Abrahamic tests, or whatever could easily come across as a declaration of superiority.
Many of us go through that process, but it’s not always from a faith crisis per se. Like Kristine, it could originate from an unexpected answer to prayer. Like me, it could derive from another type of crucible, but the need to acknowledge the existence of that tempered understanding is real. Part of the compulsion comes from wanting to make clear that the change in understanding was not something sought after or desired. Like a remodel or a renovation after a house fire, the work was necessary to make the place habitable again. While I can appreciate the new living space, it is not an experience I wish on anyone.
What do you think?
- Is there a shorthand way to explain that change in heart? Faith renovation? Faith regeneration? Other suggestions?
- Can we describe these changes without passing implicit judgment on the faith of other members?
- Can someone highlight changes without throwing into question her entire testimony as a whole?
[1] Dan Wotherspoon, “When I Needed It Most,” Sunstone, April 2002 (the essay starts on page 4 of the 6-page file)
[2] In an April 2015 general conference address, Sister Rosemary Wixom referenced a woman going through this process, “My testimony had become like a pile of ashes. It had all burned down. All that remained was Jesus Christ.” The woman was still working to rebuild.
Wheat & Tares 
If we stick with the developmental stages model, we can simply describe our changed testimony as more mature or more evolved. We can arrogantly [humbly] declare ourselves a step closer to spiritual adulthood. My gut says any declaration of growth, enlarged understanding, deeper conversion, overcoming of Abrahamic tests, or whatever could easily come across as a declaration of superiority.
Mos faith transitions I have seen declared on the internet are intended as declarations of superiority, one separating from the ignorant masses of Mormondom and joining the cognoscenti who mock the faith of ignorant Mormons. This unkindness and uncharitableness is troubling to those who remain faithful, and who don’t think of themselves as ignorant. When such a one describes his or her faith transition as “more mature or more evolved,” he or she usually uses “more” in comparison to other Mormons rather than in comparison to his or her previous testimony, and passes explicit judgment on the faith of others. If there is any negative connotation in the term faith transition, it is because of the superiority expressed by those who trumpet their faith transitions in internet forums.
The post and the first comment are both excellent expositions and starts for a conversation.
Sometimes there isn’t anymore of a comment I can make than that.
“the need to acknowledge the existence of that tempered understanding”
Why not “faith tempering”? Crucibles and tempering imply the burning away of imperfections.
Greedy Reader — I like the idea of tempering or annealing.
I also think we need a place for people who are just in pain. Some are on a faith journey, but others are just dealing with pain and need only kindness.
I would certainly describe the initial stage as “crisis” in my case.
I do like the term “faith transition” as I do think I am rebuilding my faith that is different (and would cause alarm by some in the church).
What about the term “faith reconstruction” for someone that still believes in the church, but views things quite differently? That sounds like you are staying in the same place, but just changing some things. I also thought of “faith remodeling”, but that sounds more vain and outward-focused.
When the box is small and it’s boundaries rigidly enforced there isn’t enough room for either a crisis or a transition and remain within it’s perimeter. This is why you are searching for a new term and it’s why answers to faithful prayers can and do conflict with church teachings.
“Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.” Has anyone received an answer to a faithful prayer that conflicts with this scripture?
How about “gaining a stronger testimony”? Not all strength is rigidity. Learning nuance and flexibility can make a testimony stronger. Lacking nuance can make a testimony unbending, but also brittle.
Speaking as one who has left the LDS faith …
It’s about narrative. The LDS faith doesn’t have any positive narratives for those who choose to leave. Yet, it’s almost always the case that those who leave have family and friends who remain. Painfully, often one spouse remains while one leaves the faith. Children remain LDS when a loving parent leaves. It’s excruciating.
Can you imagine? Can you imagine engaging in a faith you don’t believe in for years of your life because of the impact it will have on your relationships if you leave? It’s emotionally and psychologically exhausting.
Eventually, one simply must part ways with the faith. When you do that, your choice is to leave the narrative up the LDS faith, or you can do your best to write your own narrative. If you leave it up the LDS faith, you have to realize that your wife and children, your parents and siblings, your friends will be hearing that story weekly. Heavens, there are lessons in the manual entitled “Personal Apostasy.”
In an effort to take back one’s own story, we write new narratives with new language. Transition. Evolution. Moving forward. Secular humanism. Opening one’s eyes. Etc. It’s a desperate effort to be authentic to oneself and maintain relationships with those who matter most. The LDS faith’s story for those who leave is toxic. It literally destroys marriages and relationships. That’s what the term “transition” is all about.
I can’t think of a shorthand phrase for it, either, and the ones we’re using are awkward and problematic. I wish I could quickly convey what a solitary, strenuous, desperate task it’s been. And that it wasn’t perceived as offensive for me to say that I’m happier and more whole than I’ve ever been. I think that’s the key: being obviously happy and content with the process. A couple years into this, and this quote still describes it for me:
“We are like sailors who on the open sea must reconstruct their ship but are never able to start afresh from the bottom. Where a beam is taken away a new one must at once be put there, and for this the rest of the ship is used as support. In this way, by using the old beams and driftwood the ship can be shaped entirely anew, but only by gradual reconstruction” – Otto Neurath
Ruth,
Now that’s a ship metaphor I can appreciate. 🙂
Has anyone received an answer to a faithful prayer that conflicts with this scripture?
Mary, Abraham….though I am appalled by Abraham’s actions, and don’t think of them as godly.
If the term “faith transition” now means “leaving Mormonism”, we do need a new term to describe what happened to Kristine (and me and others). Would “spiritual journey” be ok?
I think the core of the discussion here can be encapsulated by wrestling with the tension between JIs and Josh Smith contributions. I believe both speak to core realities.
Many who transition out of the church *do* exude some sort of superiority or in some cases are *perceived* to exude it regardless what they do. This causes all types of problems in maintaining relationships across activity and belief boundaries.
But the need for a new personal narrative whether you stay or leave is a real need and Josh is right, there is simply no narrative for a positive exit from church activity or belief (at least not one that doesn’t end with the person coming to their senses and returning).
That lack of positive exit models and narratives is a real problem. I see so many people who leave (and their families) grasping for positive scripts and examples to follow. People want to make it work most of the time even though it can be complicated by feelings of disappointment, anger, fear, sadness etc.
I think some very early steps are being made in the right direction but they are relatively new. Some new Ensign articles about positive family and marriage relationships across belief and activity changes come to mind. Mormons so often love to take positive steps and conveniently project them backwards instead of acknowledging historical mistakes and flaws. So let’s encourage more of this going forward without burdening those who had to go through this without even these small advancements as part of the prevailing cultural reality.
Slight clarification – by “there is no positive narrative for exiting” I meant no positive narrative recognized by the Church. Clearly their are many examples of different positive exit narratives generally accepted within the culture of post mormons.
How much history is there regarding those who awaken but remain active faithful members? Any long long-termers on this board or might this be an interim step to eventually becoming apathetic, inactive or leaving? Have you retain your enthusiasm?
I really have to agree with ji’s first comment here. The main issue with Fowler’s Stages of Faith is that, unlike other psychological development models, not everything goes through (or is meant to go through) all of the stages. So, someone who gets to stage 3 and is at that stage for the rest of their life is not “less” spiritually or faithfully mature than someone who hits stage 4. It would be very problematic to view whatever we call this shift as a shift to more being more mature or more adult.
I feel like coming up with new language would probably involve talking with people who model the best behaviors we see. In this case, in the bloggernacle, we can all think of people who are certainly aware of the issues yet would certainly be identifiable as faithful (or, at the very least, disaffected members would not claim that they are in the same boat as they are)…how do these people self-identify?
Even though someone like, say, Richard Bushman, certainly knows the issues, he doesn’t (AFAIK) refer to himself as having “transitioned”. In fact, people like Bushman, Adam Miller, Terryl and Fiona Givens, etc., often don’t publicly present themselves as being “different” at all. One of the criticisms I most commonly see of these people (especially from disaffected communities) is the idea that “their Mormonism isn’t what the church teaches”. And yet, that is probably the most striking thing about each of them — they refuse to accept that dichotomy. They just live their Mormonism confidently (yet quietly, implicitly) asserting that it *is* Mormonism…not Mormonism with a prefix (e.g., not “liberal Mormonism” or “progressive Mormonism” or “nuanced Mormonism” or “middle way Mormonism”)…just Mormonism.
I think the term “faith crises” is very apt — that’s what I felt. “Faith transition” would also be a great description of what I experienced, because my faith very definitely changed. But I didn’t leave the church. I’m as grateful for it now as I have ever been, and my dedication to it is greater. But I don’t feel like my faith was annealed or tempered, because it really is different. I feel it’s a lot deeper, less-rigid, and harder to define. “Re-modeled” seems more apt, but not adequately poetic. Personally, I’d really like to reclaim a piece of the “faith transition” term, but most people like me who experience that change and develop a greater love of the church don’t really have a need to create a narrative, as Josh describes. We can just meld back into the church, even though we’re much different. However, if pressed, I think I’d have to go with a “faith transformation”, or to make it sound more transcendent, maybe a “faith transfiguration.” In a way, I feel like I touched despair and it somehow made me stronger.
So it’s a developmental model until Stage 3 but after that all participants are equally mature? Sounds far more PC than conviencing to me. The difference between black and white thinking and the ability to hold ambiguity is easily traceable to the nursing/breast feeding stage of development. Of course this intended as a developmental model (as unpopular as the this may be).
Actually, I think Andrew S comment is spot on. I don’t say I’ve had a “faith transition” or “faith transfiguration” to anybody at church — I would just describe it as having experienced a faith crises. I, too, would claim my faith is simply Mormonism.
Andrew S.,
“How do these people self-identify?”
Active
Member
Holds a temple recommend (sign of believing certain tenets and living certain rules unique to Mormonism)
Calling, at least for men–“Jones is a historian, but he’s also a stake president.”
I see “nuanced” quite a bit.
Some further out identify as …
Cultural Mormon
Inactive
“Raised Mormon”
A cultural peculiarity is the “Jack Mormon.” For the life of me I can’t understand these folks.
And, a new term coined in 2015–“The Bundy Mormon” These folks like guns, John Birch, Captain Moroni, and despise the federal guvment. 🙂
I like reforged or tempered. Both have real meaning in metalworking. Both result in stronger metal, but both are not necessary.
“whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;” — always gave me pause when I dealt with delicate feelings.
Stephen,
You can be a “gentle, tempered Mormon.”
Josh — you’ve managed to merge together the concept into the code words for a gelded person.
I’m not excited about your invitation that I can be one.
Stephen, I’ve never heard of a “cut Mormon.” Jinkies!
I bet they’re more manageable, more well-behaved.
I guess if you insist, we’ll have to start the Gelders Quorum. 🙂
Having a faith transition is akin to having a major disagreement with church leadership but yet still wanting to cling onto Mormonism.
I have had dialogue with Bill Reel over the years and this faith transition is nothing more than merely a way to come to terms with holding onto the Mormon faith while no longer looking to the prophets as inspired leaders.
BTW, I was permanently banned from mormon dialogue for making these same true statements.
I like the word “refine”. It implies better clarity and precision, and also the “refiner’s fire” which brings purification, but only through pain and struggle.
“Recently, my faith has been refined…”
“Several difficult experiences have refined my faith…”
Two thoughts. Terminology can be and has been co-opted and it’s meaning altered by the co-opters. This is precisely what has happened to “Faith Transition.” It no longer means “changing” but now means “leaving.” It is the same as now being used in the Trans-gender community.
As for Fowler’s stages of faith, it has been adopted as gospel by many, thus giving some people a pathway out of the Church. The NOM crowd worships it and has done many podcasts, blogs, etc. about it.
Reminds me a lot of Scientology.
Refined works well in the context above. I like that, along with reforged.
Jeff, you make some good points. I’ll have to think about them.
Being a musician, I like the word, “tuned.” As in I have tuned my faith.
Like many here, I despise moral-laden, “hierarchy of maturity” implied in such developmental models of faith. It seems like an all too convenient way in which the “highest” forms of faith (which are almost always most similar to how the speaker is or wants to be) at taken as the standard against which all other forms are dismissed as, to some degree, “immature” or “deviant/ill”.
If, however, one simply wants to point out how certain tensions between one type of faith and the social practices/values in which it is embedded often tend to produce another type, that would be fine…. so long as it was acknowledged that this latter type can just as easily be seen as a corruption of the earlier faith rather than a “development” upon it.
Like the psychologists mentioned above, we must impose our own ideas of “health/sickness” upon such transitions, and I see very little hope that secular psychologists and religious leaders would ever have more than a contingent and partial overlap in their uses of such terms.
I think people can mean different things by the term “transition,” but it has come into common use to mean “graduating from” Mormonism. No wonder with that mindset that it causes consternation.
The biggest problem I see with Fowler’s faith stages is that they are self-diagnosed. Realistically, many who had a Stage 3 faith go to a Stage 3 “unfaith” that is just as black and white as their former belief. And of course, every church is built around a Stage 3 faith. Fowler essentially describes outgrowing the confines of any specific religion into a more transcendent gospel. I don’t see a lot of people achieving enlightenment out there. Probably the same as before Fowler.
re 17
Howard,
Well, my understanding is that Fowler’s stages of faith has empirical challenges that the others don’t have as much of. In other words, if you look at something like Piaget’s stages, that was something that had more concrete empirical evidence supporting it. (That being said, even Piaget’s stages have been challenged — and Piaget himself noted that not every transition may occur as smoothly as his theory would predict.)
For Fowler, there’s stronger support for stages 1 and 2, but after that, you can’t really say ‘at age x, people will go to stage 4’. It’s just too situationally dependent. Even stage 3 doesn’t have statistical empirical support.
I also think that there’s a bit of confusion of what the stages mean — not speaking to your comment specifically, but I just wanted to put this down in the discussion. Stage 3 is more about a person forming one’s identity in light of authority, while stage 4 is more about an individual taking personal responsibility for their belief, and being more aware of conflicts therein.
Even though generally speaking, organizations will tend to promote stage 3 (because, yeah, they care about authority), that does not necessarily mean that stage 4 means leaving the church. It just means that, regardless of where one ends up, they take personal responsibility for their beliefs and navigate the conflicts therein.
“Like the psychologists mentioned above, we must impose our own ideas of “health/sickness” upon such transitions, and I see very little hope that secular psychologists and religious leaders would ever have more than a contingent and partial overlap in their uses of such terms.”
–Jeff G.
?? I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Maybe some examples of your own ideas of “health/sickness” would help clarify your point??
It can be difficult to advocate for a religious position without sounding self-righteous. That is true for those who have “transitioned” (whatever that means), but they don’t hold a monopoly on arrogance.
Josh,
I simply meant that different groups will bring different “ideals” regarding what we are and are not supposed to believe and think. One groups “healthy belief” will be another groups’ “mental illness”.
Psychologists and the health sciences in general leave us with the impression that “health” and “illness” were empirically verifiable phenomena that we can simply look at and recognize for what they are, in and of themselves. But this is simply not the case. They can say what will prevent various infections and diseases, what will lengthen an organisms life, what will relieve physical pain, what will lower blood pressure, etc.
Religious leaders, by contrast, see this focus on the performance of the biological organism as being very myopic, indeed. They want to know what is good for the soul in its eternal existence, etc. The mortal body is of secondary importance. Obviously, such things do not lend themselves to the scientific investigation of psychologists, etc., and it important that we remember this when we toss around judgments of mental “maturity” and “illness”.
When I first started my “faith reconstruction” (I still don’t like crisis) I was pointed to Elder Hafen’s BYU Devo, “On Dealing With Uncertainty”. He talks about 3 stages (stage 1 = overoptimist, everything the church does is perfect; stage 2 = over-pessimist, cynical and skeptical; stage 3 = improvers). Stage three is where you see everything, warts and all, acknowledge it, and work to improve it – but do so in a spirit of love and respect. So of course I think this is perfect way to describe to my family what I’m going through! I shared the article with this group of people whom I love who are shouting my criticisms of the church (or pointing out mistakes in the past) down with “Once the brethren have spoken the thinking has been done” or “you can never publicly say anything negative abt the church ever.” I shared that, see? I’m at level three now.
Looking back the predictable response was that I was lectured because the whole family, everyone, was at level 3. People don’t like being told they’re at level 1 (black/white thinking). So.
I like Andrew’s point that none of the Givens, Bushmans, etc. ever identify themselves as different from mainstream, claiming it for themselves. I’ve tried to do that lately – in my testimony I’ve called my experience “a profound change of heart” (alma 5) or “I’m growing up with my faith as I learn to exercise it w all my ‘heart, might, mind + strength.'”
As you can imagine those two latter descriptions went over much better than the first.
Another quick story: I bore my testimony about something I read in Planted. My home teacher bought the book and read it – his daughter is involved in the theater/music scene and has many LGBTQ+ friends and struggled w the policy. Of course his daughter’s answer was to trust the prophets and she recently gave a sacrament talk about it.
So my home teacher decides – since I talked about Planted – that this month’s lesson would be on “Faith Crises.” Ugh. I was so mad. When he looked at my 10 yo and said “Do you know what a faith crisis is?” I wanted to punch something/someone. So blatantly obvious it was directed towards me it was awkward inducing bc I was not playing sweet and easy back. I just said, “well, it means many different things to many different people.” And it went downhill from there.
Announcement to fellow saints: if you haven’t been through what I’ve been through – you do not have answers or advice to give on how to make it through. Also one of the things I didn’t like about Sis. Dew’s recent byui devo – but I guess that’s a post for another day.
Thanks, Jeff. I understand your point.
Whatever happened to the idea that Zion was all of one heart and one mind? Those in faith transition are no longerpart of that one heart and one mind. It truly is about following the prophets and having complete solidarity of faith in each other.
“Those in faith transition are no longerpart of that one heart and one mind.”
I strongly disagree. If there is one thing I gained hugely from my faith going thru a forge, it was an ability to let go of judgments of others and instead empathize with them. To me empathy is one heart / one mind.
If the larger church exists currently in some other type of one heart / one mind, I have never seen or experienced it.
Andrew,
It seemed to me that you were redefining Fowler’s Stages of Faith in #15. No? I didn’t introduce Fowler to this discussion nor did you but it seems to me if you are going to correct him it requires more evidence than a blogger’s opinion.
Jeff G,
The funny thing about awakening is that it is generally one direction, people don’t mature back into their stupor, rather like a ratchet once they “get it” they tend to move to the next plateau without going back where they came from to sleep.
“Can someone highlight changes without throwing into question her entire testimony as a whole?”
Unfortunately, no. Which is why blogs like this exist and are like therapy for some of us. No way are we talking about this kind of stuff openly at church.
re 41,
Howard,
The misunderstandings of Fowler’s stages that I point out are based on recognizing how many people discuss the stages that does not even agree with Fowler’s own writings. In contrast, the limitations of Fowler’s stages that I point out are based on empirical research findings regarding Fowler’s framework. I have no interest in redefining Fowler’s stages, just in pointing out that Fowler himself would not have used those stages in the same way many people appear to, and that many folks have noted that Fowler’s stages don’t have the same empirical support as other psychological or social development models.
Thanks Andrew.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
#1 Ji – “When such a one describes his or her faith transition as “more mature or more evolved,” he or she usually uses “more” in comparison to other Mormons rather than in comparison to his or her previous testimony, and passes explicit judgment on the faith of others.” I like this idea, but with #12 rah’s caveat that people who don’t mean to exude superiority are often perceived as doing so regardless.
#8 Josh Smith – thanks for that perspective on claiming “transition” as part of an authentic personal narrative. I’ve seen others give similar thoughts, and I agree it’s a good description for what’s happening.
#9 Ruth – I really, really love that driftwood metaphor!
I should probably clarify that I’m not a fan of the developmental stages model of faith espoused by Fowler, Peck, and others. First, spirituality is too dependent on innate personality. Some people are black and white thinkers, some people are anti-authoritarian, and so on. Second, from a doctrinal level, Christian scriptures encourage people to have the type of faith displayed by little children. Moving away from that type of faith (in that lineal trajectory) would be spiritual regression, not progression.
#5 Happy Hubby – I like the idea of “faith reconstruction” and I agree that remodeling has a selfish ring (kind of like facial reconstruction versus facelift).
#16 Martin – transformation definitely works, but transfiguration sounds presumptuous (akin to enlightenment or Howard’s awakening).
#15 & #36 – Andrew and Kristine, I think you bring up good points that a personal turning point needs to be described in a more nondescript way to avoid perception of “otherness” (or declaration of superiority). All the descriptors work – tempering, reconstruction, transformation, reforging, refining, and tuning – but they can’t be turned into shorthand labels.
I’ve said too much on this post already, but this made me smile.
Anyone else see the irony of our discussion on blog called “Wheat and Tares”? Fun times.
Regardless on how we self identify, there’s more than enough to smile about. Have a wonderful evening transitioners, refiners, and reconstructioners.
#25 and #39 Rob – “Having a faith transition is akin to having a major disagreement with church leadership but yet still wanting to cling onto Mormonism.” The post argues that those most loudly claiming the term “faith transition” are those NOT wanting to cling to Mormonism. So let’s just put a caveat on that “true” statement.
“Whatever happened to the idea that Zion was all of one heart and one mind? Those in faith transition are no longer part of that one heart and one mind. It truly is about following the prophets and having complete solidarity of faith in each other.”
There is a lot to unpack, but you are making some big assumptions about what we believe. Even though many of us have undergone what we consider a significant change of heart, we are not identical in our viewpoints. Since each individual is given unique spiritual gifts to benefit the group as a whole, we should not expect every member’s testimony to look or sound the same. I’m going to consider your contribution to the conversation that no, people cannot refer to any changes in heart without putting in question their testimony as a whole.
“BTW, I was permanently banned from mormon dialogue for making these same true statements.” Well, btw, while we at Wheat and Tares value a wide range of opinions, it is also possible to get banned here as well.
I am on a Faith Journey. I am attempting to go where God leads me. Right now, my journey seems to be leading me away from the LDS faith. My husband and children remain devout — But they are supportive of my different path.
My feelings do not include any of superiority or “graduation” from Mormonism. This is not the path I expected to be on, but it feels God-led, authentic, and the direction that I am supposed to take. I cannot and will not deny God’s hand in my journey.
When LDS friends and extended family find out that I have left the church, they have not stopped to ask me anything. They accuse. They berate. They shun. They move away from me physically and emotionally.
I am left with no way to have a voice or a conversation with them. My only option is to confirm my path with God, hold up my head, and keep walking. If that gets interpreted as superiority, so be it. From this side, it feels like survival.
For some people it seems like it is barely survival.
I like the term faith journey though.
Testimony is such a huge part of the Mormon experience. It’s how we are taught to gauge our spiritual standing with God, and is tied too closely to faith. The problem with using the the word “faith” as you’ve discussed above, is that it will inevitably come off as superior.
What about removing the word “faith” altogether from the descriptor and replacing it with “orthodoxy?” Like “I’ve experienced a change in orthodoxy.” I think of orthodoxy as being a more fluid term. It can refer to both views and behavior and mean something different for everyone. Even among those self identifying as TBMs, there will be some differences in their orthodoxy.
I describe myself as a heterodox Mormon. My husband describes me as a bitter apostate who hates the church.
Sigh.
Joni,
I get it. Pres Uchtdorf may say “There’s a place for you here!” But in practice, when one’s faith looks different, folks assume you’re just on your way out anyway.
I understand ji’s first comment. But I also suspect folks coming off as superior in their faith transition happens more online than offline. I doubt many are bearing testimony of how much better their faith is since their “awakening.”
Other than wearing pants to church on occasion, I’m “closeted unorthodox.” It’s too vulnerable a thing to talk about my faith transition in the open, which is why ji’s first comment also strikes me as uncharitable. Here’s what my reality looks like:
Not going too deep into discussions with Visiting or Home teachers regarding faith. What if they judge me, or worse, chastise me in front of my kids?
Talking about the girls (but not the boys) having to wear shirts over their swimsuits for an upcoming combined swimming activity during a YW presidency meeting. Attempting to express my thoughts as to why I see this as a problem in a way that doesn’t “out” me too much, yet feeling that as I do so my conformity/obedience/faith whatever is already being called into question.
Lying during my temple recommend interview. Not about worthiness, I got those right. But when the stake press asked “so, do you enjoy going to the temple?” Wanting so badly to tell him how painful the temple is for me. Wanting to burden him with that and seek his guidance, but knowing the odds of him responding in an empathetic way are slim, so instead I smile and say “absolutely!”
Wanting to bear my testimony about my faith transition. The pain, the sorrow. But also the joy I feel at being honest with myself. The toil it has taken to chop down the foundations of those tenants of my previous faith that were incorrect. Feeling I am living more “authentically.” But not daring to do so because it would certainly come off as superior while putting my faith into question. Which is a bit ironic since when someone stands and talks about how they “know” something “with every fiber of their being” we all smile and nod and don’t judge them.
Wishing that someone would stand and bear testimony that they “believe” something instead of knowing it. Or even that they are “choosing to believe” something.
Having a million comments for Sunday School but rarely commenting so I’m not labeled as “that controversial lady.” When I do comment I’ve got to form my words to be as banal as possible. Wishing that we could have discussions about faith in Sunday School that accepted doubt as an option and was a kinder place to folks who have doubts.
@Maybee
Thanks for that. You likely made a lot of people–also suffering in fearful silence–feel better to know they aren’t alone.
Maybee’s comment reminds me of a discussion I had with my hubby about “nice people”. The gist is that it’s really hard to like a person who’s nice all the time, because you don’t know where they stand. I, personally, like friends (and a spouse) with the guts to push back from time to time.
So it is with Mormonism. If everybody tries to show a united “follow the prophets” face all the time with intolerance for the slightest deviation, the church comes off like a “nice person” you can’t know or trust.
To survive, Mormonism (including the culture) needs to stop being nice all the time. Opening the door to discussions of the entire spectrum of faithful observance will only make the church stronger and more vibrant. Nothing like a robust, honest disagreement to clear the air and foster growth.
Mary Ann,
Almost entirely, those I have met and had dialogue with in a faith transition are those who publicly discout the prophets on major issues like SSM, LGBT issues, church history, Book of Mormon validity, or womens ordination, etc. They become hostile to church leadership and very rarely show positive support for the peophet. Many end up leaving the church and become bitter enemies to the church. “Faith transition” for Mormons is quickly becoming the new anti-Mormon movement.
“Feeling I am living more “authentically.” But not daring to do so because it would certainly come off as superior while putting my faith into question. Which is a bit ironic since when someone stands and talks about how they “know” something “with every fiber of their being” we all smile and nod and don’t judge them.”
–Maybee
Exactly!
I’d probably add that the LDS faith is a multi-billion dollar organization with a multi-million dollar PR department. It has 150 years of rhetoric about “having testimony” and “losing testimony” and “being active” and “going apostate” and “knowing.” It owns newspapers, magazines, and television channels. It has general conferences. It has excommunicated those who have dared to tell a narrative other than the official version. It has a handful of universities. The LDS church should be able to take care of its own self.
If someone wants to frame their faith journey or transition as moving forward, looking up, opening their eyes, seeing more, having courage, embracing uncertainty, being authentic, I say more power to ’em. This morning I really don’t care about tone. The dynamic of this situation calls for a wee bit of assertiveness.
My .02.
(And Rob Osborn, “anti-Mormon” is a ridiculous term that basically means “you disagree with me.”)
It seems to me that if anyone is learning new things, gaining greater insights, acquiring new information, then their beliefs will be changing. That is inevitable. As I learn and gather new information, I simply don’t believe some of the things I believed before. I believe differently, or even suspend certain beliefs while I sort things out. If you believe the same things you have always believed, I must assume you are not progressing in knowledge.
The deal with Mormonism, though, is that acquiring new and more accurate information, particularly about the Church’s history and doctrine, is going to rock the simplistic boat (the good ship Zion?) you’ve been sitting in, because the history is much more convoluted and troubling than the Church has wanted you to know, and the doctrine is a lot less consistent than how the Church-produced manuals present it. So most people who are acquiring more knowledge are also going to start questioning some of their beliefs. Not because the new information is inaccurate, but because the “faithful” narrative has too many holes in it that become exposed by an increase in information. This is why “faith transitions” rarely move toward greater certainty and greater loyalty to the traditional “faithful” view of Mormonism.
It is true that once you lose a naive view of life, you really can’t ever go back, unless you somehow experience some sort of complete amnesia. And most of us don’t deal with ambiguity very well. We want everything to be black and white. But a black-and-white world is a fantasy.
For me there’s a big element of life-is-short-how-to-spend-my-fleeting-few-remaining-years. And it’s not arguing about whether Nephi was real, so we can keep a certain image of Joseph Smith unchanged. I want to talk about whether Christ is real. It’s an urgent conversation that I can’t have at church. People don’t just leave because of what’s happening at church; they also leave because of what’s not happening.
@ Ruth (61). That was my big problem at church–it wasn’t any of the issues listed by Rob or that I had issues with the leadership. It was the missing Christ. It was what was not being said about Him.
Even here, when issues are being debated and the “ultra-orthodox” give us their very black and white views, they fail to mention Christ and any of His teachings. It was my search for the missing Christ that started me on my journey and it was the finding of Him that lead me out.
How can we say we believe in the 11th article of faith when we deem everything that doesn’t match up to our beliefs “anti-Mormon”
How can we believe in having rules for every thing and believe that unless we all think exactly alike when we have this in our scriptures: “For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
“Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
“For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.
“But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned” (D&C 58:26-29). Doesn’t this mean that we need to search for ourselves what is good and right or we are slothful. Or do we need more rules so we “can learn to be obedient”?
Or how about this quote by Joseph Smith: “We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them — even if they knew it was wrong. But such obedience as this is worse than folly to us. It is slavery in the extreme. The man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise this idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.” — Joseph Smith, Jr. in the Millennial Star, volume 14, number 38, pages 593-595.”
And from Brigham Young: I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.
It seems that those who have started their faith transition (or whatever we want to call it) are being pushed out by the ultra-orthodox who seem to be afraid of change and do not want members who listen to the whisperings of the Spirit of God for themselves. It’s a shame.
Like I said, the new “faith transition” is the new anti-mormon movement. I too have some different beliefs regarding heaven than most every other Mormon but I got 100% of the prophets back! I love him, I support him and pray for him. If people have so much distaste for how our church runs and the men who lead it, then go start your own church and stop complaining.
My prophet right or wrong! Prophesy or no! He tells me which way to go even when he doesn’t know!
Whome,
What church were you going to? The teachings of Christ abound in the LDS church every Sunday
Rob – Bless your heart. You really just don’t get it, do you?
You say they “abound” but sometimes the only time you hear the name Jesus Christ during a 3 hour block is during the prayers. You hear many quotes and many teachings but not the words of Christ. I’m not the only one who has noticed. It seems to be a common theme talked about throughout the bloggernacle.
In fact, with all your ramblings I have yet to see you bring up any of the teachings of Jesus Christ as the justification for your beliefs. You sound like the Pharisees of old in your dedication to wanting to impose more rules and controls as a way to return to God.
You say you have the prophet’s “back” 100%. That’s great but what do you mean by that–that you will blindly follow him no matter what. Even if the first two prophets have given warning about blind obedience.
I was taught to pray and receive my own answer before sustaining any leader, even the prophet. And I have followed that advise. It doesn’t mean that I don’t “have their back” as you so quaintly put it. But it means that I follow God and will be lead by the spirit and will never be blindly obedient to any man–even the prophet.
If you want to learn, you need to stop, be quiet and listen. You seem to have a hard time with that concept.
What I mean is that if I say, “My faith is in trouble because I no longer believe in literal Nephites, or sword-drawing angels commanding polygamy, or the amalgamated version of the First Vision. I desperately want to believe in God’s Spirit leading us all as we try to do good. I desperately want to believe that God exists at all and that his Son did what we say he did. Can we talk about that? How to have faith in God that is illuminated and not destroyed by scholarship, archeology, science?”
And then, I’ll bet you a million dollars that within 30 seconds, we’re back to talking about Joseph Smith. It’s frustrating, and boring, and unhelpful to me.
Whome,
You are living in some kind of delusion. I would leave that church too, that isnt the LDS church you are speaking about. I think you were going to the wrong building. It is absolutely false the accusations about the LDS church not teaching about Christ anymore.
Something that I don’t think has really been brought up in these comments is that lack of faith journey often goes hand-in-hand with being the target market, the privileged within the church. If you’re a white, married, reasonably successful hetero man, boy oh boy is this church culture designed for your comfort. If you are a woman, gay, single or divorced, infertile, person of color, non-American, etc., you’re going to have some sticking points to deal with in the church, more or fewer depending on your circumstances, your local ward, and your own temperament.
Being part of the body of Christ differs depending on whether you are seen as one of the honorable, necessary parts, or one of the easily overlooked or otherwise less desirable parts.
There’s an element of identity politics to this. Conservatives want to preserve what’s working for them. Progressives want changes that make the world more fair to them and others disenfranchised by existing systems. Where your faith “transition” or “journey” ends still depends a whole lot on these elements.
Hawkgrrrl,
I disagree. You are trying sterotype the LDS church into submission. That is a typical tactic of fringe Mormons that doesnt represent the true church and reality.
Rob,
One of the things that broke inside of me as I attended the 3-hour block through many years of disbelief was my ability to tell when people are being sarcastic and when they’re being genuine. My rule of proper engagement with Mormons became, “Never assume someone is telling a joke unless the guy on the stand in a suit laughs.”
Are you real, Rob? I mean, are you trolling this post?
#notarhetoricalquestion
“Announcement to fellow saints: if you haven’t been through what I’ve been through – you do not have answers or advice to give on how to make it through.”
One of the frustrations is the “specialness” of you poor-little-things who are going through your what-ever-you-want-to call it. Nobody has been through, nobody knows….this sounds incredibly arrogant and whiny.
You may have no clue what others are going through. We all take a unique path on our spiritual journey, and you do NOT get to decide whose is the same as yours, or more or less.
And why does it even matter if theirs is the same, if others also found themselves on their knees pleading at some point?
Is it not possible that they might have received inspiration as to what they should say to you–which may not be the same thing as what you should do. A few years ago, I felt inspired to write something about miscarriage. I argued with the Lord that I was not qualified since I’d never had a miscarriage. Why couldn’t he just reach the person who needed it directly? Apparently they weren’t in a place to listen, and my words were the only words He had. I never said that I had had a miscarriage, but people later commented that only someone who had a miscarriage could write it.
Should these people around you who are trying at least get points for addressing the subject? Or would you criticize them for ignoring it? They can’t win, can they?
I totally agree that nobody else should tell you what to do. But they may be sharing what worked for them in case you find something of value there. The difference between a “you” and “I” is very important, as every parent knows. Don’t reject an “I” gift because of an assumption that it is really a “you” prescription.
If a Jew has no one to quarrel with, he quarrels with God, and we call it theology; or he quarrels with himself, and we call it psychology. Or he quarrels with the psychoanalyst, and we call it literature.
Two Jews and three opinions are better that three Jews with no opinions. Passionate arguments are better than passionless acceptance.
– Elie Wiesel
* * *
Would that we could be more like the Jews.
Naismith,
Regarding “specialness”:
One of the things that happens when you leave a faith is you lose your tribe. You lose your narrative about who you are and your place in the Universe. It’s very scary for a moment because you’re actually letting go of the narrative of your “specialness.” The world becomes very big and you become very, very small.
It’s terrifying. And exhilarating.
As I left, one of the things that gets left behind is “specialness,” and my “tribe” became much, much bigger. I felt more connected with the other 7 billion inhabitants of planet earth.
@Josh
I think Mormons (especially in Utah) forget just how tiny their “tribe” is, in the scheme of things. Joseph Smith’s visions were only a couple hundred years ago as compared to Hinduism at 5,000 years old and Judaism at 4,000 years.
There are roughly 2.2 billion Christians worldwide. Mormons claim 15 million or so, so that’s less than 1%. So everywhere but Utah, only about 1 out of 100 Christians is Mormon–the other 99 probably never heard of Mormonism.
So those Mormons who want to act all judgemental, prideful and superior toward those with questions and doubts ought to remember they are big fish swimming in a very, very tiny puddle.
Josh,
On the bloggernacle it feels more and more like I am swimming in a sea full of sharks. Luckily, the reality of this blog post and those who frequent it do not represent mainstream mormonism.
Naismith you said:
The difference between a “you” and “I” is very important, as every parent knows. Don’t reject an “I” gift because of an assumption that it is really a “you” prescription.
Exactly. So when I say my faith transition has been a positive thing and I feel my testimony has become more honest and real, don’t assume I’m saying that you need to follow the same path. We should respect each other’s personal relationship with God.
And this:
One of the frustrations is the “specialness” of you poor-little-things who are going through your what-ever-you-want-to call it. Nobody has been through, nobody knows….this sounds incredibly arrogant and whiny.
Wow, the empathy here is impressive. I guess I’m not too surprised if folks don’t respond too favorable to whatever inspired counsel you felt to give.
I actually am not looking for help or advice. I don’t want to “whine” about my experience in Sunday School. I’d like acceptance, I just don’t know that I’ll get it.
Naismith:
I had a well-meaning person try to give advice of how to survive a “faith crisis” – he was clear he’d never experienced one.
As someone who has experienced one AND came through on the other side on firmer ground ….. his advice would not have helped in the midst of feeling tempest tossed. AND that was EXACTLY the point of “Planted.” That a lot of well meaning people feel spiritually prompted in their “advice” and it doesn’t do a damn good thing – in fact it pushes struggling people farther away.
When you are lost you trust people who have found their way out of the darkness themselves that know the path.
I’m sorry if this offends you, so be it.
“On the bloggernacle it feels more and more like I am swimming in a sea full of sharks.” Sharks can’t hurt you if you are walking on water as you seem to think.
“Luckily, the reality of this blog post and those who frequent it do not represent mainstream mormonism.” The Lord looketh on the heart. If I thought you represented mainstream Mormonism I would have left the church decades ago. Fortunately, I don’t.
“Wow, the empathy here is impressive. I guess I’m not too surprised if folks don’t respond too favorable to whatever inspired counsel you felt to give.”
I have a great deal of empathy. It’s just that I have empathy for EVERYONE who struggles with the gospel: People whose family says they will disown them when they chose to be baptized into our church, people who keep trying to stop smoking, people who have questions about polygamy, people whose spouse was diagnosed with mental illness, people who were prescribed painkillers because of an injury and now can’t kick the drug….and so on.
There are just so many ways that each of us travel a unique path, which may be rocky indeed.
But I’ve had occasions when someone started to say that they are going through a tough time, either with questions or because something happened to make them feel that they don’t fit in anymore. So I listen, just nodding and saying “uh-huh,” not making any judgment but letting them share their story.
And more than once, someone has said something like, “Oh forget it, you would never understand, you have the perfect family and have no clue what it is like for us!”
So how should one respond? I don’t want to distract from their problem by sharing my own tales of woe. And that can devolve into a game of who has it worse–Questioning the temple ritual or questioning one’s calling? Losing a child to an accident or having a child who is sexually molested?
So I try something like, “No, but I care about you…” But they insist that I can’t understand unless I went through what they did.
I mean, is there a form that we have to fill out to prove we went through challenges and a roller-coaster testimony before we can reach out to anyone?
I appreciate that unsolicited advice is tricky and I’m never quick to offer that. But I’ve still been slapped down more than once with the “perfect-Mormon-no-clue” put-down.
@Naismith
“But I’ve still been slapped down more than once with the “perfect-Mormon-no-clue” put-down.”
Sounds like a personal self-awareness issue. If *others* keep labeling you this way, then maybe you should think about what *you* are doing wrong.
Whoa Cathy, really? Blame the victim much?
It could be so many different things that really have nothing to do with me. I accept that, and my feelings are not hurt because I am only concerned about their needs being met.
It could be that they weren’t as ready as they thought to tell the story or voice their questions. It could also be that the person was looking for a fight, not sympathy. That they were looking to shock me and were disappointed when I didn’t express enough shock.
BTW, I do NOT have a perfect family and have never claimed to, so they are jumping to a huge conclusion and a judging me when they choose to say that. (If I went around bragging about my perfect family, that would be different.)
The point is that there can be unfair judgments on all sides. Which we should all try to avoid, irregardless of what labels we use to describe ourselves our our path.
@Naismith
Or it could be you are not as empathetic a listener nor as skilled a communicator as you think you are. As I said, if others are saying you come off that way, then perhaps the problem is with you and not them. That’s certainly within the realm of possibility isn’t it?
I am shocked how many people are shocked when they make comments of, “I am right, you are wrong – period” and they don’t change someone mind. It is analogous to yelling at someone. It generally does not promote a discussion on the topic.
It is totally different to leave a comment of, “I don’t share your option. I see it totally different and I don’t quite understand how you came to your opinion/conclusion.”
Of course it is possible that I do not appear to be as empathetic as I feel inside.
But how does that justify someone else declaring me to be clueless and incapable of understanding? Why are you assuming that THEY are in so much a better position to judge me accurately? Especially when what they declare is a lie (the part about being perfect)?
Okay, fine. I will just shut up and ignore anyone who shares anything difficult about their life.
For which I will no doubt also be castigated for lack of empathy.
Naismith – My comment wasn’t directed at you. I just read a days worth of comments (quite a few) and some of the earlier comments sounded more, “you are wrong”
@Naismith
All I’m saying is that empathetic listening is a skill to be developed. The people you are talking to are outright telling you they don’t feel understood. When acting in the capacity of counseling others, it’s 100% your responsibility to make others feel understood and accepted.
I have no way of knowing if that’s the case, but it certainly could be. You could certainly take some courses in interpersonal communication and see if things improve. It couldn’t hurt and might help you more effectively serve those who come to you for help.
This issue isn’t as simple as everyone is right or everyone is partly right or everyone is entitled to an opinion because one cannot become naively ignorant again, it is a one way trip. And that awakening is strongly discouraged by the church suggesting that much of the membership remains in that state of innocence. From the state of innocence it is very difficult if not impossible to accurately conceive of the awakened state but from the awakened state the innocent state is well understood because it was a part of the awakened earlier lived experience. The two state are encountered sequencially so reciprocity simply doesn’t exist.
Naismith, “The point is that there can be unfair judgments on all sides. Which we should all try to avoid, irregardless of what labels we use to describe ourselves our our path.” Agreed.
Cathy, “When acting in the capacity of counseling others, it’s 100% your responsibility to make others feel understood and accepted.” Trust has to be established, and that can take quite a bit of time. Even the best counselor in the world can’t force someone to trust them. They can try to make as hospitable an environment as possible, but there’s no guarantee the other person will risk being vulnerable.
@Mary Ann
As I’ve said several times, my impression was that the OP had failed to consider what appeared to be attacks might actually have been indications of a lack of skill on the OP’s part.
As you say, those responses indicate a lack of trust, and are specific techniques for overcoming this. The classic is the “spiral of trust” where parties alternate making increasingly intimate self disclosures.
I’m afraid this entire sub-thread has gotten blown out of proportion. I really just wanted the OP to consider other possibilities.
Cathy and Naismith — I can honestly say that I’ve had a number of people tell me that my life is too perfect and I just couldn’t understand what real pain or disappointment is.
They just felt like volunteering that as a lead in to their then telling me how bad things are for them.
It is often just a conversational gambit people use.
I try to just accept it for that and continue to listen. Generally Naismith is right that it does little to help the conversation to express your own woes and history, and that sometimes people are looking to shock or impress.
And sometimes they are just idiots (like the lady that told my wife that she didn’t know the real pain from the death of a child because our children who died weren’t boys — after all, nothing is worse than the death of even one boy).
“I am shocked how many people are shocked when they make comments of, “I am right, you are wrong – period” and they don’t change someone mind.” — Happy Hubby — I know, right.
>>>Naismith, “The point is that there can be unfair judgments on all sides. Which we should all try to avoid, irregardless of what labels we use to describe ourselves our our path.” Agreed.<<<<
Well said Naismith.
The New Testament tells us about a transition from obedience of commandments into discipleship.
But when the young man heard that he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Unfortunately the church remains entrenched in the same position as the young man with great possessions. As a result the church doesn’t teach the awakening of discipleship instead it teaches Pay, Pray and Obey and this keeps the building fund well stocked and it keeps the top down hierarchy in place. If the church were truly concerned with your spiritual growth an obvious clear path to awakening (which is what discipleship is) and discipleship would be a part of it’s curriculum and questions would be invited and encouraged instead of subtly shunned.
Instead the church builds buildings while the poor die from malnutrition, thirst and easily curable disease and tithe payers either look the other way or try to convince themselves that this madness makes sense somehow. Others enjoy the unspoken but implied (wink, nod) prosperity gospel that the church teaches by example.
So we can reasonably expect the church to continue to discourage awakenings leading to autonomy of any kind. Niece is in and enlightenment in out unless you’re Jesus in which case it’s in. Wait, isn’t Jesus our exemplar???
Nieve (not Niece) is in and enlightenment is out…
@Steve, @Naismith
Not once has anyone accused me of having a perfect life or claimed I could not understand their troubles–certainly not as a conversation starter–that would be weird. On the other hand, the Lord hasn’t inflicted any tragedy on me and the ones I love, but has blessed us immeasurably and protected us from harm and unhappiness. For that, I count my blessings.
Howard, did you mean naive perhaps…
Interesting post and discussion. As for myself, I wouldn’t dream of trying to have hard conversations about this stuff with anyone in my ward. Back when I got to attend RS & GD class, I would sometimes bring things up relevant to the lesson, but one on one in depth discussions. Just no. I don’t think it would be fair.
I have lovely visiting teachers, and I wouldn’t want to upset them. One is an elderly lady, with a particular innocence about her that means she gets away with saying a lot of things that might be intensely irritating if they came from someone else. But she has a way of looking at me, and smiling, and telling me she loves me that is absolutely genuine, and I wouldn’t want to lose that. I think of my ward as a community for reciprocal practical support, love and concern, that isn’t especially interested in the hard things about history and doctrine that get discussed on the blogs and that’s fine.
And Naismith, I agree.
Yes, thanks Hedgehog.
Thinking more about what to call it…. Maybe there’s no good word or phrase because we need to borrow one from another language. Curious to know from those with second languages: what words/phrases describe this? (I just saw a reminiscence from a German-serving missionary who talked about his companion’s “Glaubenverlust.”)
Glaubensverlust means loss of faith. No special nuance to this compound word.
Some ideas. I suppose a thesaurus is in order. 🙂
The English verb “deconvert” or “deconversion” means to leave a faith completely.
I suppose if you have some sort of awakening without leaving the faith, it might be an “epiphany”.
If you are unhappy with the organization and leadership, you could be “disaffected” and experience “disaffection”.
Glaubensverlust is a mouthful. I bet in German it means “I’m offended and want to sin.” bahahaha. Just kidding.
Just as a word of comfort to those who have left the LDS faith …
It’s been my personal experience that one doesn’t “transition” forever. One becomes other things and pursues other interests. Many feel burned by organized religion, but there are others who find other faiths and other communities.
A handful of folks join the UU flock.
Many spend more time in nature and find spiritual healing there.
Many humanists out there.
Secular Buddhism is a popular path for folks who’ve left the LDS flock. This is an interest of mine and I’d like to learn more.
This might sound crazy, but I’ve found beekeeping to be an incredibly meditative activity.
… and I suppose there are some who become embittered and can’t seem to move on. These are the exceptions though. Nearly everyone feels the pulls and tugs of life to move on.
If you are a “transitioner” I recommend the Facebook support group “A Thoughtful Transition Support Group.” If you’re one who is working out some kind of constructive path within Mormonism, I recommend the Facebook group “A Thoughtful Faith.”
This is my last comment. I promise. It will be okay travelers.
Yeah, maybe not wise to look to German for nuance, but it just got me thinking about what you all might have run into on missions.
Oh Rob – no delusion here; just living in reality. Just because people pay lip service to Christ does not mean they actually put his teachings into practice in their daily lives.
Question – do you think “all is well in Zion?” If you do, you are the one who is delusional because we all know what it says in 2 Nephi about those who say “all is well in Zion.”
I do think Josh is right and you must be a troll because it’s hard to believe someone really thinks like you do. So, as they say, Don’t Feed the Troll. You’ve been fun and entertaining but feeding the troll doesn’t do any one any good.
@Naismith –
“And more than once, someone has said something like, “Oh forget it, you would never understand, you have the perfect family and have no clue what it is like for us!””
I would reply with, ‘You are right. I haven’t been down your path and I don’t have any answers. I love you though. What can I do to help you work through this?”
“But how does that justify someone else declaring me to be clueless and incapable of understanding?”
I’d argue that it isn’t about you. If someone says something like that, it’s about them, what they are feeling and experiencing. If I were trying for empathy, I’d seek to understand why they felt that way.
The first key of empathy is letting go of your own expectations and needs.
@Ruth
It’s an excellent idea. I’m sure there are words and phrases in different languages and cultures that capture concepts differently.
I tried to re,spond to this discussion at about 50 but am traveling round Australia at present, in Katherine at present, Katherine Gorge tomorrow then on to Kakadu tomorrow.
What i wanted to point out was the contrast between Pres Uchtdorfs talk on Conference Sunday, Seeking to believe, then gaining in faith and understanding, being added upon by grace until we loose any desire to do evil, which produces obedience. Talk called He will place you on his shoulders and carry you.
Compare that with Oaks talk in the afternoon called Opposition in all things, where he outlines his understanding of life in the Gospel. You must know…. You must try to obey, you will fail, you will be tried and tested.
I don’think anyone would accuse Uchtdorf of having a faith crisis, but when others try to explain this understanding, they are thought to have a problem. Hopefully with him there he will improve things for others. He is certainly a hope.
Compare that with Oaks
I’ve come to the conclusion that the majority of the Q12 are deeply American and have a Puritanical, Calvinist view of the gospel whereas Uchtdorf is German and therefore more Lutheran. Hence his understanding of grace vs. their struggle to reconcile their distaste for human weakness with God’s benevolence aND their view that love is conditional.
I’ve also noticed the very different way in which E.Uchtdorf approaches Grace. It seems like he is defining / demonstrating his understanding of Grace in almost ever conference. (Which I absolutely love.)
But then I wonder if some of the more hard-nosed talks on the importance of obedience to salvation are directed at him. Probably not, but I think it every conference.
RT, I can think of several reasons to explain the doubling-down on talks aimed towards obedience and following church leadership over the past few years, and none involve any sort of irritation with President Uchtdorf’s version of grace.
Something unique about Uchtdorf’s background is that he’s seen firsthand human evil on a mass society-wide scale. He comes from a culture that caused WWII. That creates a desire to publicly recognize past mistakes and feel culpability to ensure the same mistakes will not be repeated in the future. That viewpoint will influence his view on grace. Mistakes happen. Evil happens. Good people earnestly seeking to do good can get caught up in stuff that ultimately is destructive, but redemption is always possible. Christ’s Atonement is for all, no matter how many skeletons you have in your closet.
My point was that If I say the same thigs as Uchtdorf, It is percieved that I am not conforming with the conventional, is I have some kind of problem.
The same conventional members are able to convince themselves that there is no difference between Uchtdorf and Oaks.
When these members can include those of us whose view of the Gospel is more like U does, as they are able to accept him, we will be getting there?
I believe people can move from a conservative understanding, to a different one, without it being a crisis, the problem is with acceptance. I think it could be good if it were acceptable to have different views and move from one group to another, without it being a problem.
Oaks may be closer to Uchtdorf than you think. 😉
Geoff-Aus, that acceptability gets to the heart of the post. Based on many of the good arguments of other commenters, the key to acceptance seems to be to follow the lead of Givenses and Bushman – don’t ever call your beliefs different, even if they feel different to you. Uchtdorf and Oaks would never say that their views of the atonement differ from one another – they are united in preaching Christ’s gospel. It’s just their personal viewpoints and phrasing will tend to appeal more to some members versus others based on personality and outlook. That’s the advantage (and drawback) of having 15 different men designated as apostles and special witnesses – their testimonies will be colored by their own personal spiritual/life experiences and temperament.
Kind of an angry thread to read through.
Kind of fitting. A discussion on “faith transition” seems to go that way in church. Seems like a battle between protectors of faith and explorers of faith. That has been my experience.
Knowing it usually leads to that, I avoid the discussion on “transition” in a group that meet on Sunday to reaffirm their faith with emblems like the sacrament.
If it come up, I find “broadening my faith” more palatable to give others the idea I explore, but not abandon what I’ve been taught.
Kind if funny to get into such semantics. But practically speaking, it avoids some defensive positioning.
That is just my experience. I don’t think I’m really all that unique in my experiences and trials. Others can have empathy for my situation even if they have different moccasins. What others say reveals where they are viewing things from.