Theories Of Faith Development : A Model To Assist Those In Faith Crisis

[DBMormon]

There are multiple theories regarding how Faith develops.  Some of these push one to abandon the instituion's "Truth" as the end goal (Fowler).  I know Kevin here likes Perry's scheme.  I am wanting to simplify this into three phases which would compact Perry's 9 positions and Fowler's stages 3-5 but "Leading with Faith".  I am hoping to see some feed back on the following.  

 

1.) For those who are struggling  - What am I missing or not describing well enough?

 

2.) For those who have lost faith - Why does this model not work?

 

3.) For those whose testimonies have never encountered a faith Crisis - What are your percieved weaknesses in this paradigm

 

Lastly - feel free to use this as needed to help others

 

Understanding Faith from the perspective of how to help one in Faith Crisis grasp how to transition to a place where one can lead with faith

 

 

Blue Phase – Dualistic approach

 

In this phase Church members will tend to separate the world into dichotomies or extremes. Examples = Good/Evil, Righteousness/Apostasy, Us/Them. This can even be over extended at times connecting two perceived opposites that really are not. Examples - righteous/cursed

 

Members in this phase are likely to desire and work better within a very restrictive framework. Commandments are not only a piece of their gospel framework, rather it is the Framework. Commandments/Rules/Council are to be followed explicitly without any exception. In this phase people will generally prefer structure in regards to the rules and they need well defined lines that they can trust in. Examples: Reasoning that we should follow Leaders absolutely/blindly with no exception. They are also more likely in this phase to overstate the rules. Ex: making the Word of Wisdom include things it doesn't, imposing their definition of the Word of Wisdom on others.

 

They will be more likely to overstate or view that when Church leaders when speaking publicly are always speaking as prophet/Apostles/Inspired. In relation to not generally making exceptions they may say things like Lying is always wrong (Intruder who wants to hurt your children), Murder is always wrong (nephi/Laban), Breaking the Sabbath in terms of letter of the Law is always wrong (even if it means be able to serve one in need).

 

In their perception all fits neatly into compartments and there is safety in this reasoning. They are unprepared to handle nuance in large degrees.

 

Red Phase – Chaos

 

This phase can be most easily understood as – when a member of the Church comes to grips that the events and behavior around them no longer meet the expectations and assumptions of their dualistic approach. Examples – They begin to see Church leaders are not perfect, that mistakes happen, that history is not so simple once explored. Many types of transition can occur at this point but for the purpose of this paper we will describe two.

This stage can be chaotic and contain more tension than one can easily handle. Faith Crisis, if it occurs, normally manifests itself in this phase.

 

This phase is normally an adjustment phase where one begins to strip away what works and fits; and what does not. One must either rebuild their framework or one must retreat back to the Blue phase. If one retreats, they will not be able to do without abandoning one dualistic approach for another. Example: Leaving Mormonism for Evangelical Christianity or for Atheism but only adjusting their unrealistic assumptions and expectations very little.

 

While the reality is they are beginning to see the nuance in the world, they don't yet have the recognition to see it for what it is. What is meant by this is that rather than see their expectations and assumptions from the Blue Phase as unrealistic, they may simply hang onto those assumptions and expectations and decide rather that their beliefs no longer hold true. Example: If one feels Murder is always wrong and then encounters Nephi murdering Laban on God's command as impossible to reconcile. They will be forced to either abandon Nephi's righteous/inspired motives or they will have to abandon a faith that proscribes these exceptions entirely.

 

A person going through this process of testing what works and what does not, may have moments of anger, loss, betrayal, sadness, anxiety, depression, and feel the urge to resolve this conflict quickly. These feelings are serious and must be handled with empathy and understanding. Since in their mind, their assumptions and expectations are realistic or at least were given to them by the Church, they may display feeling of anger and act out against the Church. They may rebel against standards, or test the waters of inactivity.

 

Any effort to compel the person to “get back in line” is risky and at times inappropriate though each issue/circumstance should be judged on it's own merit. Generally the person needs flexibility. They need to see that any new truths they discover likely still fits within the gospel. They need to know they do not have to fit a mold and are not required to accept other's truths blindly but rather encouraged to seek confirmation from the spirit and be aware that they are encouraged by the Church to use their agency.  Help them to see there is much diversity of thought, opinion, and belief within Mormonism.

 

As they are met with gospel truths and principles that permit them the flexibility they seek and display a mormonism that is more encompassing than they first realized, they will begin to recognize that it was not the gospel that was misaligned but rather their expectations and assumptions. Recognizing this provides them a road back to a place of faith which we will speak of next in the Green Phase. If they do not recognize this they will likely withdraw their activity, disengage emotionally, or abandon faith all-together.

 

Green Phase - reconciliation

 

Members in this phase recognize and cherish nuance. They see the breadth of the gospel and find joy in it's complexities. They see that issues rarely tend to be cut and dry and likely need much study, ponder, and prayer to arrive at conclusions. They also tend to realize that inspired answers are for them, and they are careful not to impose those answers on others. Whereas the Blue Phase preferred structure and Commandments, the Green Phase prefers as Moroni 7 teaches, the ability to judge for oneself based on the Holy Ghost what it is that brings them closer Christ. This is not to be understood that they seek to break commandments or live above the law, but rather on those items that are beyond the Doctrine of the Church they enjoy the freedom to govern themselves. They are more likely not to be bothered by differing views and actually embrace others differences. They tend to be more tolerant of differences and recognize that while their “t”ruth is theirs, it is not another's “T”ruth. They have reconciled their assumptions and expectations to be more realistic and to better fit life's experiences. They tend to be able to distinguish more easily between culture and doctrine. It must be stated here that their views still have flaws and errors, but they also tend to recognize that and realize their view will be one of constant shifting and re-appraisal. They tend to not impose their views on others but rather offer them as one additional way to consider how to connect things.

 

Richard Bushman in his 2008 presentation “Joseph Smith and his Critics” described a reconciled Latter-Day Saint this way

1. They often say they learned the Prophet was human. They don’t expect him to be a model of perfect deportment as they once thought. He may have taken a glass of wine from time to time, or scolded his associates, or even have made business errors. They see his virtues and believe in his revelations but don’t expect perfection.

 

2. They also don’t believe he was led by revelation in every detail. They see him as learning gradually to be a prophet and having to feel his way at times like most Church members. In between the revelations, he was left to himself to work out the methods of complying with the Lord’s commandments. Sometimes he had to experiment until he found the right way.

 

3. These newly revived Latter-day Saints also develop a more philosophical attitude toward history. They come to see (like professional historians) that facts can have many interpretations. Negative facts are not necessarily as damning as they appear at first sight. Put in another context alongside other facts, they do not necessarily destroy Joseph Smith’s reputation.

 

4. Revived Latter-day Saints focus on the good things they derive from their faith–the community of believers, the comforts of the Holy Spirit, the orientation toward the large questions of life, contact with God, moral discipline, and many others. They don’t want to abandon these good things. Starting from that point of desired belief, they are willing to give Joseph Smith and the doctrine a favorable hearing. They may not be absolutely certain about every item, but they are inclined to see the good and the true in the Church.

 

Some other Notes regarding these phases

• One is never in one phase entirely and likely has some footing in all three phases.

• These phases are not to compare one with another but rather to show how one got into a faith crisis and to empower them to get through it maintaining faith.

• In the red phase there are several transitions.  For purpose of length we discussed two concepts only

 

•  

Edited October 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

For elegance, descriptive clarity and timeless application, my favorite model of faith development is the parable of the sower (see Mark 4 as representative of the accounts in the synoptic gospels; see also James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, pp. 263-266 for a superb commentary).

[canard78]

For elegance, descriptive clarity and timeless application, my favorite model of faith development is the parable of the sower (see Mark 4 as representative of the accounts in the synoptic gospels; see also James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, pp. 263-266 for a superb commentary).

 

Which when paired with Lehi's vision of the tree of life as a companion parables can get really powerful.

[canard78]

Out of interest, why Blue, Red and Green?

[Scott Lloyd]

Which when paired with Lehi's vision of the tree of life as a companion parables can get really powerful.

Indeed.

[DBMormon]

Out of interest, why Blue, Red and Green?

 

Some see numbered as progressive and therefore placing inferiority on one stage over another.  People in the first phase should not feel less then in terms of being saved then other phases.  People can be celestial in all three phases.

[canard78]

Some see numbered as progressive and therefore placing inferiority on one stage over another.  People in the first phase should not feel less then in terms of being saved then other phases.  People can be celestial in all three phases.

 

Ahah. I see what you mean.

[jkwilliams]

I know I'm going to regret responding to this, but I'll tell you why this doesn't work for me and a lot of my friends: the basic assumption in the model is that we who leave cannot handle imperfection among church leaders and are "black and white" thinkers. We don't get "nuance." That might be a convenient way to pigeonhole many of us, but it's not accurate, so trying to change thinking patterns we don't have isn't likely to have much effect.

 

Ducking in advance.

[DBMormon]

I know I'm going to regret responding to this, but I'll tell you why this doesn't work for me and a lot of my friends: the basic assumption in the model is that we who leave cannot handle imperfection among church leaders and are "black and white" thinkers. We don't get "nuance." That might be a convenient way to pigeonhole many of us, but it's not accurate, so trying to change thinking patterns we don't have isn't likely to have much effect.

 

Ducking in advance.

 

 

Actually that's not what I say.  I state that some move back into the Blue Phase.  Those who do have to trade one dogmatic view for another.  I fully concede that people leave in the red phase and Blue Phase and many do so having a good grasp of the issues.  I was only speaking to those who retreat back to the Blue Phase.  In fact I even acknowledge there are several transitional behaviors that can occur that we didn't discuss.

 

Thank you for the feedback  though, I see that I need to be more clear on this point and ensure I do not offend a group that assume a portion is directed at them when it is not.

[jkwilliams]

Actually that's not what I say.  I state that some move back into the Blue Phase.  Those who do have to trade one dogmatic view for another.  I fully concede that people leave in the red phase and Blue Phase and many do so having a good grasp of the issues.  I was only speaking to those who retreat back to the Blue Phase.  In fact I even acknowledge there are several transitional behaviors that can occur that we didn't discuss.

 

Thank you for the feedback  though, I see that I need to be more clear on this point and ensure I do not offend a group that assume a portion is directed at them when it is not.

 

I wasn't offended and hope you didn't think so. I think where I'm miscommunicating is that, in your model, it's all about imperfect leaders, which to most exmos I know is a secondary issue at best.

[Calm]

People in the first phase should not feel less then in terms of being saved then other phases.  

 

Actually it's more that people shouldn't feel less developed or advanced or enlightened or progressed or evolved than other phases as well as being just as "saved" or "worthy", imo or rather those of "higher" stages are often prone look upon themselves as more developed or advanced or enlightened or progressed or evolved....if you get my drift.     I think we should be open to the idea that there may well be times that a more literal, rigid, black and white position works better and is more responsible to hold.  Especially as people tend to be a mix of phases depending on the specific issue.  I have used before the example of my sister would be considered a very high stage on somethings, but stage one or a 'child' on others.

 

PS:  I have been hassling DB about this for awhile and I greatly appreciate his efforts to adjust to the criticism, but I still favour just using the model that Mike Ash refers to in Shaken Faith Syndrome which amounts to A:  "has limited and somewhat rigid POV", B:  "encounters troubling information and is disturbed", and C: "chooses to change POV to a more varied, nuanced and less rigid POV and thus resolves most troubling aspects issues".  Too much detail describing the phases adds potential for confusion, misunderstandings and misinterpretations, potentially attaches value to certain positions that should not be attached, and individual details may lack significant evidence of existing in combination with others identified.  Simple is best, imo.

Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

DB, I think this is a good description of your story and your faith journey. I'm glad you've developed an awareness of how and why it has happened. It sounds similar in many ways to mine. I'm not sure it applies to all.

[escott3564]

I wasn't offended and hope you didn't think so. I think where I'm miscommunicating is that, in your model, it's all about imperfect leaders, which to most exmos I know is a secondary issue at best.

What is the main issue?

[Storm Rider]

I appreciate what you have written, DB, thank you. In many respects I have had to re-contextualize the meaning of prophet and/or apostle, the Church as an organization, and its real value.  I have an innate issue with authority and I try to remember when that is in play and when it is not. Although I do not believe that truth is relative, I understand and appreciate that when an individual does not "know" a truth also comes with a great deal of flexibility and freedom in understanding their own path.  I am a Latter-day Saint; this is who I am, but I freely acknowledge that I am not a good example in so many ways of what a LDS is supposed to be like. I do the best I can and fall short in many ways; some are consciously chosen.  

 

 Respect for the mantle would seem to only go so far and then the man must demonstrate a worthiness for further respect.  A leadership position does not equate to holiness; it equates to a willingness to serve others.  It is was comforting to be in a world of black and white; there was little doubt or need for questions.  At most times I sense a belonging to the Church, yet there are times when I feel a stranger within the fold.  

[jkwilliams]

What is the main issue?

 

Most people I know have left because for them the foundational claims of the church don't hold up to scrutiny. Joseph Smith's behavior and character are secondary issues, generally speaking, and for some people I know, they aren't issues at all.

 

I'm surprised that you would ask this question.

[saemo]

There are multiple theories regarding how Faith develops. Some of these push one to abandon the instituion's "Truth" as the end goal (Fowler). I know Kevin here likes Perry's scheme. I am wanting to simplify this into three phases which would compact Perry's 9 positions and Fowler's stages 3-5 but "Leading with Faith". I am hoping to see some feed back on the following.

1.) For those who are struggling - What am I missing or not describing well enough?

2.) For those who have lost faith - Why does this model not work?

3.) For those whose testimonies have never encountered a faith Crisis - What are your percieved weaknesses in this paradigm

Lastly - feel free to use this as needed to help others

Understanding Faith from the perspective of how to help one in Faith Crisis grasp how to transition to a place where one can lead with faith

From my POV, blue is how the Mormon church teaches. Red is the point where a person questions what they are being taught.

Now green, is interesting. I think, as you present it, because it causes questioning of the foundational claim of Mormonism: the Great Apostasy. Ie, if God is able to work via fallible humans in order to achieve divine will, why couldn't God do so before Smith? I have a prediction, that the answer goes to the blue zone. Cognitive dissonance has not been resolved in your model. More infinite looping.

Edited October 6, 2013 by saemo

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually it's more that people shouldn't feel less developed or advanced or enlightened or progressed or evolved than other phases as well as being just as "saved" or "worthy", imo or rather those of "higher" stages are often prone look upon themselves as more developed or advanced or enlightened or progressed or evolved....if you get my drift.     I think we should be open to the idea that there may well be times that a more literal, rigid, black and white position works better and is more responsible to hold.  Especially as people tend to be a mix of phases depending on the specific issue.  I have used before the example of my sister would be considered a very high stage on somethings, but stage one or a 'child' on others.

 

PS:  I have been hassling DB about this for awhile and I greatly appreciate his efforts to adjust to the criticism, but I still favour just using the model that Mike Ash refers to in Shaken Faith Syndrome which amounts to A:  "has limited and somewhat rigid POV", B:  "encounters troubling information and is disturbed", and C: "chooses to change POV to a more varied, nuanced and less rigid POV and thus resolves most troubling aspects issues".  Too much detail describing the phases adds potential for confusion, misunderstandings and misinterpretations, potentially attaches value to certain positions that should not be attached, and individual details may lack significant evidence of existing in combination with others identified.  Simple is best, imo.

Mike's Shaken Faith Syndrome model (as you describe it here) seems consistent with the Hegeiian triad of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

 

And I agree with you that it is preferable.

[Scott Lloyd]

deleted

Edited October 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

why couldn't God do so before Smith? 

Who has ever said he couldn't for that reason?

 

The only timing limitation I remember is the problem of having an environment that would allow the creation and flourishing of a new faith as well as missionary work and keeping the doctrine pure throughout the Church being aided by new technology.

 

Perhaps I have misunderstood you and you are focusing on preventing the apostasy...ie. not having the people go off modifying their doctrine.  If so, then it is not that God couldn't work with people at earlier times, it was more an issue of 'having it stick' so to speak and be consistent enough over a large area and large group of people.

 

I have no doubt he could have approached it as having a prophet for every 100 people or so, but for whatever reason it appears that having Enoch with his group and then Israel as his Chosen People with the true faith and even at times they were in apostasy were enough for his purposes.   

 

If we had to take a single moment in history and base our appraisal of God's choices in regards to the salvation of humanity, then God would seem a failure at any point in the past, imo, but thankfully we are not dependent on only what we have now.  Instead the opportunity for salvation continues on into the next life, in my opinion even for as long as anyone needs it.  It would be possible in fact for the Church never to have been present on earth until the Millennium, imo, and still provide all that anyone needed to be saved in the Presence of God.  I simply assume that the way God has gone about it is the most effective and efficient way to safeguard man's agency while providing opportunities.

 

Now that is a ton of assumptions...but when are we not working from assumptions when it comes to discerning why God has chosen to do something a particular way?  He doesn't give us a lot of revelation on details of his motivation, more of just the fundamental reason for his actions...that man might have joy and eternal life.

[Calm]

Mike's Shaken Faith Syndrome model (as you describe it here) seems consistent with the Hegeiian triad of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

 

And I agree with you that it is preferable.

A minor point...I believe (it has been sometime since I read it) that Mike used the model of someone else...it is a pretty basic idea that has been around for awhile, Dan Peterson has used the ABC for as long as I've known him...though I can't remember who it is attributed to (at least how it works with LDS) by either Mike or Dan.

[Calm]

Mike's Shaken Faith Syndrome model (as you describe it here) seems consistent with the Hegeiian triad of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

 

And I agree with you that it is preferable.

I am not someone who approaches everything on the basis of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it'.  In fact, I hate that attitude; there is always room for improvement.  So I have no problem with Bill looking for new ways to express this concept, I think it is a wonderful effort with his desire to help others.  My only concern is that we look to what works best so we actually do help rather than hinder and I believe evidence points to 'simple' works best in this context for the reasons I give above plus it allows people to individualize their experience much more rather for them looking to and modeling their experience and expectations on an already established narrative....which we have a great tendency to do (and which works in many cases as it can help with a sense of belonging and providing worthwhile goals among other things but seems to me to be hampering in this case because there is a greater need for flexibility of response, imo).

Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

A minor point...I believe (it has been sometime since I read it) that Mike used the model of someone else...it is a pretty basic idea that has been around for awhile, Dan Peterson has used the ABC for as long as I've known him...though I can't remember who it is attributed to (at least how it works with LDS) by either Mike or Dan.

I'm acquainted with Dan's propounding of it, and if I recall correctly, he attributed it to the late historian and Mormon Trail expert Stanley B. Kimball. And I think Dan also likened it to the Hegelian triad.

 

At any rate, it is a very useful model for viewing the flowering and maturing of faith and understanding.

[saemo]

Who has ever said he couldn't for that reason?

The only timing limitation I remember is the problem of having an environment that would allow the creation and flourishing of a new faith as well as missionary work and keeping the doctrine pure throughout the Church being aided by new technology.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you and you are focusing on preventing the apostasy...ie. not having the people go off modifying their doctrine. If so, then it is not that God couldn't work with people at earlier times, it was more an issue of 'having it stick' so to speak and be consistent enough over a large area and large group of people.

I have no doubt he could have approached it as having a prophet for every 100 people or so, but for whatever reason it appears that having Enoch with his group and then Israel as his Chosen People with the true faith and even at times they were in apostasy were enough for his purposes.

If we had to take a single moment in history and base our appraisal of God's choices in regards to the salvation of humanity, then God would seem a failure at any point in the past, imo, but thankfully we are not dependent on only what we have now. Instead the opportunity for salvation continues on into the next life, in my opinion even for as long as anyone needs it. It would be possible in fact for the Church never to have been present on earth until the Millennium, imo, and still provide all that anyone needed to be saved in the Presence of God. I simply assume that the way God has gone about it is the most effective and efficient way to safeguard man's agency while providing opportunities.

Now that is a ton of assumptions...but when are we not working from assumptions when it comes to discerning why God has chosen to do something a particular way? He doesn't give us a lot of revelation on details of his motivation, more of just the fundamental reason for his actions...that man might have joy and eternal life.

God failing in the past is more of a LDS paradigm. Loss and restoration, rinse, repeat.

I don't hold that view.

There is no evidence for a Great Apostasy, it is a conspiracy theory, assumptions, and a willingness to accept that God cannot keep His own Church together. But Mormons can. If the past is any indicator of the orientation of humans toward God, NOTHING has changed. Just the willingness to believe in one period of time over another.

God relies on technology?

Who teaches this stuff?

Edited October 6, 2013 by saemo

[Calm]

God failing in the past is more of a LDS paradigm.

 

CFR that any LDS views it as "God failing" and not men.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865587820/President-Thomas-S-Monson-I-Will-Not-Fail-Thee-Nor-Forsake-Thee.html

 

I see the rest of your post as such a misrepresentation of the LDS position that there is nothing to work with.  Better to start from scratch so for those interested in the actual LDS view of the Apostasy:

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[saemo]

CFR that any LDS views it as "God failing" and not men.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865587820/President-Thomas-S-Monson-I-Will-Not-Fail-Thee-Nor-Forsake-Thee.html

 

I see the rest of your post as such a misrepresentation of the LDS position that there is nothing to work with.  Better to start from scratch so for those interested in the actual LDS view of the Apostasy:

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

No evidence in the link.

Do you believe Jesus is God?

Do you believe Jesus established a Church during His ministry?

Do you believe this Church failed?

Assuming you answer yes to those three questions, then yes, I see you believe Jesus failed to keep His own Church together.

Blame shifting to sinful people only reenforced what I pointed out to begin with. At what point has the Mormon church failed because of human sinfulness? Is God guiding better today because we have email?