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

[wenglund]

Atheists have become the fundamentalist pastors of ages gone by, and Dawkins is their pope. 

 

I enjoyed the interview between Dennis Miller and Dawkins. Hopefully it will be available soon on his podcast list.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SamIam]

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

 

Cal, perhaps you already know but in case not, for reference Saemo is Rebbecaj from the Catholic forums.  A former LDS converted to Catholicism. 

[mfbukowski]

It's not an issue to me, either. I can handle an imperfect prophet, but he has to actually be a prophet.

What does that mean?

 

Does one get out the trusty "prophet-o-meter" and get an objective reading of prophethood?

[mfbukowski]

One of the huge holes I see in these approaches to reconciliation with the LDS church is the even remote possibility that the questioning member might be right. Perhaps the church isn't true and isn't what it represents itself to be. Why is that such a terrible thing to actually face as a possibility?

It isn't.

 

The problem is in the question, not the possible answer.  You are presuming in your definition of "true" that there IS a "true church"- which the LDS church is "NOT"

 

And which one would that be?  And how do you know?

 

How would anyone know if your hypothetical questioning member is right?

 

It makes you one who defines truth and falsity for the universe, or at least assumes that one can tell what is NOT true.

 

We believe that there is truth in all churches- just more in some than others. 

[mfbukowski]

It's not fundamentalist to make judgments about verifiable claims. If, for example, someone claims to have discovered an oil reservoir in his backyard, I can think of several ways one could verify that claim or not. Ultimately, you can't prove anything (you can always dig deeper) but we in the mortal world operate on probabilities and likelihoods. It would be more than a little crazy to abstain from judging anything lest we be accused of fundamentalism. And it's a little odd to label people fundamentalists simply because, based on available evidence, they judge that certain foundational claims of a religion are unlikely to be true.

So you are saying that religious belief depends on scientific verification?

 

How does one prove that Jesus died for our sins?  Or that Ahura Mazda really IS the giver of life?  Or that Ganesha really does have the head of an elephant?

[mfbukowski]

I enjoyed the interview between Dennis Miller and Dawkins. Hopefully it will be available soon on his podcast list.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'll keep watching for it!

[mfbukowski]

Cal, perhaps you already know but in case not, for reference Saemo is Rebbecaj from the Catholic forums.  A former LDS converted to Catholicism. 

I think most of us know that.

 

I have done that discussion so many times with her over there I just know it is a waste of time to discuss.  Same old arguments on both sides with no progress and nothing new.

[Nathair/|\]

 

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

 

 

•  

 

You might find this helpful:

 

 Many people nowadays divide up every situation into two and only two factors. This by itself isn't necessarily a problem, but very often the two factors get portrayed as absolute opposites with no common ground uniting them, and this leads to trouble. Worse trouble comes when the opposites get moral labels, as though one is completely good and the other absolute evil. Think of political and religious squabbles in recent decades and you'll find more examples than you can count, each one full of this sort of twofold thinking: those who are not with us are against us, you're either part of the solution or part of the problem, and so on endlessly.

Back in the nineteenth century, schools of esoteric philosophy closely allied with French Druidry worked out ways to overcome this habit of twofold thinking. In these systems any division into two is called a binary, or more fully an unresolved binary. Binaries make useful tools for thinking when you need to focus on differences, but they produce a distorted picture unless they're balanced by something else. The opposite distortion comes from a unary, a view of the situation that sees only one factor, and focuses attention exclusively on equalities.

The first number that guides thinking into balanced patterns is the number three. Divisions into three are called ternaries. Every ternary, according to this teaching, consists of two things opposed to each other, and a third that connects them together. Thinking in ternaries pays attention to differences that divide and equalities that unite. While it's not foolproof, ternary thinking thus sidesteps some common pitfalls in the way of clear understanding.

Problems that can't be solved in binary thinking often find ready solutions once a third factor comes into play. Finding the third factor was therefore a common training exercise in some esoteric traditions. Students would be set binaries from philosophy, politics, and daily life, and asked to find the third position that resolved the binary. In this way they also learned to see how the two sides of a binary support each other, define each other, and need each other.

Ternary thinking has limitations of its own, which can be escaped by using other numbers to think with. Every number between one and thirteen, according to some Druid systems, has its own logic and usefulness. Yet the logic of the ternary has a special meaning to the modern Druid. It helps counter the pervasive binary thinking of modern culture, and also resonates powerfully with the symbolism and teachings of the Druid Revival. There's a deeper connection still, for ternaries appear again and again in traditional Celtic myths, legends, and folklore. It's not an accident that Welsh and Irish bards assembled their lore in the form of triads, or that love triangles, triple quests, and threefold deaths provide the framework for so many Celtic tales.

In modern industrial culture, two rather than three predominates. This may be why so many people nowadays turn to Celtic traditions to help bring their lives into harmony in a world in crisis. Ternary thinking solves problems created by too much reliance on binaries, and for this reason cultures with threefold patterns offer glimpses of a more balanced way of life to those caught in a harshly dualistic society.

http://aoda.org/Articles/Three_Druid_Elements.html

[Palerider]

 

What does that mean?

 

Does one get out the trusty "prophet-o-meter" and get an objective reading of prophethood?

 

Well, it's something like that, but here's a more apt description:

Deuteronomy18:22

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

And then here is a prophecy/revelation by Joseph Smith related by David Whitmer:

"Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copyright, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada."

"Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copyright, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil."

I suppose one may take this as they will........

Edited October 7, 2013 by Palerider

[Palerider]

 

It isn't.

 

The problem is in the question, not the possible answer.  You are presuming in your definition of "true" that there IS a "true church"- which the LDS church is "NOT"

 

And which one would that be?  And how do you know?

 

How would anyone know if your hypothetical questioning member is right?

 

It makes you one who defines truth and falsity for the universe, or at least assumes that one can tell what is NOT true.

 

We believe that there is truth in all churches- just more in some than others.

O.K. I just thought that this is what I taught on my mission but, I might be wrong....

D&C: 1:30

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have apower to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well epleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

[mfbukowski]

 

 

Well, it's something like that, but here's a more apt description:

Deuteronomy18:22

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

 

Golly gee whillakers.

 

I guess we are going to have to throw out Isaiah and Ezekiel and some of the other boys as well.   Just look up "unfulfilled biblical prophecies".

[mfbukowski]

 

O.K. I just thought that this is what I taught on my mission but, I might be wrong....

D&C: 1:30

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have apower to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well epleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

What I said is completely compatible with that.

 

All churches have truth, just some more than others. 

 

Honestly, that statement is so full of loopholes you could drive a truck through them.  According to that, there could be twenty true churches, of which the Lord was only "pleased" with one, or churches were were "true" or not true or living or not living etc etc, or even there could be churches no longer on "the face of the earth" which one were true, or one could even argue that the "true and living church" mentioned has not even YET come out of darkness because the Mormons are still in apostasy, though the foundations have been laid.

 

As a child, we believe things as a child, and now as adults we should put off childish ways.  I read that somewhere before I think 

Were it not for literalism, atheists would be out of business.

Edited October 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

 

 

Hadn't seen it, as conference was not a big priority for me, but at your suggestion I did watch his talk.

A small breath of fresh air after decades of judgemental prejudice and staleness. Unfortunately he cannot overcome the many contorted historical anomalies and doctrinal aberrations with a milktoast acknowledgement and an emotional call for Lassie to come home.

I think they can do even better and hope to see more in the future.

 

For you...

 

I mix in "borderland" circles where this talk is having a huge effect. People will be at church who might otherwise have been because of it (either staying or returning).

[jkwilliams]

What does that mean?

 

Does one get out the trusty "prophet-o-meter" and get an objective reading of prophethood?

 

If a prophet makes claims that end up being, well, extremely unlikely, and if in answer to prayer, the Holy Ghost tells you said prophet isn't a prophet, I'd say that's pretty good reason not to accept that person as a prophet.

Edited October 7, 2013 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

So you are saying that religious belief depends on scientific verification?

Nope.

I'm saying that some things can be verified as likely or not: oil in my backyard, or Yuri Geller's ability to bend spoons. There's a difference between that and religious belief.

[Palerider]

 

What I said is completely compatible with that.

 

All churches have truth, just some more than others. 

 

Honestly, that statement is so full of loopholes you could drive a truck through them.  According to that, there could be twenty true churches, of which the Lord was only "pleased" with one, or churches were were "true" or not true or living or not living etc etc, or even there could be churches no longer on "the face of the earth" which one were true, or one could even argue that the "true and living church" mentioned has not even YET come out of darkness because the Mormons are still in apostasy, though the foundations have been laid.

 

As a child, we believe things as a child, and now as adults we should put off childish ways.  I read that somewhere before I think 

Were it not for literalism, atheists would be out of business.

You know, if you kind find something from a general conference talk or the LDS scriptures that explicitly supports what you're saying here then I think we might have room for a conversation. If not I think we're done here.

[mfbukowski]

If a prophet makes claims that end up being, well, extremely unlikely, and if in answer to prayer, the Holy Ghost tells you said prophet isn't a prophet, I'd say that's pretty good reason not to accept that person as a prophet.

 

 

It's not an issue to me, either. I can handle an imperfect prophet, but he has to actually be a prophet.

Well all this strikes me as pretty mushy logic, but if it works for you, who am I to complain?  I'm just not sure why you made the objection in the first place- it seems it was a waste of time for both of us.

 

By this, he "actually IS" a prophet if you think he is.  If that's what you thought, it's unclear why your brought it up in the first place, since you make the answer totally subjective.

 

I have no problem with it being subjective- it's just that if you believe it IS subjective then it's not for you to say who "actually" is a prophet to anyone else, so that second quote (which was your first response) is meaningless, since sentences are for communication with others.

[mfbukowski]

 

You know, if you kind find something from a general conference talk or the LDS scriptures that explicitly supports what you're saying here then I think we might have room for a conversation. If not I think we're done here.

What- that other churches have truth?  Oh come on- you really are going to make me look that one up? 

 

Besides- your whole argument is based on the bible, so you are basing your whole argument on one bible verse, and there is no way to determine that the bible is even "correct" to use your way of thinking, except by testimony. 

 

Your Deuteronomy test for prophethood is based on a circular argument that we can know the bible itself is true only if it is inerrant- it is not.

 

The deut. quote is only true if it was written by a "true prophet" which makes it all false if there is one error in the bible.   Good luck with that line of thought.

[jkwilliams]

Well all this strikes me as pretty mushy logic, but if it works for you, who am I to complain?  I'm just not sure why you made the objection in the first place- it seems it was a waste of time for both of us.

My objection was that this thread seems to be based on the idea that, for people like me, the issue with the church is that we can't handle imperfect prophets. That's not the case.

 

By this, he "actually IS" a prophet if you think he is.

He actually is a prophet if, you know, he actually is one, regardless of what you or I think.

If that's what you thought, it's unclear why your brought it up in the first place, since you make the answer totally subjective.

In my understanding, a testimony is based on a couple of things:

1. Specific claims (Nephites, plates, Joseph Smith saw God, etc.). Some of these are falsifiable, in that we can take a look at the evidence and determine whether they are likely to have happened. Some are not.

2. The witness of the Spirit, which is totally subjective, of course.

My point was that, if both 1 and 2 point away from Joseph Smith being a prophet, I'm on pretty safe ground assuming he wasn't a prophet. That has nothing to do with you or anyone else, just me.

 

I have no problem with it being subjective- it's just that if you believe it IS subjective then it's not for you to say who "actually" is a prophet to anyone else, so that second quote (which was your first response) is meaningless, since sentences are for communication with others.

My objection is pretty simple: If you think people like me leave because we expect too much of our leaders (the clear implication), you are basically saying we suffer from an intellectual or character flaw that led us to leave. I find that assumption is not only wrong but leads to a lot of miscommunication without helping anyone come back to the fold.

[mfbukowski]

My objection is pretty simple: If you think people like me leave because we expect too much of our leaders (the clear implication), you are basically saying we suffer from an intellectual or character flaw that led us to leave. I find that assumption is not only wrong but leads to a lot of miscommunication without helping anyone come back to the fold.

I suggest that we look at the op and read what it is really saying.

 

If you want to say that about using the Perry schema to describe theories of faith development, you would find that statement horribly inaccurate.

 

It has nothing to do with truth, falsity, intellectual, or character flaws at all

 

It has to do with what "rung" of the Perry scheme you happen to be perched on.

[jkwilliams]

I suggest that we look at the op and read what it is really saying.

 

If you want to say that about using the Perry schema to describe theories of faith development, you would find that statement horribly inaccurate.

 

It has nothing to do with truth, falsity, intellectual, or character flaws at all

 

It has to do with what "rung" of the Perry scheme you happen to be perched on.

And as I've said, I don't find the Perry "scheme" all that helpful, as it makes certain assumptions about people that, as I've explained, I don't find applicable, at least not to me and a lot of people I know. If you want to help people come back, you have to understand what their issues are, and in my experience, these issues are unique to the individual. Better to ask the disaffected why they are disaffected and then go from there, IMO.

[Scott Lloyd]

What- that other churches have truth?  Oh come on- you really are going to make me look that one up? 

 

President Gordon B. Hinckley frequently said it in sermons and interviews.

 

President George Albert Smith said it before him. And Joseph Smith also said it.

 

See the quotes in this editorial I wrote a while back.

[Calm]

If you want to help people come back, you have to understand what their issues are, and in my experience, these issues are unique to the individual. Better to ask the disaffected why they are disaffected and then go from there, IMO.

 

Models may be helpful if you are struggling to find language to communicate with...but if you can communicate without them, it is better imo to avoid the potential of drawing expectations that the models may create into the conversation unnecessarily.

Edited October 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

Again, the OP assumes that our issues with the church are a product of an inability to deal with nuance and imperfection.

In the blue stage, we're supposed to be black-and-white thinkers, unable to grasp that things may not be as cut-and-dried as we think.

In the red stage, we either accept nuance or retreat into dualism.

In the green stage, we embrace ambiguity and nuance.

I get it. I'm just saying that the assumptions here don't really match my experience. I was taught to expect human failure in church leaders. As my believing sister put it, "Because we expected our leaders to screw up, we were never disappointed. If they didn't screw up, we were pleasantly surprised."

I suppose that this could also apply to a rigid attitude towards the church's foundational claims (BofM, First Vision, etc.), I'm not sure how that applies to most of us apostates, either.

[jkwilliams]

 

Models may be helpful if you are struggling to find language to communicate with...but if you can communicate without them, it is better imo to avoid the potential of drawing expectations that the models may create into the conversation unnecessarily.

Well said. What concerns me is that people might come into a conversation with a struggling member with the model assumed, rather than asking and listening and discovering what is bothering that member.

Again, it's always nice to see you.