NOM

Jeffret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:09 pm It's at this time that I most remember Peggy and wish she was still around. She was fascinated by SoF and had corresponded with Dr. Fowler. When he spoke at Sunstone, she made sure to be in attendance and get him to sign her copy. She was quite happy with that.

I wasn't around back then, but I've heard a lot about Peggy. Years ago I thought about writing James Fowler and telling him how much I appreciated his work, but I never did, and I felt awful about it when he passed away (two years ago, this month). It's nice to know that someone did reach out (I'm sure many people have, but it's particularly nice to know that someone from the NOM/Mormon viewpoint did, it makes me feel like it was communication by proxy )

Newme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:32 pm My guess is that many of us here on NOM are in some degree of stage 4. Just read an interesting quote by Fowler:

“The two essential features of the emergence of Stage 4, then, are the critical distancing from one's previous assumptive value system and the emergence of the executive ego. . . .
We find that sometimes many persons complete half of this double movement, but do not complete the other.”

What does he mean by “executive ego”?

Here's the paragraph in question. Fowler tells the story of a young man named Jack who had a traditional Catholic upbringing, left home for the military, and there encountered the Black Panther ideology and music that made him question his previous identity. Fowler mentions that after he comes home on leave, Jack no longer feels as though he fits. This typifies the transition from Stage 3 to 4, he likens it to a fish who has jumped out of its bowl and is now examining its former environment. For Jack, he began to recognize that people are not fully self contained, but are shaped by their environment, and that there exist many different environments within the world, and not just the one he was raised in.

Stages of Faith, James Fowler, pg. 179 wrote: For a genuine move to Stage 4 to occur there must be an interruption of the reliance on external sources of authority. The 'tyranny of the they' - or the potential for it - must be undermined. In addition to the kind of critical reflection on one's previous assumptive or tacit system of values we saw Jack undertake, there must be, for Stage 4, a relocation of authority within the self. While others and their judgments will remain important to the Individuative-Reflective person, their expectations, advice and counsel will be submitted to an internal panel of experts who reserve the right to choose and who are prepared to take responsibility for their choices. I sometimes call this the emergence of an executive ego.

The two essential features of the emergence of Stage 4, then, are the critical distancing from one's previous assumptive value system and the emergence of an executive ego. When and as these occur a person is forming a new identity, which he or she expresses and actualizes by the choice of personal and group affiliations and the shaping of a 'lifestyle'.

So the "executive ego" is what he uses to describe the transfer of authority from an outer group, to an inner self. Instead of my family or religious community choosing my identity, that right and privilege becomes something I choose myself. It's "an internal panel of experts who reserve the right to choose and who are prepared to take responsibility for their choices."

I think this forum and others are filled with transitioning Stage 4 and Stage 5 types, but not necessarily. Encountering new ideas and different points of view are essential to starting the reflective process, a lot like my friend who met his first incredulous investigator. "Do you really believe that?" This particular paragraph has grown more and more prescient to me as I've been able to actually feel a gradual development of my internal panel of experts. It's not the cocky sort of internal authority as some in stage three who are convinced that they know everything, it's actually quite the opposite because I feel opened to the fact that there's a lot I don't know. Instead, I feel it's the awakening of an internal judge which knows that whatever decision needs to be made, that I will be the final decision maker. Not a Bishop, not the handbook of instructions, or the latest conference talk, but myself. I might use a bunch of different sources in my efforts to come to a decision, but it's not a responsibility anyone can relieve from my shoulders. At my particular stage, whatever that may be, the doctrine that obeying the prophet and that the consequences will fall on the prophet's head if he's wrong, is as wrong and hollow as anything I've heard spoken.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:27 pm I wasn't around back then, but I've heard a lot about Peggy. Years ago I thought about writing James Fowler and telling him how much I appreciated his work, but I never did, and I felt awful about it when he passed away (two years ago, this month). It's nice to know that someone did reach out (I'm sure many people have, but it's particularly nice to know that someone from the NOM/Mormon viewpoint did, it makes me feel like it was communication by proxy )

Peggy shared what Fowler had written, but I can't remember what it was. Peggy felt that it was a nice, personal recognition of who she was.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:53 pm I remember a similar experience many years ago when an acquaintance of mine just asked me the question "Why?" as in "Why would you even want to believe that?" It's questions like that, questions that cause a person to reflect on beliefs that were being treated as given that moves people. When and how that occurs, I don't know, but I think age is a big part of it. Anyone in their 20's to 30's should be able to handle it. Anyone younger and their cognitively unable to grapple with some of the concepts. Folks who are older can do it, but it becomes increasingly more difficult.

I reproduced Fowler's Age Distribution table on my little stages of faith site long ago. You can see it here: https://stagesoffaith.wordpress.com/199 ... ion-table/. He talks quite a bit about variations by age and faith community in his book.

Fifi de la Vergne wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:25 am

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:47 amI think there are two ideas here, one ontological and the other psychological. There's an interesting idea that crops up in Mormonism, and I believe it's this way in Judaism as well but I'm not sure, where the symbol of the walled garden is seen as an obstacle to human well being. It's a place that's perfectly ordered, and its inhabitants are safe, but absent some sort of chaos / death, there's nothing there to challenge and there's no opportunity to grow. Happiness isn't possible because there isn't any sadness. It's almost as if the garden metaphor is laying out one possible extreme, where the unmade state of the world before god organizes it is the other. Life and happiness, it seems, is in the middle where the world is ordered enough to be predictable and inhabitable, but not so ordered as to remove all challenge.

I've thought a lot about the Adam & Eve myth as an allegory of the life cycle -- where it really is ideal for us to be born and nurtured in innocence and order and under careful supervision until we reach that point where we start to make our own decisions and make the leap of choosing something that's outside the rules we've been living under to that point. Growth demands that we start to make our own choices and live with the consequences, but in order to successfully navigate that leap from being innocent to being accountable for our own choices it is really helpful (if not absolutely necessary) that we begin with an ordered, structured environment that gives us the secure foundation to build on.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:47 amWhere Mormonism fails is by making itself out to be a one size fits all solution, and working overtime to conform people to the bureaucracy. It goes too far on the order spectrum, and instead of the promotion of human thriving, you end up with a large degree of infantalism and dependence. They are the walled garden. It must look like paradise to those who were naked in the chaos of the world, but for those raised in it, that life saving anchor is more like a millstone around the neck.

A few years before my faith transition began I had a friend who loved to garden (so do I.) He loved English Gardens and was appalled that I preferred the French formal garden style. Fast forward about ten years now, and I prefer the English Garden style so much more, and I think all of this change of preference is a reflection of my own faith transition and belief system. As a TBM I looked at the world, life, my work, my purpose as needing order imposed on it and it was very tightly done. Now I believe more in organized disorganization.

I understand the metaphor of the walled garden in Mormonism, but Mormons build a wall within the world to create their own perfect garden: associating only with other members, going to church universities, dating RMs, generally refusing to really live outside that walled garden of Mormonism.

And this is one of the reasons I believe I am such a better parent today than I would have been had I had kids in my early twenties. I had every intention to mold, force, and cultivate a very specific kind of human being - and the church encourages this to a great extent. I don't blame my parents for it, but I think this is one of the reasons I was so miserable at church my entire life. I now see my role as a parent to facilitate and cultivate and encourage rather than to impose my will. I read recently that English gardens are cultivated spaces made to appear natural and disordered, although they are organized and deliberate. I like to think about my life and my parenting style that way. Some disorganization is wonderful, as is order. But sometimes you'll miss those really beautiful moments and some really beautiful people if you keep pruning and pulling up plants in order to maintain all of that symmetry and order.

I struggle to know if I am ever going to exit stage 4. My personal opinion is that a lot of people assume they are the stage above where they really are. No stage 3 TBM, reading the description of stage 3, believes that is what they are. I wouldn't have; I didn't have the perspective to see it until I moved on. I'm not really sure what to aim for to get to stage 5. I want to though, it seems a lot more peaceful than the turbulent stage 4. At least, that's how I've experienced it.

*For what it's worth I love gardens of all kinds, just to be clear!

When I looked at the Fowler Faith Stages I could never decide which stage I fit into. I settled on fitting into several categories which depended on my mood and the aspect of faith I was thinking about. I saw three aspects to my faith: the philosophical aspect, the Christian aspect, and the Mormon aspect. Depending on which aspect I thought about it put me into a different Fowler Stage.

I would be curious as to whether that applied to any of the posters here on this forum.

In which of Fowler's stages does one completely reject "faith" as a virtue, or as something worthwhile to "seek after"?

wtfluff wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:20 pm In which of Fowler's stages does one completely reject "faith" as a virtue, or as something worthwhile to "seek after"?

You have to understand first how Fowler defines faith at the start of his book. Fowler defines faith as the patterns and structures through which we give value and meaning to our lives. These things determine our actions. In other words, our actions are shaped by those things that we value or that give meaning to our lives. He doesn't use the term in a purely religious sense, but rather an expansive one. He isn't referring to faith as the term is mis-used in modern Mormonism, as belief in a specific being or organization, such as god, Jesus, Joseph, or the Mormon Church. Fowler's definition isn't without basis. In the scriptures, faith is more aligned with Fowler's approach than it is with modern Mormonism's use as belief.

Given that definition, your question doesn't really make sense. It sounds something like, "In which of Fowler's stages does one completely reject giving meaning to our lives, or seeking after ways to live a meaningful and authentic life?"

Jeffret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:00 pm

wtfluff wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:20 pm In which of Fowler's stages does one completely reject "faith" as a virtue, or as something worthwhile to "seek after"?

You have to understand first how Fowler defines faith at the start of his book. Fowler defines faith as the patterns and structures through which we give value and meaning to our lives. These things determine our actions. In other words, our actions are shaped by those things that we value or that give meaning to our lives. He doesn't use the term in a purely religious sense, but rather an expansive one. He isn't referring to faith as the term is mis-used in modern Mormonism, as belief in a specific being or organization, such as god, Jesus, Joseph, or the Mormon Church. Fowler's definition isn't without basis. In the scriptures, faith is more aligned with Fowler's approach than it is with modern Mormonism's use as belief.

Given that definition, your question doesn't really make sense. It sounds something like, "In which of Fowler's stages does one completely reject giving meaning to our lives, or seeking after ways to live a meaningful and authentic life?"

Ah, good.

I don't recall anyone actually posting anything about what Fowler's actual definition of faith was, though I constantly see people posting about the 5 stages.

Good to know that Fowler's definition has nothing to do with the usual religious definition of faith. It's a completely different animal. Too bad there isn't a different word for it.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:09 pm I don't recall anyone actually posting anything about what Fowler's actual definition of faith was, though I constantly see people posting about the 5 stages.

Good to know that Fowler's definition has nothing to do with the usual religious definition of faith. It's a completely different animal. Too bad there isn't a different word for it.

I've posted explanations about it from time to time, but I've been posting on the topic for nearly 20 years. I don't remember when the last time was that I posted a definition.

I wish there were a better term, but I don't know what it would be. It does turn off some people who think of faith as a negative.

It's not entirely distinct from the usual religious definition of faith. That was part of the reason I mentioned scriptural or biblical usages of the term. It's just not confined to the "belief" usage, but more related to the "basis for action" usage. As a theologian, Fowler would be deeply knowledgeable with more thorough meanings of some words. I think it's a little bit like how the word "perfect" meant something rather different when the KJV was translated than it does after the Industrial Revolution. I think the meaning of "faith", at least among lay people, has shifted more towards "belief".

Fowler's book isn't really about religion. It talks about religions, but not specifically about religious belief. It's kind of more about moral development, but Kohlberg already used that term and Fowler based his work on Kohlberg's.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:00 pm

wtfluff wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:20 pm In which of Fowler's stages does one completely reject "faith" as a virtue, or as something worthwhile to "seek after"?

You have to understand first how Fowler defines faith at the start of his book. Fowler defines faith as the patterns and structures through which we give value and meaning to our lives. These things determine our actions. In other words, our actions are shaped by those things that we value or that give meaning to our lives. He doesn't use the term in a purely religious sense, but rather an expansive one. He isn't referring to faith as the term is mis-used in modern Mormonism, as belief in a specific being or organization, such as god, Jesus, Joseph, or the Mormon Church. Fowler's definition isn't without basis. In the scriptures, faith is more aligned with Fowler's approach than it is with modern Mormonism's use as belief.

Given that definition, your question doesn't really make sense. It sounds something like, "In which of Fowler's stages does one completely reject giving meaning to our lives, or seeking after ways to live a meaningful and authentic life?"

He's adamant that faith is not the same as belief. He wrote, "If faith is reduced to belief in credal statements and doctrinal formulations, then sensitive and responsible persons are likely to judge that they must live"without faith." But if faith is understood as trust in another and as loyalty to a transcendent center of value and power, then the issue of faith-and the possibility of religious faith-becomes lively and open again."

In some ways I can fully understand why he uses the word, because our "world view", the way in which we process the world and place it into a structure [which may be a better word to use instead of order] or even the form which such a structure takes, is shaped by forces and motivations that we do not fully understand or consciously control. Elements of each faith stage, to me, can even be described as differences in the way events in the external world are processed and thought about.

For example, let's say that a person is in their home praying to god and asking for a sign as to what they should do with their lives. At that very moment, two young missionaries knock on the door and offer her lessons on the Book of Mormon. How do you process these two events? Do you reference the environment you grew up in and the authority figures in your life who taught you that "all things happen for a reason"? Or do you think back on a time when you used to believe there were no coincidences, and now focus a more skeptical eye and say "that was just a coincidence". Both of these approaches are an exercise of faith as Fowler would describe it. They are differing frameworks for understanding life, and each corresponds to a different stage of faith.

It's difficult to really nail down a faith stage based solely on behavior. For example, I saw on another forum where a number of people dressed in temple robes to go trick-or-treating. This could be stage 3 - 4 behavior where a person is reacting to the sudden realization that their Mormon worldview is not unique, and is perhaps acting that out by showing that a previously sacred symbol is no longer sacred to them. Or it could be the manifestation of a person who began a stage 3 - 4 transition, but then settled back into a stage 3 faith with a different ideology. I'm reminded of an observation made by Eric Hoffer in his book "The True Believer". He stated that people who are radicals are in reality coverts to the state of being radical as opposed to any connection to the ideology. A radical Marxist, for example, might find it easier to transition to a radical Christian Conservative than to a moderate liberal or a moderate conservative. Whatever they become, they will become the most fundamental or radical form they can be. The doctrines don't define the method or perspective of how a person interacts with the world.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:43 pm

Newme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:32 pm My guess is that many of us here on NOM are in some degree of stage 4. Just read an interesting quote by Fowler:

“The two essential features of the emergence of Stage 4, then, are the critical distancing from one's previous assumptive value system and the emergence of the executive ego. . . .
We find that sometimes many persons complete half of this double movement, but do not complete the other.”

What does he mean by “executive ego”?

Here's the paragraph in question. Fowler tells the story of a young man named Jack who had a traditional Catholic upbringing, left home for the military, and there encountered the Black Panther ideology and music that made him question his previous identity. Fowler mentions that after he comes home on leave, Jack no longer feels as though he fits. This typifies the transition from Stage 3 to 4, he likens it to a fish who has jumped out of its bowl and is now examining its former environment. For Jack, he began to recognize that people are not fully self contained, but are shaped by their environment, and that there exist many different environments within the world, and not just the one he was raised in.

Stages of Faith, James Fowler, pg. 179 wrote: For a genuine move to Stage 4 to occur there must be an interruption of the reliance on external sources of authority. The 'tyranny of the they' - or the potential for it - must be undermined. In addition to the kind of critical reflection on one's previous assumptive or tacit system of values we saw Jack undertake, there must be, for Stage 4, a relocation of authority within the self. While others and their judgments will remain important to the Individuative-Reflective person, their expectations, advice and counsel will be submitted to an internal panel of experts who reserve the right to choose and who are prepared to take responsibility for their choices. I sometimes call this the emergence of an executive ego.

The two essential features of the emergence of Stage 4, then, are the critical distancing from one's previous assumptive value system and the emergence of an executive ego. When and as these occur a person is forming a new identity, which he or she expresses and actualizes by the choice of personal and group affiliations and the shaping of a 'lifestyle'.

So the "executive ego" is what he uses to describe the transfer of authority from an outer group, to an inner self. Instead of my family or religious community choosing my identity, that right and privilege becomes something I choose myself. It's "an internal panel of experts who reserve the right to choose and who are prepared to take responsibility for their choices."

I think this forum and others are filled with transitioning Stage 4 and Stage 5 types, but not necessarily. Encountering new ideas and different points of view are essential to starting the reflective process, a lot like my friend who met his first incredulous investigator. "Do you really believe that?" This particular paragraph has grown more and more prescient to me as I've been able to actually feel a gradual development of my internal panel of experts. It's not the cocky sort of internal authority as some in stage three who are convinced that they know everything, it's actually quite the opposite because I feel opened to the fact that there's a lot I don't know. Instead, I feel it's the awakening of an internal judge which knows that whatever decision needs to be made, that I will be the final decision maker. Not a Bishop, not the handbook of instructions, or the latest conference talk, but myself. I might use a bunch of different sources in my efforts to come to a decision, but it's not a responsibility anyone can relieve from my shoulders. At my particular stage, whatever that may be, the doctrine that obeying the prophet and that the consequences will fall on the prophet's head if he's wrong, is as wrong and hollow as anything I've heard spoken.

Excellent explanation - thank you. It makes me wonder why some learn to think for themselves while others lean toward herd mentality.

Fowler explained that stage 3 think stage 4 have backslid when really they’re progressing. Sometimes TBMs will tell me with heart-ache how some of their kids have left the church and they feel like they failed them or they worry for them. And I want to tell them that everything is fine and everyone’s ok - just progressing at different stages and they may be ahead of the game. But that would make no sense to them.

In a way, sometimes really fanatic, strictly religious parents HELP their kids be more welcoming to questioning. I suppose it depends on the relationship with the parents. If the parents praise them for religion - then it might damn them from progressing. But if the parents criticize them for not being religiously fanatic enough, then it may be a catalyst for development.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:25 am The movie, "A Beautiful Mind" demonstrates an extreme example of this, but far less extreme situations exist which still result in an unbalanced or distorted personal life.

I was just talking about this movie yesterday with a NOM friend at lunch. I told him how my mom is borderline crazy with making connections and finding divine reaso ns for nearly everything in her life. It drives me crazy! I think the general prosperous state of TBMs in the church today makes this worse because they look for meaning and purpose in everything; all good things are blessings all bad things are a test of faith and a lesson. This is one of the stresses I felt in my past TBM life and I feel so much happier just sloughing it all off to just "life" and giving it to the universe. I think this factor can contribute to stress and health issues and even drive people crazy when it gets out of control.