Fowler's Stages of Faith...Stage 5

[Guest]

I think Fowler has a different definition of the word 'faith' then the LDS church.

That is an interesting comment Nehor. I actually found Fowler's definition of faith to accord quite nicely with the Lectures on Faith's definition. But then again it has been de-canonized so you are probably right.

[_George Miller]

Like I said in the podcast, I think stage 5 definitions are a little problematic because it seems to beg the question and assume the value of the original position in the first place.

I couldn't agree with you more John. Part of the problem with numbering the stages is the implication that one is superior to the other. I think part of coming to stage 5 is becoming comfortable with the fact that all stages are equally important and equally valuable.

In my mind, stage 5 engagement means that your cease to be reactionary to the original viewpoint and can gauge each element on its own merits.

Amen brother ... preach it to the rafters (paddle paddle).

In other words, questions about the truthfulness of the Church has a whole are no longer interesting.

The reason these questions are no longer interesting to a stage 5 person is that they have an answer to the question. I like to quip that Joseph Smith only got half the message during the first vision. He found out from God that no church was the true church. The other half of the message was that all of them were true because he was bringing about his great work through them all.

It is also important to realize that Stage 5 people will always be misidentified as heretics by those at earlier stages, but only stage 4 individuals truly are.

The funny thing is that stage 3s are confuzzled by stage 5s and don't know what to do with them, and thus often resort to calling them heretics. Stage 4s think that stage 5s are sellout stage 3s. Both groups often look at 5ers as traitors.

Stage 5 people haven't switched teams, they have walked off the field.

One of the joys of stage 5 is that one can walk off the field and travel in foreign countries and receive Master's wages. After he has toured Yankee Stadium, Ebbets Field, and Wrigley Field he has can voluntarily comeback and enjoy a game at home if he so chooses. None of this of course should diminish the joy of throwing the ball around with your son (or daughter) or seeing you teenager hit his first double at the high school field.

[_mms]

I like to quip that Joseph Smith only got half the message during the first vision. He found out from God that no church was the true church. The other half of the message was that all of them were true because he was bringing about his great work through them all.

This is the kind of thinking I believe Stage 5 requires, so I continue to see it as inconsistent with a Mormonism that believes Joseph Smith got the WHOLE message (which is the Mormonism preached by the Brethren and the Mormonism I believe they expect from their Temple-going members (as an aside, maybe I should be unconcerned about what the Brethren expect from their Temple-going members, but I am still of the school that it's the Brethren's club and if I don't want to play by their rules, I should not be in the club).

[_The Nehor]

I think Fowler has a different definition of the word 'faith' then the LDS church.

That is an interesting comment Nehor. I actually found Fowler's definition of faith to accord quite nicely with the Lectures on Faith's definition. But then again it has been de-canonized so you are probably right.

As someone who reads it as if it is canon I disagree.

[_George Miller]

As someone who reads it as if it is canon I disagree.

Well Nehor you have peeked my interest. How do you think that Fowler's definition of faith is different from the Lectures on Faith? While I would agree that the requirements for faith are drastically different, I felt their definitions accorded quite well. Please explain.

[_Trevor]

Well Nehor you have peeked my interest. How do you think that Fowler's definition of faith is different from the Lectures on Faith? While I would agree that the requirements for faith are drastically different, I felt their definitions accorded quite well. Please explain.

I think the word is "piqued."

[_The Nehor]

As someone who reads it as if it is canon I disagree.

Well Nehor you have peeked my interest. How do you think that Fowler's definition of faith is different from the Lectures on Faith? While I would agree that the requirements for faith are drastically different, I felt their definitions accorded quite well. Please explain.

If I understand Fowler correctly he seems to think that faith means a connection to the universal in general, a kind of connection to the divine though religious differences to him seem unimportant.

In Joseph's lectures, faith in general is the motivating power behind all our actions. I went to work because I have faith I'll be paid. I went outside without fear because I have faith that gravity won't let me fly off the earth. I eat right and exercise because I have faith that I will look and feel better.

Faith applied to religion is defined as mental exertion. A kind of belief based off of results but also a power that allows words and thoughts to mold and confirm reality. I admit I seem vague here but I don't think this desire requires an in-depth discussion of it.

I definitely do not find it compatible with Fowler's understanding.

[Guest]

In Joseph's lectures, faith in general is the motivating power behind all our actions. I went to work because I have faith I'll be paid. I went outside without fear because I have faith that gravity won't let me fly off the earth. I eat right and exercise because I have faith that I will look and feel better.

Faith applied to religion is defined as mental exertion. A kind of belief based off of results but also a power that allows words and thoughts to mold and confirm reality. I admit I seem vague here but I don't think this desire requires an in-depth discussion of it.

That was a brilliant summation of the Lectures on Faith. This is also exactly how Fowler explains his working definition of Faith. It is for this reason that he suggests that everyone, including the atheist, has faith. For Fowler faith is the reason one wakes up in the morning and the driving force behind all that one does.

[_George Miller]

I think the word is "piqued."

Thanks Trevor. You are correct, I did mean piqued. I appreciate the correction :-)

[_The Nehor]

In Joseph's lectures, faith in general is the motivating power behind all our actions. I went to work because I have faith I'll be paid. I went outside without fear because I have faith that gravity won't let me fly off the earth. I eat right and exercise because I have faith that I will look and feel better.

Faith applied to religion is defined as mental exertion. A kind of belief based off of results but also a power that allows words and thoughts to mold and confirm reality. I admit I seem vague here but I don't think this desire requires an in-depth discussion of it.

That was a brilliant summation of the Lectures on Faith. This is also exactly how Fowler explains his working definition of Faith. It is for this reason that he suggests that everyone, including the atheist, has faith. For Fowler faith is the reason one wakes up in the morning and the driving force behind all that one does.

Okay, I don't have his book so had to mine the internet for quotes but I can see the correlation now. I admit I did not see this aspect when I examined his work before. However, the word faith as applied to the LDS faith does not carry through the stages he suggests. Our faith's end is to see the face of God.