Innoculation: Teaching LDS History
 

The problem with innoculation is that it often leaves more unanswered questions than it actually answers and usually lacks any rigorous clinical trials to determine if the cure is any better than the disease.

I've run into similar problems in Utah and in Pennsylvania when teaching early Christianity. When posed with the question, "why did Christianity succeed in the Roman World?" I used to get at least one or two, "because it's true and the Holy Spirit made people accept the Word" responses. [Now, I nip that in the bud. Fair enough if someone believes it personally, but not the kind of answer historians can use.]

What is your answer to the question (50 words or less...:) )?

It had the unique ability of appealing to people by claiming the right way to worship, while appealing to the ancient world through a claim of ancient origins, i.e., Moses and beyond.

It became a unique brand distinguishing it from Judaism, suppressing contrary beliefs and became an acceptable state religion to control the masses.

Okay, I'm not a historian nor a professor, but that answer seems obvious to me.

But there is also no objective evidence of the opposite. In the internet age people are going to know these things, particularly young people in ever increasing, and maybe exponentially increasing, numbers. The only question is whether the church chooses to participate in the ensuing discussion.

In other words, I think the question of whether there should be inoculation is an anachronism at this point. The remaining question is what form should it take.

The real problem with innoculation is it's a false analogy.

The form of a testimony.

You tempt me sorely to make a sarcastic retort. The truth is that bearing testimony is an important component. But you and I both know that it isn't the only component. The Joseph Smith papers project is very good evidence that the church knows this. I don't think there is any real threat that the church won't survive the light of day being shone on its history and it is inevitable that this is only going to be increasingly the case.

I may be wrong, but my belief is that the brethren as a whole understand our collective history only a little better than the membership. This is because much of it has not been widely available until the last 30 or so years and it has come trickling out since, but seems to be much more than a trickle now. We will need their guidance now more than ever to help us sort out difficult issues as we and they come to grapple with them. Luckily we have the keys to revelation to assist us. It is my hope (and think there is evidence that it is not a vain hope) that they will assist us or at least not impede us in coming to terms with difficult issues.

What I'm saying is, a testimony is the only required "innoculation" against loss of faith from said difficult issues.

That doesn't mean the issues should be ignored, but neither do members need to be proactively immersed in them either.