Innoculation: Teaching LDS History

[Sleeping in EQ]

http://www.mormontimes.com/WC_education.php?id=1166

[Indy Coug]

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.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.]

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Solon

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... )?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

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.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

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

Christianity offered stability during perilous times (3rd century):

1. Christianity presented a clear-cut way to salvation. No confusion between creeds and gods. No uncertainty about appeasing the right deity. Rather, Christianity presented a One Size Fits All solution to the psychological and intellectual problems of the late Empire.

2. Christianity was open to all. No matter what. Slave, outcast, ex-criminal, etc. It appealed especially to women, slaves, lower classes of society

3. Conditional promise of a better inheritance in another world.

4. Fostered a sense of community, of belonging. Pagan cults lacked this solidarity. Note that Christianity was largest in the cities– communities of belonging.

5. Synthesized Philosophical questions and pagan needs (e.g. Justin Martyr)

6. Christianity managed to fit in with enough of the religious context of the Hellenistic Age to survive it was not completely foreign, but different enough to be unique

There were plenty of reasons for Christianity's unpopularity as well.

(Sorry, it's more than 50 words)

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Solon

Christianity offered stability during perilous times (3rd century):

1. Christianity presented a clear-cut way to salvation. No confusion between creeds and gods. No uncertainty about appeasing the right deity. Rather, Christianity presented a One Size Fits All solution to the psychological and intellectual problems of the late Empire.

2. Christianity was open to all. No matter what. Slave, outcast, ex-criminal, etc. It appealed especially to women, slaves, lower classes of society

3. Conditional promise of a better inheritance in another world.

4. Fostered a sense of community, of belonging. Pagan cults lacked this solidarity. Note that Christianity was largest in the cities– communities of belonging.

5. Synthesized Philosophical questions and pagan needs (e.g. Justin Martyr)

6. Christianity managed to fit in with enough of the religious context of the Hellenistic Age to survive it was not completely foreign, but different enough to be unique

There were plenty of reasons for Christianity's unpopularity as well.

(Sorry, it's more than 50 words)

Interesting ideas. Thanks.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

Christianity offered stability during perilous times (3rd century):

1. Christianity presented a clear-cut way to salvation. No confusion between creeds and gods. No uncertainty about appeasing the right deity. Rather, Christianity presented a One Size Fits All solution to the psychological and intellectual problems of the late Empire.

2. Christianity was open to all. No matter what. Slave, outcast, ex-criminal, etc. It appealed especially to women, slaves, lower classes of society

3. Conditional promise of a better inheritance in another world.

4. Fostered a sense of community, of belonging. Pagan cults lacked this solidarity. Note that Christianity was largest in the cities– communities of belonging.

5. Synthesized Philosophical questions and pagan needs (e.g. Justin Martyr)

6. Christianity managed to fit in with enough of the religious context of the Hellenistic Age to survive it was not completely foreign, but different enough to be unique

There were plenty of reasons for Christianity's unpopularity as well.

(Sorry, it's more than 50 words)

Solon, very good.

I've been thinking a bit about this recently. How about, Rome became a civilization overly interested in the well being of the elites and the military after the fall of Repuclican Rome? Christianity gave not only hope but the promise of triumph to the downtrodden, the poor, the sick, etc., who of course greatly outnumbered the elites and the military. Ultimtaley, a kind of forced shame was employed and imposed, such as Ghandi tapped into. Humanity does have a conscience though this is often denied.

This is very crude I know but something I've been thinking. Nietzche's "The Anti-Christ" sheds light on this.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Solon, very good.

I've been thinking a bit about this recently. How about, Rome became a civilization overly interested in the well being of the elites and the military after the fall of Repuclican Rome? Christianity gave not only hope but the promise of triumph to the downtrodden, the poor, the sick, etc., who of course greatly outnumbered the elites and the military. Ultimtaley, a kind of forced shame was employed and imposed, such as Ghandi tapped into. Humanity does have a conscience though this is often denied.

This is very crude I know but something I've been thinking. Nietzche's "The Anti-Christ" sheds light on this.

Very interesting thought.

There's probably something to it. Cynics opine that the great reformers of the late Roman Republic only did so for selfish, power-hungry reasons, but I believe there was a genuine desire to address the problems of the poor underclass. After all, although the Gracchi brothers, Gaius Marius, Caesar, and the other populares didn't come from humble beginnings, they could have pursued power through other avenues. I'd like to think that they both wanted power and they wanted to address some of the social ills of their time.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

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.