Innoculation: Teaching LDS History

[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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

Immersed in, no. Exposed to, yes.

I think you are wrong about testimony being the only thing necessary. That is like saying, all you need to survive the flu is a healthy body with a good immune system. While that is a true statement, why not get a flu shot too?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Immersed in, no. Exposed to, yes.

I think you are wrong about testimony being the only thing necessary. That is like saying, all you need to survive the flu is a healthy body with a good immune system. While that is a true statement, why not get a flu shot too?

There are some who can ignore historical oddities by just focusing inward. There are other who cannot.

If I understand Tex, and I certainly can't claim to understand his way, testimony should be all one needs to deal with ambiguity and if one is not strong enough to rely upon testimony there is nothing the Church to assist people. And if people with weaker testimonies, so be it.

That's how I understand his approach.

My approach is probably closer to your approach. Exposure to the oddities is important to show we have nothing to fear from knowledge of real events.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Immersed in, no. Exposed to, yes.

I think you are wrong about testimony being the only thing necessary. That is like saying, all you need to survive the flu is a healthy body with a good immune system. While that is a true statement, why not get a flu shot too?

Tex is right, all you need is a testimony, but the question is how do you keep a testimony in the face of certain information that you may find troubling or inconsistent with the premises of your testimony? The answer is different for everyone, as we all have different spiritual gifts. For some, ignoring it will suffice. For tohers their testimnoy will have to be built, in part, on their anlaysis of these issues. So saying all you need is a testimony is like saying all you need to be healthy is good health. What any of us need to do in the face of the information varies accoridng to our own background and capacities.

Like SU I am not really fond of the innoculation analogy (although for different reasons). It is a shorthand way to convey the conept, but I don't think the sorts of issues we are talking about are diseases against which we need protection. I think they are topics or facts which may not be important but which should not be hidden.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Like SU I am not really fond of the innoculation analogy (although for different reasons). It is a shorthand way to convey the conept, but I don't think the sorts of issues we are talking about are diseases against which we need protection. I think they are topics or facts which may not be important but which should not be hidden.

Interesting concern. Coming from a Tex perspective, anything which would threaten a testimony could be seen as disease analogous, but you're not so mullah oriented, so it gives me pause for reflection.

The only other concept that comes readily to mind, is "de-shockified". The shock value needs to be eliminated so that when members are first confronted with the information, their reaction is not one of shock and betrayal.

Desensitized may be a better concept, but I can't think of one right now.

[Sleeping in EQ]

It's interesting that Tex suggests turning inward (so to speak) even as he spends plenty of time around here.

[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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Like SU I am not really fond of the innoculation analogy (although for different reasons). It is a shorthand way to convey the conept, but I don't think the sorts of issues we are talking about are diseases against which we need protection. I think they are topics or facts which may not be important but which should not be hidden.

Agreed.