LDS Inoculation - Good or Bad?

[Requiem]

Last Sunday we had our first JS curriculum lesson. Predictably, there was much discussion regarding the first vision. One sister who happened to have her copy of RSR in tow, posed the question of why there were differing versions of the FV (1832,35 and 38) as described by Bushman, et. al.

The instructor actually deflected the topic very well by saying she was not aware of these details and "in the interest of time" moved on. For several in the class this was clearly their first exposure to this topic. This inquisitive group later gathered in an empty classroom with the sister who asked the question and engaged in a lively discussion.

Seems to me it would be much more constructive to confront and address this topic in a structured environment. I know that Bushman has postulated that such inoculation would be a good thing. Perusing the manual, it is clear that we will get a sanitized version. Given the preponderance of available information, would we be better served by some level of inoculation?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Did this sister happen to be a member of that fake AA choir in your fake ward in "Virginia"?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Seems to me it would be much more constructive to confront and address this topic in a structured environment. I know that Bushman has postulated that such inoculation would be a good thing. Perusing the manual, it is clear that we will get a sanitized version. Given the preponderance of available information, would we be better served by some level of inoculation?

Warning: rant to follow. Nothing personal, Req.

This is not the purpose of priesthood and Relief Society meetings. I realize there's a desire on an intellectual level for the church to take on these issues and educate the membership, and if someone wants to hold a symposium, or "Know Your Religion" or what-have-you on it, fine. I have no problem with that.

The First Vision happened. Yes, there are differing accounts, but what we have is not "sanitized" and I'm getting a little tired of hearing it called that. What we have also happens to be scripture, canonized, affirmed and re-affirmed by every prophet since the one who experienced it. At least as it concerns a priesthood lesson, there's no point in spending the precious few minutes we have, with instructors who have difficulty preparing much ahead of time anyway, delving into (from a theological standpoint) mostly irrelevant details.

As to the concept of innoculation: I'm not sure I see the great saving grace in going through this exercise. Yes, it would avoid the "shock" a member experiences when some on-the-street anti-Mormon shouts it in their face, or when the occasional intellectual mentions it in class. But testimonies are not built (and they should not be shattered) on these details.

I shudder to think someday if our church meetings rotate from a focus on our theology and the Spirit to academic discussions. It's not the place.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Did this sister happen to be a member of that fake AA choir in your fake ward in "Virginia"?

Did I miss something?

The goal for me in a church meeting is to be inspired and uplifted and come closer to God. I see innoculation as a good goal, but not at the expense of other more important objectives in a church setting.

It's helpful to have a quick secular review of the background of the scripture text or topic. This portion of a lesson should be honest and would be a good time to provide some innoculation, but it shouldn't be the theme. The instructor would have to be skilled to provide that kind of innoculation in an appriate tone and appropriate allotted time and not let it take over the lesson and distract from the higher goal of worship and inspiration. It's not an easy thing to do.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Warning: rant to follow. Nothing personal, Req.

This is not the purpose of priesthood and Relief Society meetings. I realize there's a desire on an intellectual level for the church to take on these issues and educate the membership, and if someone wants to hold a symposium, or "Know Your Religion" or what-have-you on it, fine. I have no problem with that.

The First Vision happened. Yes, there are differing accounts, but what we have is not "sanitized" and I'm getting a little tired of hearing it called that. What we have also happens to be scripture, canonized, affirmed and re-affirmed by every prophet since the one who experienced it. At least as it concerns a priesthood lesson, there's no point in spending the precious few minutes we have, with instructors who have difficulty preparing much ahead of time anyway, delving into (from a theological standpoint) mostly irrelevant details.

As to the concept of innoculation: I'm not sure I see the great saving grace in going through this exercise. Yes, it would avoid the "shock" a member experiences when some on-the-street anti-Mormon shouts it in their face, or when the occasional intellectual mentions it in class. But testimonies are not built (and they should not be shattered) on these details.

I shudder to think someday if our church meetings rotate from a focus on our theology and the Spirit to academic discussions. It's not the place.

Daniel Peterson recommends some form of inoculation for members, and he's an apologist working for FARMS.

The question of time and place is a good one. Although the purpose of worship is to edify, we should not be afraid of truth or true facts. I like jay's proposal of having the intro include some of the facts, skillfully addressing them and then moving to points of edification.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Daniel Peterson recommends some form of inoculation for members, and he's an apologist working for FARMS.

The question of time and place is a good one. Although the purpose of worship is to edify, we should not be afraid of truth or true facts. I like jay's proposal of having the intro include some of the facts, skillfully addressing them and then moving to points of edification.

I know Dan Peterson. He's a good guy, and very smart. But he once told me about how he ruined a visit to the Hill Cumorah pageant by spending the entire pre-show period arguing with an anti. He got himself so worked up he couldn't enjoy the pageant, and he learned a valuable lesson. I think he sometimes has a hard time separating the spiritual and the intellectual when it comes to the church.

I'm not saying be afraid. I'm saying the 3-hour block is not the time or place.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I know Dan Peterson. He's a good guy, and very smart. But he once told me about how he ruined a visit to the Hill Cumorah pageant by spending the entire pre-show period arguing with an anti. He got himself so worked up he couldn't enjoy the pageant, and he learned a valuable lesson. I think he sometimes has a hard time separating the spiritual and the intellectual when it comes to the church.

I'm not saying be afraid. I'm saying the 3-hour block is not the time or place.

I'm not sure if I disagree, but for many members, much of what they hear about the Church is during this three hour block.

And many members are afraid to ask question or don't know where to turn.

This is my concern.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Did I miss something?

Actually Jay, there are lots of things you miss.

[creekster]

Whatever. I really want to know if the instructor was in the fake choir or not. Req?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Actually Jay, there are lots of things you miss.

ouch, but seriously this "fake" thing sounds like a good story. what thread was it on?