LDS Inoculation - Good or Bad?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The biggest problem is that there are too many questions that even the highest levels of leadership of the church can't answer with 100% certainty (take the earlier reference to GBH's comments on King Follett).

Given that these answers can't be provided with a great deal of certainty, does it serve any valuable purpose to include flawed inoculation as part of the standard curriculum?

I think that you make a fair point here, but I also think you are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I would agree, for example, that Adam-God would be tough. It doesn't really get any better than saying "we don't know."

On the other hand, how hard would it be to say that Joseph practiced polygamy in secret. We don't know why it was in secret, but ultimately he revealed it to others and it was practiced openly. There I just inoculated 95% of the class.

Or how about saying while it was long believed that Joseph translated the Pearl of Great Price from ancient records, we now know that these we in fact Egyptian funerary scrolls. We don't know whether Joseph believed he was translating or whether this was just a tool to receive revelation, but we do know that revelation can come in many forms and regardless of the method we can seek a witness from the Holy Ghost as to whether the things taught in this book are true. Inoculated.

I could go on and on. This doesn't have to take over the class. It can just be candid approaches in the manual to some uncomfortable subjects as they arise, being clear about what we know, what we don't and what we can learn from it. The gloss I just put on two big problem areas above would be more than satisfactory to most people, and no one could any longer say they felt as though it was covered up.

This is just like anything else. Either we get out front and characterize these things, or the only characterizations available will be from the mouths of our enemies.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Tex, I tend to be on your side of this issue, but I think UtahDan asks the key question. If not in SS, then where? I agree it would be hard to do deftly, but I think it has to be there. In fact, I think it is in the church's interest to do it there, so there can be some spiritual input along side the worldly hoo-hah. Do you disagree?

These are all good questions.

Let's look at the landscape.

The Church provides "uplifting" yet "sanitized" historical reports and doctrinal explanations.

Members are discouraged from participating in small groups religious study. I remember a First Presidency letter to that effect.

Many interesting but difficult facts exist for which the sanitized version of events do not account.

So if members are not to discuss or study these things in small groups, and if we are not supposed to discuss these things, what are we supposed to do, close our minds and pretend they don't exist because Big Brother Bureaucracy will take care of you?

We're painting ourselves into an untenable position. There must be reasonable outlets for ordinary members to explore these questions. We can let the anti's do it, or we can do it ourselves.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm not trying to trade barbs here. Tell me why you think having members concerns resolved is not the function of Sunday school? Where does one go for this if not church?
...
Should the instructor tell our friend that Sunday School is not the proper forum for inquiry?

Originally Posted by creekster

Tex, I tend to be on your side of this issue, but I think UtahDan asks the key question. If not in SS, then where? I agree it would be hard to do deftly, but I think it has to be there. In fact, I think it is in the church's interest to do it there, so there can be some spiritual input along side the worldly hoo-hah. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think that you make a fair point here, but I also think you are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I don't know what the ideal venue is. I mentioned some other possibilities previously ... maybe there's additional options, I don't know.

The 3-hour block is intended to be for theological-based building of testimonies and faith. Tell me how a discussion on the controversy surrounding Adam-God, on the history of Joseph's polygamous relationships, on modern Egyptology's analysis of the Abraham papyri, on the varied and confusing contrasts between the First Vision accounts helps me:

- Be filled with love toward God and man
- Become a better parent to my children
- Gain a deeper understanding of the atonement, and its personal implications for me
- Offer more meaningful prayers
- Reach out more effectively to the poor, needy, sick, and afflicted
- Discern the Spirit more easily

These are the things the gospel is made of, not the details you're talking about. These are the things that convert, and retain conversion. These are the doctrines that form the rock the proverbial wise man builds upon. This is what inoculates.

The other is more liable to raise questions than "inoculate" against them. If someone wants them raised, like Dan's friend, then raise them in a different forum. The Sunday meetings we attend each week are not that forum.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Shouldn't be shattered this way perhaps, but they often are. And with increasing frequency. All the hubris in the world is not going to change that.

Testimonies are tried in all kinds of ways, Leb. Build your house on the rock.

Your hubris comment is uncalled for.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't know what the ideal venue is. I mentioned some other possibilities previously ... maybe there's additional options, I don't know.

The 3-hour block is intended to be for theological-based building of testimonies and faith. Tell me how a discussion on the controversy surrounding Adam-God, on the history of Joseph's polygamous relationships, on modern Egyptology's analysis of the Abraham papyri, on the varied and confusing contrasts between the First Vision accounts helps me:

- Be filled with love toward God and man
- Become a better parent to my children
- Gain a deeper understanding of the atonement, and its personal implications for me
- Offer more meaningful prayers
- Reach out more effectively to the poor, needy, sick, and afflicted
- Discern the Spirit more easily

I understand where you are coming from, though I disagree. I think that we DO uplift by preventing harm. Again, saying that you don't center your worship around these things is a straw man. Clearly you don't make that the focus. All I am talking about it tweaking the teaching materials to be more candid about these issues in context. It may not even come up every week.

Certainly I see that point that worship centers around inviting the spirit and feeling uplifted. But do you really believe that what I am suggesting here excludes that possibility?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I understand where you are coming from, though I disagree. I think that we DO uplift by preventing harm. Again, saying that you don't center your worship around these things is a straw man. Clearly you don't make that the focus. All I am talking about it tweaking the teaching materials to be more candid about these issues in context. It may not even come up every week.

Certainly I see that point that worship centers around inviting the spirit and feeling uplifted. But do you really believe that what I am suggesting here excludes that possibility?

I think what you're suggesting has the possibility of being a bigger distraction than you think. And I didn't say anything about "centering worship" ... I'm speaking of these items in the context we've been discussing them.

Appropriate historical background is perfectly fine, but I really don't see a need to ever introduce as a part of curriculum, from the pulpit or teacher's lecturn, the 3 different versions of the First Vision. I'm frankly amazed that you think doing so "prevents harm."

The substance of the issue aside, have you not read the plethora of posts on CG complaining about the lack of preparation and poor teaching skills of many class teachers? Have you ever been in a church class where the discussion gets irretrievably sidetracked by a completely irrelevant doctrinal topic? Even if the church did adopt the approach you're talking about, I'm not sure a lay membership is up to the challenge.

And let me emphasize: I'm not advocating a moratorium on all discussion. Just not during the 3-hour block.

[SoCalCoug]

If factual history is unimportant, with respect to spiritual and uplifting doctrinal discussions, why do they teach church history in Sunday School? Why do we spend so much time on the storyline in the Book of Mormon and the New Testament?

Because the factual background is relevant to the context of the spiritual teachings.

If facts are relevant to the context of the teachings, why isn't it important to get the facts right?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

If factual history is unimportant, with respect to spiritual and uplifting doctrinal discussions, why do they teach church history in Sunday School? Why do we spend so much time on the storyline in the Book of Mormon and the New Testament?

Because the factual background is relevant to the context of the spiritual teachings.

If facts are relevant to the context of the teachings, why isn't it important to get the facts right?

Or why don't we give some information on the varying viewpoints on certain factual assertions?

Basically, what Tex seems to be saying is that the facts don't matter, just that people walk away feeling good. We can make up the facts as we go along.

If the members feel good and like the story, it doesn't matter because it promotes faith.

[Tex]

Tex: "Appropriate historical background is fine."

SoCalCoug: WHAT?? You don't want the facts??? You don't want the background??

Archaea: Yeah! Yeah! Facts don't matter to Tex!

Nice demagoguery, boys. Two thumbs up.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Tex: "Appropriate historical background is fine."

SoCalCoug: WHAT?? You don't want the facts??? You don't want the background??

Archaea: Yeah! Yeah! Facts don't matter to Tex!

Nice demagoguery, boys. Two thumbs up.

Tex:

It is not a bad thing, but it shouldn't be in SS.

Several: Then where should it be?

Tex: Look, it isn't a bad thing, but not in SS.

Several: then where?

Tex: Don't be a demagogue.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Tex:

It is not a bad thing, but it shouldn't be in SS.

Several: Then where should it be?

Tex: Look, it isn't a bad thing, but not in SS.

Several: then where?

Tex: Don't be a demagogue.

...

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.

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't know what the ideal venue is. I mentioned some other possibilities previously ... maybe there's additional options, I don't know.

Honestly, creek, you're above this.