LDS Inoculation - Good or Bad?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Come on, creek, don't throw in with these half-brights. I offered some other options, and I also said I'm not really sure. I'm open to discussion on the topic. Quit pretending like I ignored it.

I'm not throwing in, nor do I think they are half-brights, but I found your post to be rather silly and so presented you with the same.

I am very sympathetic to your objections (although I would not go so far) especially with the difficulty involved in getting an instructor to handle it well. I would also add that in your average ward I don't think most people even WANT to hear this stuff. The thing that bothers me is that I wish the church would take control and own these issues. I wish thye would put out their own materials to address some of them, even if in a very general way (along the lines of what UtahDan mentioned) to help those people who do wnat to learn more. THe anti's are out there. The non-LDS academics are out there. THe church's absence on the stage is leaving a vacuum that is being filled by those we dislike and who do nto see the gospel as true. I do not think a testimony should be based on this sort of analysis, and I agree that the meetings need to be uplifting, but can't we at least provide some ammo for our own people?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

I'm not throwing in, nor do I think they are half-brights, but I found your post to be rather silly and so presented you with the same.

Fair enough. I simply get tired of the chattering naboobs every now and again.

Originally Posted by creekster

I am very sympathetic to your objections (although I would not go so far) especially with the difficulty involved in getting an instructor to handle it well. I would also add that in your average ward I don't think most people even WANT to hear this stuff. The thing that bothers me is that I wish the church would take control and own these issues. I wish thye would put out their own materials to address some of them, even if in a very general way (along the lines of what UtahDan mentioned) to help those people who do wnat to learn more. THe anti's are out there. The non-LDS academics are out there. THe church's absence on the stage is leaving a vacuum that is being filled by those we dislike and who do nto see the gospel as true. I do not think a testimony should be based on this sort of analysis, and I agree that the meetings need to be uplifting, but can't we at least provide some ammo for our own people?

I'm not opposed to the church putting out its own materials, or providing some "extra-curricular" venue for discussion on these topics. I just don't think the block is the time to do it.

I'm not sure the vacuum is as large or as empty as folks around here think it is. I think there's some good wisdom in not deigning to respond to the barking dogs everytime they yap (what I should've done with SoCal and Arch, I suppose). We haven't armed our missionaries (our "front line" you might say) with this sort of "ammo" in nearly two centuries and seem to be doing just fine.

But again, I'd be supportive of such an effort, so long as it took place outside the thrust of our theology-based curriculum.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

Fair enough. I simply get tired of the chattering naboobs every now and again.



I'm not opposed to the church putting out its own materials, or providing some "extra-curricular" venue for discussion on these topics. I just don't think the block is the time to do it.

I'm not sure the vacuum is as large or as empty as folks around here think it is. I think there's some good wisdom in not deigning to respond to the barking dogs everytime they yap (what I should've done with SoCal and Arch, I suppose). We haven't armed our missionaries (our "front line" you might say) with this sort of "ammo" in nearly two centuries and seem to be doing just fine.

But again, I'd be supportive of such an effort, so long as it took place outside the thrust of our theology-based curriculum.

You think the church would ever actually provide a venue for discussion of controversial topics? Also, by what standard are the missionaries "doing just fine"? Surely you don't think the church is happy with the current trend.

It also seems as if you're still under the impression that antis are the source of all the facts not included in official church literature. This isn't the case.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Adam

• When Joseph told others of the First Vision, many people became prejudiced against him and persecuted him (page 33). Why do you think people reacted in this way? Ponder Joseph’s response to the persecution (pages 33–34). How can we follow his example when we face persecution or other trials?

I was actually surprised to find that Joseph was not persecuted for saying he saw God and Jesus in the grove. If you go back and read the accounts taken in Palmyra from people who hated Joseph they all talk about him lying about the Golden plates but nobody complained about him saying he saw God and Jesus.

People having personal theophanies was a common occurence back in those days. Man goes into the woods, prays fervently, God appears and tells him his sins are forgiven. It was as common as people being saved in a holy roller meeting.

That was the only story Joseph told in the early days; He saw "The Lord" and "The Lord" told him he was forgiven of his sins. No mention of two beings, no mention of false churches, no mention of a divine mission.

Joseph filled in the details later when he needed to shore up his authority. Saying he was persecuted in Palmyra for saying he saw God and Jesus never happened.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

I was actually surprised to find that Joseph was not persecuted for saying he saw God and Jesus in the grove. If you go back and read the accounts taken in Palmyra from people who hated Joseph they all talk about him lying about the Golden plates but nobody complained about him saying he saw God and Jesus.

People having personal theophanies was a common occurence back in those days. Man goes into the woods, prays fervently, God appears and tells him his sins are forgiven. It was as common as people being saved in a holy roller meeting.

That was the only story Joseph told in the early days; He saw "The Lord" and "The Lord" told him he was forgiven of his sins. No mention of two beings, no mention of false churches, no mention of a divine mission.

Joseph filled in the details later when he needed to shore up his authority. Saying he was persecuted in Palmyra for saying he saw God and Jesus never happened.

I don't believe the only interpretation of events is he filled in the details to shore up authority. In fact, it is too simplistic.

I find it more believable that his first emphasis upon going into the woods was his own salvation, and how he could get forgiveness. Where do I go?

Now this all assumes there could be truth to what Joseph said, if you have come to a conclusion he is a lying sack of crap, then you won't follow.

However, he goes and is told your sins are forgiven and don't join. Joseph's relieved and as a fourteen year old, didn't really care about the rest. He doesn't really tell anybody but family for a long time and then goes about growing up. As he learns more about religion and reflects upon it, some of the details become more important. That's equally plausible given what we know.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

If I started a weekly gospel home study group to explore the underbelly of doctrine and the church, we'd be busted in less then a month--labeled a subversive group and told to disband post-haste.

And this is a point I made but Tex ignored.

We are specifically instructed to NOT form small study groups, and SS won't address issues.

To expect it all to be delayed until a Know Your Religion series is silly and unrealistic.

I agree the manual is a disappointment and the treatment of the First Vision is childish.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

See, this is why you and your ilk drive me crazy.

1. Today sets a new mile-marker in my CG experience. I never thought I'd be asked to defend the First Vision's place in the restoration. I really don't feel the need to do this, though. It's as though you've bizarrely asked me to justify calling the sky blue.

2. This is really point #1 redux.

3. As I told Lebowski, testimonies are tried by all sorts of doctrines and events. The key is to build them on eternal matters, not on academic persuasions. Your yammering that the First Vision story is a lie is just plain silly. See point #1.

4. Congrats, you can join SoCal and Arch in remedial reading comprehension. I didn't say context was "not needed". The rest of your rant is a non sequitur, as if Prozac prescriptions are derived from the format of a Sunday School lesson.

Or Tex, would you prefer that I should hang my head in silence and listen ...

Yes, I think this would be nice.

Originally Posted by Adam

If I started a weekly gospel home study group to explore the underbelly of doctrine and the church, we'd be busted in less then a month--labeled a subversive group and told to disband post-haste.

I was thinking of something along the lines of a church-sponsored activity, which I believe is what UtahDan and creekster were advocating as well.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I was thinking of something along the lines of a church-sponsored activity, which I believe is what UtahDan and creekster were advocating as well.

Ok. What regular Church sponsored activity is there that meets these needs?

Know Your Religion is not regular and available.

There is a need, but there is no regular outlet.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Ok. What regular Church sponsored activity is there that meets these needs?

Know Your Religion is not regular and available.

There is a need, but there is no regular outlet.

Yes, I've acknowledged that. As I have said more than once, Arch, I'm open to discussion on this. What are some other ideas besides inserting it into the 3-hour block?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes, I've acknowledged that. As I have said more than once, Arch, I'm open to discussion on this. What are some other ideas besides inserting it into the 3-hour block?

Not to be too binary, I can't see any effective option.

Do we need more meetings? Are people likely to attend them? Although the three hour block is not optimal, it may be the only option.

It could also be another Sunday School class. Gospel Essentials, Gospel Worship and Gospel Study.