Innoculating

[Mark Beesley]

I'm on my way out the door, but just a quick note . . .

I learned, the first time I went through the temple, that the Genesis account of the creation is figurative.

[Ahab]

Seriously? That’s your suggestion for inoculating the members against knowledge that conflicts with church claims? A lot has changed since that address was given. There is so much more information available to the average member at the click of a mouse so much information that conflicts with what the church has been teaching its members to cause the cognitive dissonance the disaffected struggle with. The best thing for the church to do is to merely come clean with the truth…teach an honest forthright narrative of its foundational stories…its amazing what alittle truth will do to help make members trust the organization. This I believe is the only path forward...why is it so difficult to just tell the truth and let the consequence follow?

Most of the disaffected that I know…were hurt the most by discovering that they had been misinformed by those in the church whom they trusted. Yes yes I know that no one here seems to accept the reality of that statement…and yes I know that you all have your pat answers to explain this reality away…but the reality is whether these disaffected were lazy, trusted too much in their teachers, perhaps even fell asleep during the lesson when the difficulties were taught or failed to read the Ensigns they subscribed to…whatever the excuse…these people feel that they were lied to by a church they had given complete trust to and believed were telling them everything.

It never amazes me that the church often asked members to become as children…and then when they do become children by placing their complete trust in this organization and become trusting like children…that somehow it is still the fault of these children when they discover that those that they trusted to be honest and tell them the truth are exposed as having been less than forthright.

I would love to talk with the Elder whom this talk is about to see if he is still in the church....I'd wager that the bennifits of reading the Book of Mormon were short lived...and didn't see him through in the long run...funny how physical evidence that conflicts with spiritual evidence tends to win in the long run...

Alright. It took a couple of minutes from my life to read what you wrote and I gave the Lord equal time while I read it. (Pausing while I read it to see what the Lord had to say about what you said). Now I'll just dismiss what you said without any further ado. Do you see how that works?

[Tacenda]

I say the church compiles a condensed version of church history that includes missing facts in the current history of the church. Making sure to not gloss or whitewash. It's been a burden on apolgetics, lots of man/woman hours answering for church leaders. It needs to come straight from the horses mouth. No more burdening the saints, like Fairlds etc. Yes, it will sting the unsuspecting LDS, but it's for future members. There are so many that have fallen away feeling lied to. Yes, I know, boo hoo, woe is me.

[Bikeemikey]

Least we forget..."The truth is not uplifting; it destroys." - Boyd K. Packer

Might want to say alleged to be said by Boyd k packer.

[tagriffy]

I'm on my way out the door, but just a quick note . . .

I learned, the first time I went through the temple, that the Genesis account of the creation is figurative.

I think you've just proven Johnnie's point.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Just for fun, name one.

I got one. January 1998 Ensign about Mormons having a literal belief in the Noah's Ark story.

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

What's most disturbing is that this is from 1998, not 1898.

[tyler90az]

The best way to inoculate a persons Testimony is expose them to all criticisms when they are young. That way nothing will become a shock when they discover it on the internet.

[Ahab]

The best way to inoculate a persons Testimony is expose them to all criticisms when they are young. That way nothing will become a shock when they discover it on the internet.

No, the best way is to teach them how to know what is true so that once they know it they will know anything contradictory to it is false and can not be true.

[CV75]

"As long as one keeps the faith?" Define that.

Our exchange began with my post, “Here is a case where how the participants agree on which definitions to use for “belief” and “doubt” is key to the value of the discussion. “ In it I also said that “faith is never bad and is always good.”

I had hoped you would define what you mean by “belief” and “doubt” but in the absence of such, it may be difficult to define a statement such as “As long as one keeps the faith" that would be sufficiently agreeable so as to be valuable to the discussion.

The definitions of belief, doubt and faith aside, at the very least, according to what I have already posted, “faith is never bad and is always good.” So “keeping the faith” means keeping that which is always good and never bad.

Specific to the definition of “faith,” I trust you have the basics of what that means [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=b2c20bbce1d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD ].

“The Apostle Paul taught that "faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Alma made a similar statement: "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true" (Alma 32:21). Faith is a principle of action and power. Whenever we work toward a worthy goal, we exercise faith. We show our hope for something that we cannot yet see.”

Specific to the pursuit of stuff that is either anti-Lord or pro-Lord in nature, faith is the principle of action or power to pursue either according to the Lord’s will.

Since you have not defined what you mean by "doubt," and you seem to be a proponent of fundamentally doing our homework with faith (and this is more fundamental and relevant to the best things and ways to study than belief or doubt are), I'm not sure what your point really is.

[TruthSeeker2013]

No, the best way is to teach them how to know what is true so that once they know it they will know anything contradictory to it is false and can not be true.

And what way is that? And how are we to know that that's the "best way" to know that something is true? My guess is you're answer is going to be something along the lines of "the spirit can tell you if something is true and that's the best way to know."

Unfortunately, that presents a circular reasoning problem. For example: The BOM teaches you that you can know the BOM is true by praying about it. How do you know that's the best way to find out if the BOM is true? Because the BOM is true and it said to do it that way.

And about contradictions, our church history is replete with examples of contradictions, so how are we to know if a current teaching is correct and won't just be contradicted in the future? Take for example the Adam-God doctrine, teachings against interracial marriage, contraception, Blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, etc.

I'm just putting out some things that people who are shocked to discovery new truths struggle with.

I think the best way to help people avoid shocking faith crises is to lay out the whole truth so that people are learning it from the church and not from critics.

[canard78]

I agree. Give the Lord equal time and you wont have any doubts

That's unfortunately not an outcome for all people. The strength of my testimony was probably at all time high before deciding to explore church origins and history. I did this as a strong believing member and my main motivation was to better understand the issues that had lead my wife to stop attending 24 months earlier.

The odd idea about inoculation is that it comes from the meaning to: "implant germs of a disease to produce immunity"

In other words, we're effectively saying we need to give enough "horrible history" to the members in small, manageable doses as it has the ability to "kill" (testimony) if discovered in a big dose.

It occurred to me recently how 'normal' the idea was of Joseph being visited in his bedroom 3 times in one night by an angel, finding Nephite spectacles, translating a record from a dead language into 16thC English, introducing polygamy etc. But when presented with the idea that he also put a rock in a hat, may have believed in treasure guardians/scrying, introduced polyandry etc I was initially horrified. "That's ridiculous," I thought. The angel and spectacles was perfectly normal/respectable because they had just always been part of the story.

If the Book of Mormon had been taught as a simple 'inspired dictation' with no other context then even discovering the angels would be shocking.

I am currently 'inoculating' my children. When we discuss the Book of Mormon translation, for example, I mention casually the fact that in addition to the Nephite interpreters Joseph also used a stone in a hat and that both were simply ways for him to focus on receiving the inspired words to dictate. It is becoming a normal part of the story.

But... I wonder if that really is responsible parenting? Is it really ok to normalise something that really isn't 'normal.' A parent can make most things seem normal to a child if they repeat it enough.

[canard78]

The best way to inoculate a persons Testimony is expose them to all criticisms when they are young. That way nothing will become a shock when they discover it on the internet.

And make them smoke a dozen cigarettes while you're at it

As I mention in my previous post. If a parent did that, it would probably work. It normalises it. But should it really be normalised

[ERayR]

And what way is that? And how are we to know that that's the "best way" to know that something is true? My guess is you're answer is going to be something along the lines of "the spirit can tell you if something is true and that's the best way to know."

Unfortunately, that presents a circular reasoning problem. For example: The BOM teaches you that you can know the BOM is true by praying about it. How do you know that's the best way to find out if the BOM is true? Because the BOM is true and it said to do it that way.

And about contradictions, our church history is replete with examples of contradictions, so how are we to know if a current teaching is correct and won't just be contradicted in the future? Take for example the Adam-God doctrine, teachings against interracial marriage, contraception, Blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, etc.

I'm just putting out some things that people who are shocked to discovery new truths struggle with.

I think the best way to help people avoid shocking faith crises is to lay out the whole truth so that people are learning it from the church and not from critics.

See OP.

[ERayR]

And make them smoke a dozen cigarettes while you're at it

As I mention in my previous post. If a parent did that, it would probably work. It normalises it. But should it really be normalised

Don't forget the six pack.

[canard78]

Alright. It took a couple of minutes from my life to read what you wrote and I gave the Lord equal time while I read it. (Pausing while I read it to see what the Lord had to say about what you said). Now I'll just dismiss what you said without any further ado. Do you see how that works?

Bearing witness/saying "you're because the spirit told me so" is generally frowned on in these parts. It's also a futile line of argument. It usually leads to an argument of whose (spiritual) impression is the strongest. That's pointless because obviously mine is for me and yours is for you. You create an instant dead-end.

[canard78]

Don't forget the six pack.

Probably worth plying them with a few vodka shots while at it. I hear it's far more likely to induce vomiting.

Now if only there was a way to forcibly convince Mormons to eat meat sparingly. Maybe a trip to the slaughter house on their 8th birthday...

[tagriffy]

Our exchange began with my post, “Here is a case where how the participants agree on which definitions to use for “belief” and “doubt” is key to the value of the discussion. “ In it I also said that “faith is never bad and is always good.”

I had hoped you would define what you mean by “belief” and “doubt” but in the absence of such, it may be difficult to define a statement such as “As long as one keeps the faith" that would be sufficiently agreeable so as to be valuable to the discussion.

The definitions of belief, doubt and faith aside, at the very least, according to what I have already posted, “faith is never bad and is always good.” So “keeping the faith” means keeping that which is always good and never bad.

Specific to the definition of “faith,” I trust you have the basics of what that means [http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD ].

“The Apostle Paul taught that "faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Alma made a similar statement: "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true" (Alma 32:21). Faith is a principle of action and power. Whenever we work toward a worthy goal, we exercise faith. We show our hope for something that we cannot yet see.”

Specific to the pursuit of stuff that is either anti-Lord or pro-Lord in nature, faith is the principle of action or power to pursue either according to the Lord’s will.

Since you have not defined what you mean by "doubt," and you seem to be a proponent of fundamentally doing our homework with faith (and this is more fundamental and relevant to the best things and ways to study than belief or doubt are), I'm not sure what your point really is.

We are probably talking past each other. Let's go ahead and see where defining belief and doubt will get us. Doubt is the functional equivalent of misgivings, questions, objections. Belief is the acceptance of something being true, expressed in degrees of certainty.

[Avatar4321]

Ugggg...

One: Adam was first man

I was unaware that science had disproved that.

[cinepro]

CFR

The witnesses I have received through the manifestations of the Holy Ghost (spiritual evidence) will trump any and every negative report (physical evidence) you can lay on me regarding Church history, doctrine, policies or practices. Every person I have ever known who has maintained a solid spiritual practice (study, prayer and service) has withstood the barbs of what you like to tout as "physical evidence."

As Truthseeker2013 pointed out, the physical evidence against the global flood of Noah has pretty much obliterated the Church's official doctrine on the subject.

Even many people who maintain a solid spiritual practice have had to re-frame the Noah story in order to keep it compatible with the science on the subject.

[cinepro]

I got one. January 1998 Ensign about Mormons having a literal belief in the Noah's Ark story.

https://www.lds.org/...-babel?lang=eng

What's most disturbing is that this is from 1998, not 1898.

No, what's most disturbing about this is that it wasn't an ignorant GA or Religion Teacher with an infatuation for a too-literal reading of Genesis 8. The article was written by a PhD, professor of the Hebrew Bible and Hebrew Language. If there is anyone in the Church that should understand the non-global scope of the flood, that's him.

Another epic fail on the subject was this article written by a professor of the "History of Science":

The worldwide flood of Noah’s time has been accepted as a benchmark historical event by Jews and Christians for thousands of years—and similar traditions appear among the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and some American Indian tribes. Yet the story is regarded skeptically today in our secular world. Most current geology texts ignore the Flood, ridicule it, or use it as an example of prescientific superstition.

Consequently, Latter-day Saints and other Christians sometimes find the apparent conflict between their faith in the scriptures and their education puzzling. The account of Noah’s flood is a typical illustration of the differences which occur between scriptural information and modern secular teachings about the history of the world.

--------------------------------------------

Within this enlarged view of a celestial uniformity, the worldwide flood of Noah’s time, so upsetting to a restricted secular view, fits easily into place. It is the earth’s baptism. Brigham Young pointed out that the earth “abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water, will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon” (in Journal of Discourses, 8:83).

Edited June 14, 2013 by cinepro

[tagriffy]

I am currently 'inoculating' my children. When we discuss the Book of Mormon translation, for example, I mention casually the fact that in addition to the Nephite interpreters Joseph also used a stone in a hat and that both were simply ways for him to focus on receiving the inspired words to dictate. It is becoming a normal part of the story.

But... I wonder if that really is responsible parenting? Is it really ok to normalise something that really isn't 'normal.' A parent can make most things seem normal to a child if they repeat it enough.

Context is everything. You don't have to explain that it was normal. Even kids realize that being visited by angels is not normal. As they grow up, just build on what you've already taught them by talking about the cultural context Joseph lived in. Later on, they'll decide how they want to deal with the issue for themselves.

[tyler90az]

And make them smoke a dozen cigarettes while you're at it

As I mention in my previous post. If a parent did that, it would probably work. It normalises it. But should it really be normalised

You provide a perfect example with cigarettes. People are told the truth about cigarettes and what do you know smokers are going down. Have a simple discussion with your kid about what some anti attacks will be. What do you know apostates go down.

The truth is telling my generation and any following to not look on the internet for something is folly. Keep doing what we are doing and lose valuable members or come up with a possible solution.

[tyler90az]

Probably worth plying them with a few vodka shots while at it. I hear it's far more likely to induce vomiting.

Now if only there was a way to forcibly convince Mormons to eat meat sparingly. Maybe a trip to the slaughter house on their 8th birthday...

You really underestimate a child's faith.

[canard78]

No, what's most disturbing about this is that it wasn't an ignorant GA or Religion Teacher with an infatuation for a too-literal reading of Genesis 8. The article was written by a PhD, professor of the Hebrew Bible and Hebrew Language. If there is anyone in the Church that should understand the non-global scope of the flood, that's him.

Another epic fail on the subject was this article written by a professor of the "History of Science":

The other issue with this approach is the arrogance of it. 'Some weak minded people are fooled by the evidence that there was no global flood but faithful Mormons know better.'

It unnecessarily puts some Mormons in an uncomfortable situation of feign like they are being less faithful for not believing a global flood story.

It's nonsense. There was no global flood and I had reached this conclusion many years ago, long before I entered any 'faith crisis.'

I openly discussed my view that it was a limited geography flood and no-one had an issue with it.

By the way, you can add China to the flood legends... Fuxi and Nuwa (brother and sister) survived it and went to a mountain to get divine permission to restart the human race. They even made some humans from clay and breathed life into them to kick-start the process.

http://taoism.about.com/b/2008/09/03/nuwa-fuxi.htm

Fuxi is pictured above intertwined with Nuwa - who is sometimes named as his sister, sometimes as his wife.

According to one Chinese creation myth, Fuxi and Nuwa were siblings, and the sole survivors of a massive flood. After the flood, Fuxi and Nuwa received Divine approval to procreate, in order to re-establish the human race. This was a big job, so in addition to the usual means of procreating, the two were also empowered to create clay figures, into which they infused the breath of life.

They are usually depicted holding a compass and square... Which is kind of cool from an LDS perspective. But probably a coincidence.

[canard78]

You really underestimate a child's faith.

And you probably misread my dry British humour.