Does Inoculation Really Make A Difference?

[Brian 2.0]

Something in the CES letter thread had me thinking and it was slightly off topic so since it's shut down, I might as well start a thread.

 

It's been said that if people found out about the "issues" from the church, or FAIR, or and apologist... someone providing better context and background, then the issues wouldn't steer someone out of the church because they'd be more equipped to handle them.  I wonder if that is true.

 

I was a really devout member who had a testimony and considered myself moderately well read -- I had read Rough Stone Rolling and Insider's View -- but I didn't read Sunstone/Dialogue/FAIR.  My deconversion was about 5 years long I would say. 

 

During that time I was getting plenty of information from non-church-friendly sources.  But I was quick to call BS to certain things and felt like I could separate their rhetoric from the evidences they presented.  And I checked with FAIR and this board and other places to try and fact check.  Now if I got all this from a church-friendly source would my experience have been different?  I don't know.

 

I will say that the church or church-friendly source would have be exhaustive to meet that requirement (something I doubt they would want to do).  For example, a list of "look at these bullseyes from Joseph Smith and the facsimiles" isn't sufficient unless I also see the list of things he got wrong, otherwise I'll look at non-church-friendly sources to see "the rest of the story".  

 

If the church put out a CES letter of its own and it listed out the same details, and provided whatever context and background they wanted... would that information be that much less troubling to people?  Or are the details the details, and people will react to them differently regardless of the source?  Personally, I think the church-written CES letter would have caused my line of questioning and doubt and led me to the same place... but that's obviously impossible to know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Duncan]

I don't know if it helps I told my 12 yr about the seer stone and translating the BOM and he just didn't care. He may later but he can't say I didn't tell him!

[KevinG]

Context does help with understanding.

 

Having said that - most of the people I personally spoke to during a "de-conversion" process had other underlying issues in the family, ward, or living their own faith, that made any new historical information more of a catalyst than a cause.

 

Your mileage may vary...  But I know of very few people who actually left the LDS Church over its history.  Most of those I know of are on the internet and not in my "real life".

[bluebell]

I admit that i don't have a lot of personal experience with this, but of the two friends that i know of who have left the church, both cited the "i was lied to!" justification.  So, at least for those two people, it seems like inoculation would have solved all of their troubles.  

 

If they had learned all of this stuff in primary, they would, assuming their reasons for leaving are honest (and i have no reason to doubt them) be members today.

[HappyJackWagon]

Facts are only facts without context. It's the interpretation of facts and those presenting the facts that make the difference.

 

If I'm told as a child that JS used the seer stone to translate the BoM I don't think I'd care. After all, I already accepted the U&T story. But if I'm originally told the wrong story I start to question the motives of the person who seemed to purposely tell me the wrong story. When I also learn that the seer stone was found before Joseph's angelic visitations and that he used it for treasure digging activities, some of which he was taken to court for, then that context informs my opinion.

 

So I think the innoculation works in the sense that if I already know there is a seer stone I won't be shocked when I hear about it later. If I'm not shocked, I may not go digging very deeply for greater context.

[Brian 2.0]

Context does help with understanding.

 

Having said that - most of the people I personally spoke to during a "de-conversion" process had other underlying issues in the family, ward, or living their own faith, that made any new historical information more of a catalyst than a cause.

 

Your mileage may vary...  But I know of very few people who actually left the LDS Church over its history.  Most of those I know of are on the internet and not in my "real life".

 

I'm on the other end of the spectrum I guess.  People leave for all kinds of reasons obviously, but in my circle of church friends I'm close with 4 other families (not counting my own) that stopped attending because the information led them to the conclusion that "the church is not true."  They were all active (and happy) in the church beforehand.  

 

Now in all of these cases, myself included, was a loss of faith in the "spiritual method" as being a reliable source in determining truth.  This is the main reason I say when people ask me "why".  Because with the spiritual witness "off the scales" as it were, the evidence seemed to flip the other way.  

[Duncan]

That's the thing, purposefully lying to someone, How am I supposed to know if someone is lying to me regarding an event in history? I could just go and find out for myself what is true and what isn't true, like we are supposed to do

[Brian 2.0]

Facts are only facts without context. It's the interpretation of facts and those presenting the facts that make the difference.

 

If I'm told as a child that JS used the seer stone to translate the BoM I don't think I'd care. After all, I already accepted the U&T story. But if I'm originally told the wrong story I start to question the motives of the person who seemed to purposely tell me the wrong story. When I also learn that the seer stone was found before Joseph's angelic visitations and that he used it for treasure digging activities, some of which he was taken to court for, then that context informs my opinion.

 

So I think the innoculation works in the sense that if I already know there is a seer stone I won't be shocked when I hear about it later. If I'm not shocked, I may not go digging very deeply for greater context.

 

I think the seer stone is a good example of the benefit of inoculation.  For sure that kind of stuff should be out there and taught by the church.  At most it's "weird" for some as they learn it, but it's not evidence JS wasn't a prophet.  I learned about the seer stone stuff in Rough Stone Rolling and it didn't kill my testimony.  And I've never had a "the church lied to me" attitude when I left.  I never had an angry phase.

 

But I think there are "facts" out there that the church may just never openly teach, and finding out that info may still be in the hands of the critics and have a similar effect.  It's one thing to simply say: "there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments" as the church said in the essay regarding the facsimiles... and quite another to see a chart showing what the characters in the vignettes are, what JS said they were, and what Egyptologists (even then LDS ones) say they are.

 

I personally don't think that if I read the church essay on the BoA FIRST that it would have caused me to believe differently about the BoA when exposed to the details of the critical arguments... but like I said, it's impossible for me to know that for sure.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Context does help with understanding.

 

Having said that - most of the people I personally spoke to during a "de-conversion" process had other underlying issues in the family, ward, or living their own faith, that made any new historical information more of a catalyst than a cause.

 

Your mileage may vary...  But I know of very few people who actually left the LDS Church over its history.  Most of those I know of are on the internet and not in my "real life".

I find this a fascinating line of thought. When I look at my own faith as it transitioned from orthodox believer, to a heterodox, orthoprax, heretical agnostic theist, there was certainly other stuff going on in my life that led me to reexamine the evidence as I saw it. As Brian put it, I lost a lot of faith in the "spiritual method." What is fascinating about this line of reasoning to me is I often see it offered up by believers to cast doubt on why people really leave, without reflection that the opposite must also then be true. Most people that join the church do so after some major life event or trauma. As missionaries we were told to look for these types of people (people with a recent birth, death, wedding, divorce, job loss etc) as they were more receptive to the gospel. Would you say that these people actually joined the church not because they thought it was true, but because of the other underlying issue?

 

I personally think you have it reversed. The "underlying issues" are the catalyst not the cause.

Edited September 8, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[KevinG]

I find this a fascinating line of thought. When I look at my own faith as it transitioned from orthodox believer, to a heterodox, orthoprax, heretical agnostic theist, there was certainly other stuff going on in my life that led me to reexamine the evidence as I saw it. As Brian put it, I lost a lot of faith in the "spiritual method." What is fascinating about this line of reasoning to me is I often see it offered up by believers to cast doubt on why people really leave, without reflection that the opposite must also then be true. Most people that join the church do so after some major life event or trauma. As missionaries we were told to look for these types of people (people with a recent birth, death, wedding, divorce, job loss etc) as they were more receptive to the gospel. Would you say that these people actually joined the church not because they thought it was true, but because of the other underlying issue?

 

I personally think you have it reversed. The "underlying issues" are the catalyst not the cause.

 

Hmmm...  OK I can see that. In my own conversion I was at a crossroads and receptive to the Holy Ghost's influence in a way I might not have been if my life was on a steady state.

 

On the other hand I've known those who were defenders of the faith but wearied of the struggle with a faithless spouse, or difficult children.  

 

Both can be true.

[Brian 2.0]

Hmmm...  OK I can see that. In my own conversion I was at a crossroads and receptive to the Holy Ghost's influence in a way I might not have been if my life was on a steady state.

 

On the other hand I've known those who were defenders of the faith but wearied of the struggle with a faithless spouse, or difficult children.  

 

Both can be true.

 

I think both can be true at the same time as well.  A lot of family or life problems can cause a re-examination because real life and God's interaction or lack thereof just doesn't seem to be consistent with the believer's worldview.

[Danzo]

This morning while we were doing family scripture study about Jacob chapter 2, we brought up Joseph Smiths and Brigham Young's polygamy and discussed it for a few moments.  Nobody seemed very distraught about it.

 

I guess i will find out later if it inoculated anyone successfully.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Danzo

[Brian 2.0]

This morning while we were doing family scripture study about Jacob chapter 2, we brought up Joseph Smiths and Brigham Young's polygamy and discussed it for a few moments.  Nobody seemed very distraught about it.

 

I guess i will find out later if it inoculated anyone successfully.

 

I think that's good.   But did you mention that Joseph wasn't truthful about it to Emma sometimes?

 

I guess the question becomes... is generally knowing that Joseph Smith was a polygamists inoculation enough to some of the more potentially troubling details about his execution of the practice of polygamy?  Or should you get into the nitty gritty of the details at some point?

[churchistrue]

I think it's helpful in the long run.  The essays are a good start.  They're probably most helpful to those growing up in the church.  If you're 30 and know nothing of these things and learn now, it's probably a little better you learn from the church but barely better than learning from "anti-Mormon" sources.  But for the youth, that surprise aspect where they think they've been lied to, will be dampened.

 

What I think would be most helpful is that as they roll out material like the essays, and bring out more and more info and teach it openly, that they also make room for the "metaphorical" believers.  The ones who reject historical truth claims but still find beauty and truth in the LDS church and can transition their faith from a literal to metaphorical view of the LDS church. If they can slowly open the door wide and wider to those types, then I think the inoculation will have its greatest value.  I think as people are faced with secular historical and scientific knowledge that many will struggle with literal view of church origins, no matter if they learn it from anti-Mormon sources or through inoculation.  So showing them how they can remain LDS would cover all angles.

[The Nehor]

Stories from people as to why they left the church are incredibly unreliable. This is a universal human condition. Ask a kid who went off to college and lost his faith why he left and he will probably tell you he reasoned his way out (ha!).

I have seen this on the other side. I have been involved to one degree or another in many conversions to the LDS faith both on and since my mission and the number of times people honestly reported the events incorrectly in their testimonies is very surprising. Sometimes I retread my journal to see if I was remembering wrong. A few times I was. In all those cases both our memories were faulty.

[KevinG]

Just remember some of those historical truths aren't always so true.

 

Anti-Mormons love to pile rumor on top of history on top of questionable testimony and come up with a shock and awe sandwich.

 

Meanwhile the opposite side of the spectrum are the Peter Priesthoods and Molly Mormons who cannot broker a negative thought about any past or present Mormon and will deny anything they learn that isn't flattering.

 

Don't seek to have a testimony of the history of the church, that way lies trouble.  Instead try to have a testimony of God, the Gospel and the Restoration from the Holy Spirit.

Edited September 8, 2015 by KevinG

[Brian 2.0]

I think it's helpful in the long run.  The essays are a good start.  They're probably most helpful to those growing up in the church.  If you're 30 and know nothing of these things and learn now, it's probably a little better you learn from the church but barely better than learning from "anti-Mormon" sources.  But for the youth, that surprise aspect where they think they've been lied to, will be dampened.

 

What I think would be most helpful is that as they roll out material like the essays, and bring out more and more info and teach it openly, that they also make room for the "metaphorical" believers.  The ones who reject historical truth claims but still find beauty and truth in the LDS church and can transition their faith from a literal to metaphorical view of the LDS church. If they can slowly open the door wide and wider to those types, then I think the inoculation will have its greatest value.  I think as people are faced with secular historical and scientific knowledge that many will struggle with literal view of church origins, no matter if they learn it from anti-Mormon sources or through inoculation.  So showing them how they can remain LDS would cover all angles.

 

I think a wide tent that incorporates non-literal believers (even when it comes to God) and that type of believer not being considered "less faithful" would be a huge deal.  That's a hard thing to teach though.

[Brian 2.0]

Stories from people as to why they left the church are incredibly unreliable. This is a universal human condition. Ask a kid who went off to college and lost his faith why he left and he will probably tell you he reasoned his way out (ha!).

I have seen this on the other side. I have been involved to one degree or another in many conversions to the LDS faith both on and since my mission and the number of times people honestly reported the events incorrectly in their testimonies is very surprising. Sometimes I retread my journal to see if I was remembering wrong. A few times I was. In all those cases both our memories were faulty.

 

eye-witness testimony is unreliable for sure, especially over time.  

 

But as a general rule I take more kindly to Sally's accounting of why she left left the church over John's accounting of the real reasons Sally left the church.  But I will keep a close eye on that pesky Sally.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Danzo]

I think that's good.   But did you mention that Joseph wasn't truthful about it to Emma sometimes?

 

I guess the question becomes... is generally knowing that Joseph Smith was a polygamists inoculation enough to some of the more potentially troubling details about his execution of the practice of polygamy?  Or should you get into the nitty gritty of the details at some point?

 

I should get in to the details more often.  But the truth (despite what others say here) is that we don't have a lot of information about how it happened.

 

The truth that I always teach is that Joseph smith, like others in church history made mistakes, told lies, got angry, disobeyed god often and needed to repent.

 

Poor Joseph Smith even had to publish his mistakes and calls for repentance and wickedness in the Doctrine and Covenants. (something I hope never happens to me!)

[Brian 2.0]

 

Poor Joseph Smith even had to publish his mistakes and calls for repentance and wickedness in the Doctrine and Covenants. (something I hope never happens to me!)

 

Patriarchal blessings would be a lot more fun if this happened in them. 

[Tacenda]

I think it's helpful in the long run. The essays are a good start. They're probably most helpful to those growing up in the church. If you're 30 and know nothing of these things and learn now, it's probably a little better you learn from the church but barely better than learning from "anti-Mormon" sources. But for the youth, that surprise aspect where they think they've been lied to, will be dampened.

What I think would be most helpful is that as they roll out material like the essays, and bring out more and more info and teach it openly, that they also make room for the "metaphorical" believers. The ones who reject historical truth claims but still find beauty and truth in the LDS church and can transition their faith from a literal to metaphorical view of the LDS church. If they can slowly open the door wide and wider to those types, then I think the inoculation will have its greatest value. I think as people are faced with secular historical and scientific knowledge that many will struggle with literal view of church origins, no matter if they learn it from anti-Mormon sources or through inoculation. So showing them how they can remain LDS would cover all angles.

This!

[Jeanne]

Contrary to what some people may think this board.  I really did leave because of the history.  I was in deep with the church and starting over in my life and was an avid reader of church books and magazines.  I remember asking my mother in law for all her old relief society manuals and I could not get enough.  I would read the Book of Mormon ...finish..and start again.  I went to Gospel Doctrine classes having read the lesson and the Ensign with a notebook of questions.

 

My heartbreak was real.  My daughter was concerned about the changes in my life and how it affected our relationship.  She told me things..I laughed..I screamed and that is when she sent me to FAIR and this board and many church sites.  I will never know which side of the fence I would have fallen but reading things from the LDS Church certainly seemed more convincing to enable me to feel justified in searching out more on the rest of the internet.  Please note that at the time, it would take a lot of things to have me walk away from trying to be sealed to my husband. 

Edited September 8, 2015 by Jeanne

[mfbukowski]

I find this a fascinating line of thought. When I look at my own faith as it transitioned from orthodox believer, to a heterodox, orthoprax, heretical agnostic theist, there was certainly other stuff going on in my life that led me to reexamine the evidence as I saw it. As Brian put it, I lost a lot of faith in the "spiritual method." What is fascinating about this line of reasoning to me is I often see it offered up by believers to cast doubt on why people really leave, without reflection that the opposite must also then be true. Most people that join the church do so after some major life event or trauma. As missionaries we were told to look for these types of people (people with a recent birth, death, wedding, divorce, job loss etc) as they were more receptive to the gospel. Would you say that these people actually joined the church not because they thought it was true, but because of the other underlying issue?

I personally think you have it reversed. The "underlying issues" are the catalyst not the cause.

Good point but how do you define the difference?

You can just as easily argue that the underlying conditions cause one to seek the spirit.

I think that as one grows intellectually one simply realizes how complicated and abstract thought is. I think those kind of thoughts lead one undeniably toward relativism. That also seems to be the underlying conclusion of the Perry scheme and other such paradigms. To me the problem arises when one has just enough information to start questioning but not enough training to reason through all the complications that come with it.

[mfbukowski]

I think both can be true at the same time as well. A lot of family or life problems can cause a re-examination because real life and God's interaction or lack thereof just doesn't seem to be consistent with the believer's worldview.

Yes and I would argue that in a consistent world view is the problem.

[mfbukowski]

I think it's helpful in the long run. The essays are a good start. They're probably most helpful to those growing up in the church. If you're 30 and know nothing of these things and learn now, it's probably a little better you learn from the church but barely better than learning from "anti-Mormon" sources. But for the youth, that surprise aspect where they think they've been lied to, will be dampened.

What I think would be most helpful is that as they roll out material like the essays, and bring out more and more info and teach it openly, that they also make room for the "metaphorical" believers. The ones who reject historical truth claims but still find beauty and truth in the LDS church and can transition their faith from a literal to metaphorical view of the LDS church. If they can slowly open the door wide and wider to those types, then I think the inoculation will have its greatest value. I think as people are faced with secular historical and scientific knowledge that many will struggle with literal view of church origins, no matter if they learn it from anti-Mormon sources or through inoculation. So showing them how they can remain LDS would cover all angles.

Bullseye! Edited September 9, 2015 by mfbukowski