Does Inoculation Really Make A Difference?

[Brian 2.0]

Bullseye!

But then the church would just be a bunch of Marks and I would have nothing to complain about!

[sdc999]

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.

Just a question of curiosity.   Did you mention about polyandry as well?   That Smith and Young were married and or sealed to women who were concurrently married to other men.  Did you repeat the mantra, 'more women than men' or 'women couldn't own land', or 'many men died on the trek and the women needed to be taken care of'?  Because these were very often told inaccuratly by many

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

Here is the problem I see with that.  'go and find out for yourself'  but use trusted sources.  So, if a person goes to the bishop, is he a trusted source?  EQ president?  Or the internet?   I asked the bishop a bunch of questions prior to baptism many years ago.  He was very wrong about several things.  Things that would have made a difference, I believe, in my decision to join.  I did trust him.  I did pray about his answers and had great confirmation to settle the questions I had.  Even went forth and defended accusations against the church in the same manner that I was taught.  

Edited September 9, 2015 by sdc999

[3DOP]

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.

 

I have two kids that have kids so far. One of these with kids believes in inoculations, the other doesn't. I try to love both. It isn't so hard!

[Brian 2.0]

I have two kids that have kids so far. One of these with kids believes in inoculations, the other doesn't. I try to love both. It isn't so hard!

A house divided on the concept of inoculations cannot stand!

[Danzo]

Just a question of curiosity. Did you mention about polyandry as well? That Smith and Young were married and or sealed to women who were concurrently married to other men. Did you repeat the mantra, 'more women than men' or 'women couldn't own land', or 'many men died on the trek and the women needed to be taken care of'? Because these were very often told inaccuratly by many

We didn't talk specifically about each wife, so we didn't get in to that. Me and my wife have often discussed it though.

We didn't talk about reasons, other than the reason Jacob gives.

I think you may be a bit naïve, though if you call all of the reasons above innacurate.

Some women needed caring for and some women's husbands died on the trek. Sometimes there were more active women than men.

You seem to want a universal answer that is the same for everyone in every case. The truth is the lord commanded it. Different people were blessed and tried in different ways through their obedience or lack thereof to the principle.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Danzo

[mfbukowski]

But then the church would just be a bunch of Marks and I would have nothing to complain about!

As long as that does not include the Mark of the beast

But when you see all linguistic expressions as "metaphors", including science, the world really becomes a pretty marvelous place full of godlings organizing reality

Edited September 9, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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

That was supposed to say "an inconsistent world view"

[sdc999]

We didn't talk specifically about each wife, so we didn't get in to that. Me and my wife have often discussed it though.

We didn't talk about reasons, other than the reason Jacob gives.

I think you may be a bit naïve, though if you call all of the reasons above innacurate.

Some women needed caring for and some women's husbands died on the trek. Sometimes there were more active women than men.

You seem to want a universal answer that is the same for everyone in every case. The truth is the lord commanded it. Different people were blessed and tried in different ways through their obedience or lack thereof to the principle.

Naive?  no.  Could there have been an instance as cited above?  Sure.   But my statement more reflects the oft times that a person of 'authority' within the church has said, 'the reason for polygamy was......(fill in one of above statements)'   End of statement.  No Jacob reasons.   Later in the church, I began to hear the 'raise up seed' reasoning.  This was all good until a great friend of mine (He's still very much LDS) asked the stake president in a meeting why then did Joseph Smith not raise up any seed through this supposed commandment.  His question was not well received by the stake president and through a later conversation, he was made aware that it was not his role to question.  

The truth is that you believe the Lord commanded it.  I do not but I can respect that you do.  

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................................................................

 

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".  

......................................................................................   

A battle of lists?  Is that really what it boils down to?

 

Can we put so much confidence in the accuracy of either list -- pro or con -- that we can make a fair determination?  Is this how we make decisions in everyday life?

 

What is problematic about competing lists is the crazy assumption that we have the intellectual capacity to judge the relative merits of those lists.  This is clearly not the case, as I have repeatedly pointed out in other threads, and the  only workable alternative is go with our gut, or with the Holy Spirit (gut instinct and the Holy Spirit being indistinguishable for many).  In other words, make the the choice which leaves us with a clear conscience.  At least we will be able to sleep at night.  But, please, no pretence that we have made a deep historical analysis and reached a meaningful conclusion.  I often hear that from people who don't know anything about logic or history.  They make lists featuring a plethora of errors, and tell themselves that they are wise.  A little honesty and self-reflection wouldn't hurt.

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................................

.......................................a great friend of mine (He's still very much LDS) asked the stake president in a meeting why then did Joseph Smith not raise up any seed through this supposed commandment.  His question was not well received by the stake president and through a later conversation, he was made aware that it was not his role to question.  

The truth is that you believe the Lord commanded it.  I do not but I can respect that you do.  

You said that your great friend is still very much LDS, from which I assume that he had the gravitas to know that his stake president spoke in error, and possibly from a position of unrighteous dominion.  Would that other Saints would take such statements cum grano salis.

 

As to the item in Jacob, I doubt that Joseph was even aware of it -- unless you can show me his citation of it somewhere.

[Brian 2.0]

A battle of lists? Is that really what it boils down to?

Can we put so much confidence in the accuracy of either list -- pro or con -- that we can make a fair determination? Is this how we make decisions in everyday life?

What is problematic about competing lists is the crazy assumption that we have the intellectual capacity to judge the relative merits of those lists. This is clearly not the case, as I have repeatedly pointed out in other threads, and the only workable alternative is go with our gut, or with the Holy Spirit (gut instinct and the Holy Spirit being indistinguishable for many). In other words, make the the choice which leaves us with a clear conscience. At least we will be able to sleep at night. But, please, no pretence that we have made a deep historical analysis and reached a meaningful conclusion. I often hear that from people who don't know anything about logic or history. They make lists featuring a plethora of errors, and tell themselves that they are wise. A little honesty and self-reflection wouldn't hurt.

Woah there.

I used that list as an simple illustration. I'm not saying lets make lists and battle them out. I'm saying it probably not possible to get the information fully from a church source as there are probably critical evidences and arguments (and yes there are some that have merit) that the church just isn't going to put out there, and why would they?

[Robert F. Smith]

Woah there.

I used that list as an simple illustration. I'm not saying lets make lists and battle them out. I'm saying it probably not possible to get the information fully from a church source as there are probably critical evidences and arguments (and yes there are some that have merit) that the church just isn't going to put out there, and why would they?

You miss my point, Brian.

I am critical of the very idea that "evidences and reconciliations" (Widtsoe) or "Book of Mormon studies" (Roberts), or the like, are subject to useful appraisal by ordinary Mormons.  Whether the source be the LDS Church, or FAIRMORMON, or Ex-Mormons for Jesus makes little difference.  Why?  Because, as usual, those reading them have no idea whether what they are reading is coherent and reliable.

 

You say some points have merit, but how would you even know that for certain?  How would anyone else?  This Board is filled with sage disputations, which seem to go back and forth in a neverending sequence.  Is there ever a final answer?

How can we be sure of anything?

Auf bald,

Bob

[Brian 2.0]

You miss my point, Brian.

I am critical of the very idea that "evidences and reconciliations" (Widtsoe) or "Book of Mormon studies" (Roberts), or the like, are subject to useful appraisal by ordinary Mormons. Whether the source be the LDS Church, or FAIRMORMON, or Ex-Mormons for Jesus makes little difference. Why? Because, as usual, those reading them have no idea whether what they are reading is coherent and reliable.

You say some points have merit, but how would you even know that for certain? How would anyone else? This Board is filled with sage disputations, which seem to go back and forth in a neverending sequence. Is there ever a final answer?

How can we be sure of anything?

Auf bald,

Bob

So what makes one break free from the shackles of "ordinary" Mormondom so they can read those books and be able to use them?

Have you broken free from this Matrix-like prison we are in where it's impossible to tell a bad argument from a good one?

Edited September 9, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Danzo]

Naive? no. Could there have been an instance as cited above? Sure. But my statement more reflects the oft times that a person of 'authority' within the church has said, 'the reason for polygamy was......(fill in one of above statements)' End of statement. No Jacob reasons. Later in the church, I began to hear the 'raise up seed' reasoning. This was all good until a great friend of mine (He's still very much LDS) asked the stake president in a meeting why then did Joseph Smith not raise up any seed through this supposed commandment. His question was not well received by the stake president and through a later conversation, he was made aware that it was not his role to question.

The truth is that you believe the Lord commanded it. I do not but I can respect that you do.

Reading your post is almost like listening to a child. You must have one answer that works for all cases or all answers are wrong.

Why couldn't Joseph's reason be to teach a principle so that others could follow and raise up seed. Others could take care of women that needed help others could provide an opportunity for women to sealed because there were more women than men in their area? Others could be helped when their husbands died on the trail. It seems that you hear an answer and because it is wrong in one case, it is wrong in every case. Life doesn't work that way.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Danzo

[The Nehor]

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.

 

It would be a huge deal....probably because it is insane. Since faith in the the gospel is defined as faith in Jesus Christ not believing in God pretty much by definition makes you "less faithful".

[The Nehor]

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

 

You should read mine.

[jpv]

100% yes.

 

People that readily accept magic spectacles, do not have a problem with a magic rock.

 

People that are fine with Brigham's many and young wives, are fine knowing Joseph had the same.

 

The problem comes, when then have not been told the latter, and are shocked when it's presented by enemies of the Church.

[sdc999]

Reading your post is almost like listening to a child. You must have one answer that works for all cases or all answers are wrong.

Why couldn't Joseph's reason be to teach a principle so that others could follow and raise up seed. Others could take care of women that needed help others could provide an opportunity for women to sealed because there were more women than men in their area? Others could be helped when their husbands died on the trail. It seems that you hear an answer and because it is wrong in one case, it is wrong in every case. Life doesn't work that way.

 You and I are really in agreement per your statement.   You said "Joseph's reason" and I agree that it was from Joseph and not God. I'm glad you spoke clearly like an adult there.  I wouldn't have wanted to think you spoke as a child incorrectly when you said it was Joseph's and not God's.   Where did I say it was wrong in every case?   I will say that it is wrong when it is cited as 'the case'.     

Edited September 9, 2015 by sdc999

[mfbukowski]

You and I are really in agreement per your statement. You said "Joseph's reason" and I agree that it was from Joseph and not God. I'm glad you spoke clearly like an adult there. I wouldn't have wanted to think you spoke as a child incorrectly when you said it was Joseph's and not God's. Where did I say it was wrong in every case? I will say that it is wrong when it is cited as 'the case'.

Ah yes. One who always knows the Truth of All Things.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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 don't know, and I agree that the underlying conditions can 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.

As long as we are treating the questioners who come to the faith the same as questioners who leave the faith, I have no problems with what you are saying. Edited September 9, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[sdc999]

Ah yes. One who always knows the Truth of All Things.

Hey mfbukowski,   that's touching that you should acknowledge that.

[carbon dioxide]

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.

A man can only eat a 16 ounce steak one bite at a time.  The Church does not need to come out with one big letter dumping a lot of stuff on members at once.  It just needs to start incorporating some of this stuff in their Sunday School classes.  For example when it talks about the First Vision, it can first go over the various versions of Paul speaks of on his experience with Jesus going to Damascus.  It can then cover the different resurrection accounts in the gospels.  Then it can talk about the different First Vision accounts.  Noting the minor differences while showing the consistent themes that one finds in all of them.  One can point out that like Paul, Joseph Smith does not appear to have written about his First Vision experience soon after it happened but years later.   Overloading the members with a lot of stuff is not helpful but ignoring things is not helpful either. 

[KevinG]

A man can only eat a 16 ounce steak one bite at a time.  The Church does not need to come out with one big letter dumping a lot of stuff on members at once.  It just needs to start incorporating some of this stuff in their Sunday School classes.  For example when it talks about the First Vision, it can first go over the various versions of Paul speaks of on his experience with Jesus going to Damascus.  It can then cover the different resurrection accounts in the gospels.  Then it can talk about the different First Vision accounts.  Noting the minor differences while showing the consistent themes that one finds in all of them.  One can point out that like Paul, Joseph Smith does not appear to have written about his First Vision experience soon after it happened but years later.   Overloading the members with a lot of stuff is not helpful but ignoring things is not helpful either. 

 

...and 60 minutes into a 45 minute lesson we still haven't gotten to Joseph Smith's vision yet.  

 

There are practical limits to church education.  The details of how things were recorded and version harmonies, etc. are better dealt with in institute classes than Sunday School.

[BlueDreams]

I don't know if there's anything external of a person that can act as a guaranteed inoculate to losing one's faith. Personally I also don't know a lot of people who've decidedly left the church (not just inactive). One was through FB and part of it was that he felt he'd never received a personal witness mixed with things like the CES letter...that's probably the closest I know to someone who's left for historical/conflictual knowledge stuff.

 

Personally, I do think it can be a buffer of sorts...but I base this on my own experience who began surfing this and other boards like it when I was 14. So I feel like I have had a fair amount of exposure to varying things, enough so that new surprising details don't shock me anymore. I may have curiosity, but it's often also short-lived.

 

Still I also think it's about one's own heart and where you put it. I've, mentally had interest in said topics; but at the same time I was exploring MMM, JS' relationships, etc....I was also exploring my personal relationship with God. One was mentally enlightening and interesting, the other was soul changing and healing at a time I felt broken. Needless to say, one won out in matter of importance. And it's not like I don't hear from time to time arguments about the intricacies and distinctions of this or that point....I just don't care as much. There's more important things to me than the literal translation of a Facsimile.

 

I also don't throw a wide net when it comes to info about history, genetics, facsimiles, etc. I know, vaguely most points and the concerns tied with them. But I realized, early on, that if I wanted balance I would have to trust that other people of faith who know far more about a specific area have found ways to be at peace with the topic and that's enough for me. I have areas that I feel a little more knowledgeable than most...and I've also found my peace and trust God. 

 

So in my mind the only thing that really inoculates is maintaining and focusing on the basics while learning about other things....and having balance and wisdom in how you learn.

 

With luv,

Bd

[Danzo]

 You and I are really in agreement per your statement.   You said "Joseph's reason" and I agree that it was from Joseph and not God. I'm glad you spoke clearly like an adult there.  I wouldn't have wanted to think you spoke as a child incorrectly when you said it was Joseph's and not God's.   Where did I say it was wrong in every case?   I will say that it is wrong when it is cited as 'the case'.     

 

Just curious, but did anyone else who read my post think I was saying that I thought that the commandment was from Joseph and not God?