Does Inoculation Really Make A Difference?

[Calm]

Not me.

[carbon dioxide]

...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.

I would agree but how many members take an institute class?  One does not have to go into big deals.  In fact one could simply outline the basics and give a handout with the details and they can ask questions the next week.  I also think that the Church should have a Church History class during Sunday School or have a year dedicated to church history in gospel doctrine.  Don't have to get into ever little issue in Church history but I think members could benefit from more discussion on that.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

It's true that when "enemies of the church" seem to be more accurate than the church or the apologists, it creates problems.

[The Nehor]

It's true that when "enemies of the church" seem to be more accurate than the church or the apologists, it creates problems.

The operative phrase there being "seem to be".

[jkwilliams]

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.

 

In my experience, the problem with the "magic rock" is its connection to possibly fraudulent and illegal activities before the Book of Mormon was translated. Likewise, the problem with Joseph's practice of polygamy and polyandry was the deceit and, IMO, coercion involved. Most church members I know are fine with seer stones and polygamy, generally speaking, but many are upset when they find out the background behind these stories. How do you inoculate people against feeling there's something wrong with fraud and deceit?

[Danzo]

In my experience, the problem with the "magic rock" is its connection to possibly fraudulent and illegal activities before the Book of Mormon was translated. Likewise, the problem with Joseph's practice of polygamy and polyandry was the deceit and, IMO, coercion involved. Most church members I know are fine with seer stones and polygamy, generally speaking, but many are upset when they find out the background behind these stories. How do you inoculate people against feeling there's something wrong with fraud and deceit?

 

Perhaps I am not as versed in church history as you are, but I don't recall seeing any of the early converts of the church leaving because they found out about the "rock in the hat"

 

At least from my reading, it would seem the rock was common knowledge at the time (D&C 28 concerns seer stones), David Whitmer and others seemed aware of it and OK With it.

 

I would assume the people in New York would have been familiar with Joseph's Reputation.

 

It doesn't seem Joseph was hiding, or committing fraud by withholding this information.  

 

Were there people, at the time, who, after finding out about the seer stone, felt they were defrauded? Or is this accusation about fraud, regarding the seer stone, a modern phenomenon? 

 

I know Joseph was accused of many things, by many people, but I don't remember the accusation of withholding information about the seer stone being one of them.

[jkwilliams]

Perhaps I am not as versed in church history as you are, but I don't recall seeing any of the early converts of the church leaving because they found out about the "rock in the hat"

 

At least from my reading, it would seem the rock was common knowledge at the time (D&C 28 concerns seer stones), David Whitmer and others seemed aware of it and OK With it.

 

I would assume the people in New York would have been familiar with Joseph's Reputation.

 

It doesn't seem Joseph was hiding, or committing fraud by withholding this information.  

 

Were there people, at the time, who, after finding out about the seer stone, felt they were defrauded? Or is this accusation about fraud, regarding the seer stone, a modern phenomenon? 

 

I know Joseph was accused of many things, by many people, but I don't remember the accusation of withholding information about the seer stone being one of them.

 

I didn't realize we were talking about the reactions of people in Joseph Smith's day. Joseph did go out of his way to distance himself from his treasure-seeking activities with the seer stone.

 

ETA: I did not say he committed fraud by withholding information. I said that the treasure-seeking activities were possibly fraudulent and illegal, hence the charges brought against Joseph.

Edited September 10, 2015 by jkwilliams

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Perhaps I am not as versed in church history as you are, but I don't recall seeing any of the early converts of the church leaving because they found out about the "rock in the hat"

 

At least from my reading, it would seem the rock was common knowledge at the time (D&C 28 concerns seer stones), David Whitmer and others seemed aware of it and OK With it.

 

I would assume the people in New York would have been familiar with Joseph's Reputation.

 

It doesn't seem Joseph was hiding, or committing fraud by withholding this information.  

 

Were there people, at the time, who, after finding out about the seer stone, felt they were defrauded? Or is this accusation about fraud, regarding the seer stone, a modern phenomenon? 

 

I know Joseph was accused of many things, by many people, but I don't remember the accusation of withholding information about the seer stone being one of them.

 

I think it would be impossible to claim firm knowledge about every reason that caused people to leave or question the church in Joseph's time. We know that MANY left the church but I couldn't say that any left because of the rock or Joseph's treasure digging reputation, but I can't say that any didn't, either. Besides, does the supposition that someone else didn't have a problem preclude us from having that problem?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Yes, and those enemies do love to shock the naive and uninformed.  They live for it, and often liberally mix falsehood with fact in order to add to the trauma.

[jkwilliams]

Yes, and those enemies do love to shock the naive and uninformed.  They live for it, and often liberally mix falsehood with fact in order to add to the trauma.

What about when people are shocked when they find the information from friendly sources? Some of the information people learn about church history is upsetting to most people, no matter where they find it. And it's wholly unhelpful to call people "naive and uninformed" because they are upset about information that a lot of people would find upsetting. It just seems counterproductive to shift the focus away from the troubling information and why it's troubling in favor of pointing fingers at the naive and uninformed who are duped by enemies.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

As I said in post #34, "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."

 

One can break free of that "Matrix," but the price is very high, and perhaps not worth paying -- a lifetime of reading and very serious study.  Tough to do in a world in which "reality" is a social construction.  Mark Bukowski has been telling us that for a long while, and he is correct.

[Brian 2.0]

As I said in post #34, "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."

 

One can break free of that "Matrix," but the price is very high, and perhaps not worth paying -- a lifetime of reading and very serious study.  Tough to do in a world in which "reality" is a social construction.  Mark Bukowski has been telling us that for a long while, and he is correct.

 

But don't you think that that someone's gut/Holy Spirit could give them a different impression or direction to go after they have read such books (faithful or not), or read a bunch at FAIR or even the essays?   Since that reader isn't equipped enough to handle it, as you say, are you saying people should stay away from such things completely?

[readstoomuch]

I have been out of this conversation for a few days.  I wanted to bring up the fact that I practiced inoculation with my older children who both are not attending at the moment.  I can`t fault their personal actions as far as ethics, honesty or a loving demeanor.  In other words they act and look very much like active latter-day-saints, but don`t attend or wear their garments now.  I have younger children and after reading some opinions I have waited to discuss difficult historical items until they are older.  Closer to the temple, mission or when they ask.  I have had to answer some questions since they know their older siblings don`t attend now.  They have asked their brother and sister some questions or they come up randomly.  I don`t want to stay away from hard issues.  I just want to bring them up after they are moving to greater commitment in the Church.  I want so much for my younger children to remain faithful.  My youngest son will be old enough for a mission in a year.  The other girl is fourteen.  Only time will tell and of course I know the story is not over as far as the older children.  

[Robert F. Smith]

But don't you think that that someone's gut/Holy Spirit could give them a different impression or direction to go after they have read such books (faithful or not), or read a bunch at FAIR or even the essays?   Since that reader isn't equipped enough to handle it, as you say, are you saying people should stay away from such things completely?

No, but don't imagine that you have the tiger by the tail just because you have attended a conference, had a few conversations, and read a few books.

 

I'm not much worried about the different messages people might get from going with gut instinct or Holy Ghost.  I just hope they can sleep at night without any qualms.  The path of secular intellectual attainment should not be confused with the religious path.  They are each legitimate paths, but a path is not a home.  Both paths are processual, not static.  Start with Alma 32 and have patience.

[churchistrue]

I have been out of this conversation for a few days.  I wanted to bring up the fact that I practiced inoculation with my older children who both are not attending at the moment.  I can`t fault their personal actions as far as ethics, honesty or a loving demeanor.  In other words they act and look very much like active latter-day-saints, but don`t attend or wear their garments now.  I have younger children and after reading some opinions I have waited to discuss difficult historical items until they are older.  Closer to the temple, mission or when they ask.  I have had to answer some questions since they know their older siblings don`t attend now.  They have asked their brother and sister some questions or they come up randomly.  I don`t want to stay away from hard issues.  I just want to bring them up after they are moving to greater commitment in the Church.  I want so much for my younger children to remain faithful.  My youngest son will be old enough for a mission in a year.  The other girl is fourteen.  Only time will tell and of course I know the story is not over as far as the older children.  

The question of when and how much to tell kids is a good question I'm not exactly sure how to answer.  With kids and Santa Claus, about five-six years old is when the benefit of believing in Santa wears out and when the knowledge that he is not real starts to creep into their conscience.  What is the right time to help kids transition from a literal to a metaphorical faith?

[mnn727]

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

Were you privy to all of Joseph and Emma's conversations? or are you just believing the conclusion some  person came to (based on a lack of evidence)?

Edited September 11, 2015 by mnn727

[Brian 2.0]

Were you privy to all of Joseph and Emma's conversations? or are you just believing the conclusion some  person came to (based on a lack of evidence)?

 

No I wasn't privy to all of Joseph and Emma's conversations.  

 

I'm just coming to that conclusion, that many other people have come to, in looking at the evidences that are available.  Even the church says that it's likely Emma didn't know about some of Joseph's plural marriages.

 

I would image there are hordes of instances where you have come to a conclusion without EVERY piece of evidence available to you.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[mfbukowski]

The question of when and how much to tell kids is a good question I'm not exactly sure how to answer.  With kids and Santa Claus, about five-six years old is when the benefit of believing in Santa wears out and when the knowledge that he is not real starts to creep into their conscience.  What is the right time to help kids transition from a literal to a metaphorical faith?

For me the key was to teach them the whole ball of wax about metaphor and the difference between reality and linguistic representations

 

Even science is metaphor when you analyze it from a Kuhnian perspective.

 

Even a 9 year old understands the difference between BEING happy and saying that someone else is happy- that the words don't bring the same feelings.  But I will admit Santa was tough to deal with, and doing it over I would have handled that differently I think.

 

But my kids are all now adults and doing fine understanding that all human representations are metaphors

[mfbukowski]

No I wasn't privy to all of Joseph and Emma's conversations.  

What?

 

You didn't hear the tapes in their entirety?  Dude you are just plain uninformed! 

[Robert F. Smith]

For me the key was to teach them the whole ball of wax about metaphor and the difference between reality and linguistic representations

 

Even science is metaphor when you analyze it from a Kuhnian perspective.

 

Even a 9 year old understands the difference between BEING happy and saying that someone else is happy- that the words don't bring the same feelings.  But I will admit Santa was tough to deal with, and doing it over I would have handled that differently I think.

 

But my kids are all now adults and doing fine understanding that all human representations are metaphors

One can learn a lot about that in the LDS temple.

[Teancum]

One can learn a lot about that in the LDS temple.

 

Please do expand......

[mfbukowski]

Please do expand......

You had to have been there

[cinepro]

Were you privy to all of Joseph and Emma's conversations? or are you just believing the conclusion some  person came to (based on a lack of evidence)?

 

The situation with Emily Partridge establishes Emma's ignorance (and Joseph's duplicity) rather solidly

Edited September 13, 2015 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

Please do expand......

Can you meet me at the Provo Temple -- or at the new temple in Payson -- and I'll discuss it with you after we do an endowment session together.

 

Meantime, please note following comments from General Authorities:

 

Clearly, the mighty, eternal truths encompassing all that man is or may be, cannot be expressed literally, nor is there in the temple any attempt to do this. On the contrary, the great and wonderful temple service is one of mighty symbolism. By the use of symbols of speech, of action, of color, of form, the great truths connected with the story of man are made evident to the mind.  John A. Widtsoe, Rational Theology, 120.

 

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Moses 3:16-17). "Again," wrote Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality."  Elder McConkie also wrote elsewhere: "We do not know how the fall was accomplished any more than we know how the Lord caused the earth to come into being and to spin through the heavens in its paradisiacal state."  J. F. McConkie, Man Adam, 26-29.

 

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]”  Spencer W. Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, 6/3 (Mar 1976):70.

 

“Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.

“He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.”      Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 3:319.

 

    For those whose limited spiritual understanding precludes a recitation of all the facts, the revealed account, in figurative language, speaks of Eve being created from Adam's rib. (Moses 3:21-25.) A more express scripture, however, speaks of "Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed." (Moses 6:22. Italics added.) In a formal doctrinal pronouncement, the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) said that "all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner," and that the first of our race began life as the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. (See Improvement Era, November 1909, p. 80.)    (From Bruce R. McConkie, "Eve and the Fall," in Woman [1988] p. 60)

 

Scant knowledge is available to us of Eve (the wife of Adam) and her achievements in pre-existence and in mortality. Without question she was like unto her mighty husband Adam in intelligence and in devotion to righteousness during both her first and second estates of existence. She was placed on earth in the same manner as was Adam, the Mosaic account of the Lord creating her from Adam's rib being merely figurative. (Moses 3:20-25.)  [From B. R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. [1966], p. 242]

 

I saw only the mechanics when I first went through the Temple. I did not see the spiritual. I did not see the symbolism of spirituality.  . . . . The symbolism was lost entirely. . . .And so with the anointing, following the washing. Do you see the symbolism?...How many of us young men saw that? We thought we were big enough and with intelligence sufficient to criticize the mechanics of it and we were blind to the symbolism, the message of the spirit. And then that great ordinance, the endowment. The whole thing simple in the mechanical part of it, but sublime and eternal in its significance.  David O. McKay at the dedicatory services of the additions to the Arizona Temple, December 30, 1956, as cited in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, 277.

[Glenn101]

The situation with Emily Partridge establishes Emma's ignorance (and Joseph's duplicity) rather solidly

 

I asked a question but found the answer already. Ignore this.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Glenn101