Gospel topics essays

[smac97]

Just now, Jeanne said:

This.  There is  healing for some that may be needed.  Doing it sooner and with others would be a whole lot better.

That has been done in our ward.  A few times, actually.  In fact, the bishop is planning an "inoculation" discussion for the youth for this month's 5th Sunday Lesson.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

Just now, smac97 said:

That has been done in our ward.  A few times, actually.  In fact, the bishop is planning an "inoculation" discussion for the youth for this month's 5th Sunday Lesson.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is great..hopefully he is not the only Bishop in your Stake doing this.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That has been done in our ward.  A few times, actually.  In fact, the bishop is planning an "inoculation" discussion for the youth for this month's 5th Sunday Lesson.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's great to hear!

[Gray]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think the Church is in trouble in terms of keeping the younger generations.  Elder Snow suggests the essays were written and made available in part because of the rising generation leaving.  He uses the term inoculate to describe the purpose of the essays.  They were written to inoculate the youngsters, it seems.  Inoculate suggests they were written to give some weaker strain of a disease to keep from full blown disease.  It was interesting choice of words.  I've long felt that the Church is way better off being open and honest about history and difficult issues and I think there's some effort to do this.  I would hope the Church would learn to be even more open and frank.  But the essays are a good start. 

Any thoughts on how the essays inoculate? 

https://clyp.it/gq0cdhf1#

 

Think about the story of the lost 116 pages. That's a bit troubling if you think about it, coming from a typical mainstream Mormon perspective. But I was taught about it in seminary, so it was never a big deal. I was inoculated. 

[HappyJackWagon]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That has been done in our ward.  A few times, actually.  In fact, the bishop is planning an "inoculation" discussion for the youth for this month's 5th Sunday Lesson.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's cool. We had attempted something similar a couple of times while I was bishop and it amazes me that people I know were in those meetings, reviewing the race and priesthood essay (for example), still seem have no clue about it.

The more I hear the word "inoculation" the more absurd I think it is. I think the church is going to need to change its language on this because it sounds like they're still only giving a small amount of the virus (truth) to prepare them for the full virus (truth). It sounds like they're using partial truth to protect against the full truth.

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Very interesting.  It says something that you were 10 and it seems you were able to deal with the truth of MMM, even if it was difficult.  That event is difficult to deal with for adults.  We all have to face the facts at some point.  It must be better the more prepped we are when the difficult information comes. 

I remember finding out about the MMM around the same age 10-12ish.  My parents had a book about it.  It was disturbing to find out what member of the church are capable of doing.  

Although it was a little shocking at at that age, the more I have grown and studied the gospel, them I have realized that most of the scriptures deal with condemning, correcting or otherwise calling the church to repentance. 

As a member of the church, I am not immune to temptations to do even terrible things.  And I always must watch out for behaviors and attitudes that would tempt me to doing things that are not right.

For me that is the big lesson from the MMM.

 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I remember finding out about the MMM around the same age 10-12ish.  My parents had a book about it.  It was disturbing to find out what member of the church are capable of doing.  

Although it was a little shocking at at that age, the more I have grown and studied the gospel, them I have realized that most of the scriptures deal with condemning, correcting or otherwise calling the church to repentance. 

As a member of the church, I am not immune to temptations to do even terrible things.  And I always must watch out for behaviors and attitudes that would tempt me to doing things that are not right.

For me that is the big lesson from the MMM.

 

Every one deals with them differently.  I don't remember when I first heard about MMM, but I do recall a seminary teacher explaining that it wasn't members but native americans who did the killing.  I didn't think much of it beyond that and when it was brought up years later, I had a hard time making the connection. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, it is interesting to see the term "inoculate" being used by Elder Snow (and Elder Ballard before him).  This is a concept that has been tossed around on the fringes for some years and is now making it's way into GA language.  They are acknowledging the problem with the way the church narrative has been taught and that there is a need to inoculate the younger generation.  The implication here is that finding out that the reality differs from the narrative can deliver a "fatal" blow to older members.  For me, it feels good, after all these years, to have top leaders of the church validate some of the pain I've passed through.

I think the essays inoculate by giving members just enough of the more detailed and accurate narrative that they will feel comfortable and not dig deeper when confronted with difficult issues in the future.  

For me, equal to the despair I felt at finding out that the narrative I believed was false, was the betrayal I felt at the leaders who never shared the true narrative with me.  I think the essays also inoculate in the sense that they may help reduce those feelings of betrayal.

But what is concerning in all of this is that the church is putting emphasis on teaching the gospel topics essays to young members in the church but not planning to roll them into curriculum for all members.

You and stemelbow seem to take the same view that Snow & Ballard are correct to speak of "innoculation," which I think is  poppycock.  The Gospel Topics Essays simply summarize information long known, but not widely disseminated, so as to make it more available to the hoi polloi.  It is merely a part of a much larger effort to professionalize the LDS History Dept, which was inevitable, and which has been going on since the early 1970s.  In other words, the LDS Church is coming of age in ways which were impossible in earlier history, requiring a well-educated group of members to staff it.  This was coterminous with the start of various Mormon journals, such as Dialogue, Sunstone, and the  like.  I saw the development first hand and consider it quite natural.  Through it all, we still have to observe the old adage of "milk before meat."  The ignorant stampede to gain knowledge of the mysteries before having built a sound foundation will always apply to any educational project.  Patience is required.  I see no likelihood that large numbers of youth will be leaving the faith any time soon.  In fact, we see just the opposite.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Every one deals with them differently.  I don't remember when I first heard about MMM, but I do recall a seminary teacher explaining that it wasn't members but native americans who did the killing.  I didn't think much of it beyond that and when it was brought up years later, I had a hard time making the connection. 

That's interesting, I think what made a big difference for me was that my first exposure was from a fairly well researched book (I Think it was the one by Juanita Brooks).

Sounds like you got the folk version of the story first.  Sometimes when you are young its difficult to distinguish the "folk' version of the story with the real version of the story.

Since I have gotten older, I tried to avoid teaching the myths, or at least preface them with something like this "I don't know if its true or not, but according to . . ." or "It may be just a myth, but I once heard that . . ."

Unfortunately most people assume that what they know is the "Truth(tm)" as it really happened and don't realize its just the truth as it has been told to them.

 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You and stemelbow seem to take the same view that Snow & Ballard are correct to speak of "innoculation," which I think is  poppycock.  The Gospel Topics Essays simply summarize information long known, but not widely disseminated, so as to make it more available to the hoi polloi.  It is merely a part of a much larger effort to professionalize the LDS History Dept, which was inevitable, and which has been going on since the early 1970s.  In other words, the LDS Church is coming of age in ways which were impossible in earlier history, requiring a well-educated group of members to staff it.  This was coterminous with the start of various Mormon journals, such as Dialogue, Sunstone, and the  like.  I saw the development first hand and consider it quite natural.  Through it all, we still have to observe the old adage of "milk before meat."  The ignorant stampede to gain knowledge of the mysteries before having built a sound foundation will always apply to any educational project.  Patience is required.  I see no likelihood that large numbers of youth will be leaving the faith any time soon.  In fact, we see just the opposite.

Well, it was Elder Snow who observed that the essays were put out to combat the large numbers of young people who were leaving.  I'm seeing the exit plans regularly these days.  It's inevitable that many young people will leave.  It'll always be so with religion.  The relative size of the flood will eb and flow, I'd imagine. 

The choice of the word inoculate was odd to me, though.  We probably should be better at addressing the issues in a pretty open way while not viewing them as a problem, but as a reality.  I acknowledge you are right about the efforts of the past.  But, I also will suggest there is plenty ahead for us and the Church to travel. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You and stemelbow seem to take the same view that Snow & Ballard are correct to speak of "innoculation," which I think is  poppycock.  The Gospel Topics Essays simply summarize information long known, but not widely disseminated, so as to make it more available to the hoi polloi.  It is merely a part of a much larger effort to professionalize the LDS History Dept, which was inevitable, and which has been going on since the early 1970s.  In other words, the LDS Church is coming of age in ways which were impossible in earlier history, requiring a well-educated group of members to staff it.  This was coterminous with the start of various Mormon journals, such as Dialogue, Sunstone, and the  like.  I saw the development first hand and consider it quite natural.  Through it all, we still have to observe the old adage of "milk before meat."  The ignorant stampede to gain knowledge of the mysteries before having built a sound foundation will always apply to any educational project.  Patience is required.  I see no likelihood that large numbers of youth will be leaving the faith any time soon.  In fact, we see just the opposite.

Yes, the information was "long known" but definitely not widely disseminated.  It was disturbing to me that I could graduate from seminary, spend 2 months in the MTC, serve a mission, graduate from BYU having passed my religion classes with straight-A's, spend decades as an active member of the church, serve in leadership callings for much of that, and teach early morning seminary and STILL not know things like multiple first vision accounts and the details of early polygamy.

You say that they should not be speaking of inoculation.  If by inoculation they mean exposing youth to some of the not-so-pleasant truths of our restoration narrative and doctrine, I can tell you that it probably would have helped me.  It would have helped lessen the utter betrayal I felt.

You say that they are making the information more available to the masses but if you listen to what Elder Snow said... that isn't really their desire.  They don't want everyone to read it.  Just those who absolutely have to.  They want to keep it less disseminated wherever/whenever possible.

You may see no likelihood that large numbers of youth will be leaving the faith but isn't that what Elders Snow and Ballard are seeing and concerned about?

 

[Danzo]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, the information was "long known" but definitely not widely disseminated.  It was disturbing to me that I could graduate from seminary, spend 2 months in the MTC, serve a mission, graduate from BYU having passed my religion classes with straight-A's, spend decades as an active member of the church, serve in leadership callings for much of that, and teach early morning seminary and STILL not know things like multiple first vision accounts and the details of early polygamy.

You say that they should not be speaking of inoculation.  If by inoculation they mean exposing youth to some of the not-so-pleasant truths of our restoration narrative and doctrine, I can tell you that it probably would have helped me.  It would have helped lessen the utter betrayal I felt.

You say that they are making the information more available to the masses but if you listen to what Elder Snow said... that isn't really their desire.  They don't want everyone to read it.  Just those who absolutely have to.  They want to keep it less disseminated wherever/whenever possible.

You may see no likelihood that large numbers of youth will be leaving the faith but isn't that what Elders Snow and Ballard are seeing and concerned about?

 

I think you are right, a little more information at an earlier age would be better.

To this day, I am thankful for my cousin, who was an evangelistic anti Mormon, who forced me at a young age (about 12 or 13) to confront all of the Anti-Mormon stuff he could think about.  

There really isn't that much brought up here that he didn't already bring up to me then.  The knowledge was definitely out there (late 80s), at least in the anti Mormon ministries.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think the Church is in trouble in terms of keeping the younger generations.  Elder Snow suggests the essays were written and made available in part because of the rising generation leaving.  He uses the term inoculate to describe the purpose of the essays.  They were written to inoculate the youngsters, it seems.  Inoculate suggests they were written to give some weaker strain of a disease to keep from full blown disease.  It was interesting choice of words.  I've long felt that the Church is way better off being open and honest about history and difficult issues and I think there's some effort to do this.  I would hope the Church would learn to be even more open and frank.  But the essays are a good start. 

Any thoughts on how the essays inoculate? 

https://clyp.it/gq0cdhf1#

 

edited out

Edited July 21, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In some circles inoculation is equivalent to grooming

Are you suggesting the choice of word is wrong because of its connotations or that how the Church treats the youth could be seen as equivalent to grooming/what sexual predators do?

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In some circles inoculation is equivalent to grooming

In other circles, it prevents the spread of diseases that can cause serious health problems and even death.

[Johnnie Cake]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting the choice of word is wrong because of its connotations or that how the Church treats the youth could be seen as equivalent to grooming/what sexual predators do?

bad comparison on my part...I'm removing it

[Calm]

I appreciate that.

------

While I understand the use of the term "innoculation" by those who may be focused on helping people maintain faith, in my opinion all that is really happening is we are learning that early learning is more effective in absorbing and adapting new ways of looking at things, it is more sbout training people how to think (which is easier if they haven't already developed habits) than imparting information, though it is new information that helps the mind stretch, just as weights help muscles grow.

"innoculation" also carries the connotation of disease and accurate historical information is hardly that....though sometimes the more extreme anti presentations can feel that way.  Disease has a negative connotation, thus the term implies there is something inherently wrong about what one is learning or that shock or a negative reaction is to be expected from those not "innoculated".  But that is hardly a given because people come to history from a variety of backgrounds, including many for whom history is a 'meh' issue because they have already been well adjusted to others' behaviours, have realistic views, etc.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I've already seen some of that division in my own family (all faithful, active LDS) wherein some of the "kids" (my generation) are raising issues that are addressed in the Gospel Topics Essays and my parents are denying them.  Both sides get defensive and there's a lot of tension.

This happened to me.  They just don't speak to me anymore..amazing how quickly a family member can become invisible. 

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This happened to me.  They just don't speak to me anymore..amazing how quickly a family member can become invisible. 

I'm very sorry.  I worry about that happening to me if I decided to leave.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Think about the story of the lost 116 pages. That's a bit troubling if you think about it, coming from a typical mainstream Mormon perspective. But I was taught about it in seminary, so it was never a big deal. I was inoculated. 

Same here, the things I were not inoculated for were, MMM, JS living polygamy, the BoA papyri, several versions of the FV, the translated method of looking in a hat and using a stone.

Now I know why, instead of the plates being mentioned often, it was the U & T.

So much is now making sense. For the longest time I remember hearing about a massacre, but I thought it was from the Indians doing it. 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

My "innoculation" experience began when I was about ten years old.  I became a fan of a series of books called "The Storm Testament" written by Lee Nelson.  These books were "historical fiction" along the lines of Gerald Lund's "The Work and the Glory" series.  That is, these books invented a fictional protagonist, Dan Storm, who was a young member of the 19th-century Church, and who had a series of adventures in Missouri, then Nauvoo, then Utah . . . and so on.  He interacts with real historical figures, and many of the stories take place in the context of real events in church history.  The fictional antagonist is **** Boggs, the cousin of Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs.

I enjoyed these books until I came to the fourth one, the plot summary for which is as follows:

This book then proceeds to give a fictionalized, but still more or less accurate, description of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  I still recall the feeling I had at reading how the members of the Church in Iron County ended up attacking the wagon train (dressed as Indians, along with some Paiutes), the detection of the deception, and the eventual horrific decision to kill all of the immigrants.  

I read the book from a naive point of view.  I remember feeling a bit uneasy, as I kept expecting the narrative to change, that the Mormon militiamen would have a turn of heart, would recognize the depravity of plan to attack and kill the migrants, and would figure out a way to change course and stop the carnage and let the migrants go.  But that's not what happened.  Instead, the story played out and . . . well, we all know what happened.

This bothered me.  A lot.  I had my first dose of "cognitive dissonance" in a fundamental way.  I could not reconcile the narrative of the MMM with the narrative I had been taught all my life about the early days of the Church and the heroic pioneers who crossed the plains.  I'm not sure I had a "crisis of faith," but if not, whatever I experienced was right next to it.

I took the book to my dad, who I knew was well-versed in the history of the Church.  I told him what I had read, and that I did not think it was true because . . . it was too horrible.  My dad, who was reading the newspaper at the time, but the paper down and we had a discussion for a bit over an hour.  He told me in clear and concise terms that the narrative I had read was pretty much correct (except the fictional part about Dan Storm helping a blind migrant woman escape the massacre).  He said he understood how disturbing this story is.  

He then spent quite a bit of time outlining the context of the event.  He explained the persecutions which the Saints had faced in Missouri and Nauvoo, how these persecutions had fomented some real anger and bitterness among some members of the Church which had probably never been fully addressed/resolved.  He explained the difficulties and privations of the trek West, which trek was the consequence of the persecution of the Church members in Missouri and Nauvoo.  He explained the first ten years the church members spent in the territory.  He explained the war hysteria which preceded the MMM, including A) the coming of Johnston's Army, B) the order from Brigham Young to stockpile supplies and the consequent friction with the migrants (who had anticipated being able to purchase food/materials in Utah before making the last leg of the journey to California), and C) George A. Smith's "Salt Sermon."  He explained the relative isolation of the Saints in southern Utah.  He was careful here, telling me that he wanted me to understand the whole situation, but that I should not take his explanation of the circumstances preceding the massacre as somehow justifying or excusing the acts of the members of the Church.

He then spent some time talking about the Church as a group of flawed people.  He also characterized the 19th century as being a very different place from our current life (this was in the 80s).  He said we should not condone or excuse the massacre, but neither should we ignore the context in which it happened.  He also said I should keep a distinction between the doctrines of the Church and the members of the Church and how they implement those doctrines, and that flaws and mistakes - even terrible acts like the massacre - do not change the reality that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, and that The Book of Mormon is true.

I remember feeling very different about the Church after this discussion with my dad.  I felt more sober.  I felt more . . . realistic.  Looking back, I think the Restored Gospel ceased at that point to be simply a series of stories sung about during Sunday School.  It became something more.  It became . . . more real to me.  It was not an altogether pleasant process.  My childish perception of the Church was idyllic, which was never going to be sustainable.

Some years later I graduated from high school and joined the Army.  During my training I had a series of written communications with my dad in which I asked him about all sorts of things about the Church, the Gospel, and so on.  I asked him what had happened to the Sword of Laban.  I asked him about polygamy.  I asked him about how women felt about polygamy (those who actually experienced it).  I asked him about blacks and the priesthood.  I asked him about Joseph Smith's polygamy.  I asked about the Liahona.  Anything that piqued my interest.

My dad, who had a large library of church history books (and also, IIRC, a set of "Infobase" CD-ROMS with additional materials), and who was our ward's Gospel Doctrine teacher at the time, wrote me long, detailed responses to my inquiries, with references and everything.  It was an amazing experience.  I was exhilarated at finding out that there were deep and complex and nuanced details about the simple Gospel stories I had been taught as a child (mostly by my mom, who created a series of illustrated church history lessons she kept in a looseleaf binder, which she used to teach lessons to us every Sunday).  And that the beautiful and profound truths of the Gospel can be accepted as true despite the many flaws and errors of the Saints (even terrible things like the MMM).  He closed most of his letters with an exhortation that I continue to study and be curious about the Gospel, but that I retain in focus what he called the "planks" of a testimony, which were, IIRC, that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that the Priesthood is His Power, and The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.  Everything else, he said, is "parsley on the side of the plate" (or some such similar metaphor).

I will always be grateful to my parents.  To my mother, who through sheer force of will taught her children many lessons about Church history and the scriptures.  And to my father, who helped me in a time of cognitive dissonance, who taught me that faith and knowledge are complimentary to each other, that studying scholarship pertaining to the Church and to the Gospel can and should augment faith in the Gospel, even though such efforts have required me to move beyond the simplified and idyllic version I was taught as a child.  But that is, I think, as it should be.  As Paul put it: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

My parents "inoculated" me by teaching me to study through reading and prayer, and to seek to understand difficult truths in measured and circumspect and faithful ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

Unfortunately or fortunately, neither of my parents loved reading church history, that I know of. My father especially, he rarely cracked open a book, just the newspaper. 

They never spoke about our church's history, I learned very late in life about my ancestors who came across the plains. I never even knew about Mary Ann Mellor who was able to move on after giving up on the trail, until her daughters found a pie in the road. This is one of the 17 miracle stories. 

You were fortunate I guess. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, the information was "long known" but definitely not widely disseminated.  It was disturbing to me that I could graduate from seminary, spend 2 months in the MTC, serve a mission, graduate from BYU having passed my religion classes with straight-A's, spend decades as an active member of the church, serve in leadership callings for much of that, and teach early morning seminary and STILL not know things like multiple first vision accounts and the details of early polygamy.

Most people don't have the leisure time to spend plumbing the depths of such historical matters.  They are too busy raising families and working for a living, or studying for a degree in something other than history and theology (which don't pay very well).  It is unrealistic to expect them to become competent in, not to mention master such subjects.  Moreover, there is no reason to expect that most BYU religion classes in the old days would be professional and serious (Nibley was very critical of them).  And the same applies to LDS seminaries, institutes, MTC, missions, etc. There simply was no professional cadre of trained scholars to convey the facts, and the LDS Church has long eschewed any sort of serious seminary training of the kind used in normative christianity or Judaism.  That has been changing to some degree, but for the most part the old traditions remain.

You say that they should not be speaking of inoculation.  If by inoculation they mean exposing youth to some of the not-so-pleasant truths of our restoration narrative and doctrine, I can tell you that it probably would have helped me.  It would have helped lessen the utter betrayal I felt.

My experience has been that the more right wing members of any religion do their children a grave disservice by portraying their beliefs and leaders as pristine and inerrant/infallible.  Sets them up for a great fall when they discover that the straw-man version of their religion is just not true.  The truth should be told and leaders portrayed warts and all.  That is not actually a negative thing, since the truth usually seems more in line with personal experience and draws us closer to our very human leaders.  Innoculation against a disease seems a very unfortunate and untrue metaphor.

You say that they are making the information more available to the masses but if you listen to what Elder Snow said... that isn't really their desire.  They don't want everyone to read it.  Just those who absolutely have to.  They want to keep it less disseminated wherever/whenever possible.

Probably better for you to actually quote these sources, rather than telling us what you believe they want to do.  That would be better and more correct historiography.

You may see no likelihood that large numbers of youth will be leaving the faith but isn't that what Elders Snow and Ballard are seeing and concerned about?

Maybe you can cite actual numbers.  The research shows that Mormon youth are more likely than any other religion to stay with the faith, and the expected downturn in numbers of missionaries going out into the field has not materialized -- even though the anti-Mormons dearly wish that to happen.

 

[CV75]

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think the Church is in trouble in terms of keeping the younger generations.  Elder Snow suggests the essays were written and made available in part because of the rising generation leaving.  He uses the term inoculate to describe the purpose of the essays.  They were written to inoculate the youngsters, it seems.  Inoculate suggests they were written to give some weaker strain of a disease to keep from full blown disease.  It was interesting choice of words.  I've long felt that the Church is way better off being open and honest about history and difficult issues and I think there's some effort to do this.  I would hope the Church would learn to be even more open and frank.  But the essays are a good start. 

Any thoughts on how the essays inoculate? 

https://clyp.it/gq0cdhf1#

 

Inoculation induces or prompts one’s system to develop resistance to contagion. Physically, this is automatic; spiritually it takes some effort (“even by study, and also by faith). Inoculation is not a passive process; the immune system is very much activated, just as out spirits are when we respond to the word of God (Alma 32).

We hear of “milk before meat” as people learn the Gospel and develop immunity against the various wiles of the adversary. Personal choice, discipline, study and faith, etc. are required. Likewise, these essays are a sort of “milk before meat” which induce personal choice, discipline, study and faith, etc. on a particular subject.

While the “watchmen” determine what meat they are going to distribute by virtue of their keys (e.g. temple recommends, Alma 37:29-32), anyone can get “meat” at their own pace and for their own use / gain, but it would be hard to make that congruent with the aims of Zion.

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, it is interesting to see the term "inoculate" being used by Elder Snow (and Elder Ballard before him).  This is a concept that has been tossed around on the fringes for some years and is now making it's way into GA language.

Back in 1995, Elder Nelson used “indoctrinate” (including making covenants) to describe the spiritual version of “inoculate”; Elder Packer connected doctrine and covenant making with inoculation in 2004. I think the term is being used more because it works. To some degree, the essays are a form of indoctrination, and are useful for teaching the Lord’s message.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/04/children-of-the-covenant.p35?lang=eng&_r=1

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/do-not-fear?lang=eng&_r=1

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, it is interesting to see the term "inoculate" being used by Elder Snow (and Elder Ballard before him).  This is a concept that has been tossed around on the fringes for some years and is now making it's way into GA language.  They are acknowledging the problem with the way the church narrative has been taught and that there is a need to inoculate the younger generation.  The implication here is that finding out that the reality differs from the narrative can deliver a "fatal" blow to older members.  For me, it feels good, after all these years, to have top leaders of the church validate some of the pain I've passed through.

I think the essays inoculate by giving members just enough of the more detailed and accurate narrative that they will feel comfortable and not dig deeper when confronted with difficult issues in the future.  

For me, equal to the despair I felt at finding out that the narrative I believed was false, was the betrayal I felt at the leaders who never shared the true narrative with me.  I think the essays also inoculate in the sense that they may help reduce those feelings of betrayal.

But what is concerning in all of this is that the church is putting emphasis on teaching the gospel topics essays to young members in the church but not planning to roll them into curriculum for all members.

CFR that the Church is "not planning to roll them into the curriculum for all members."

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This happened to me.  They just don't speak to me anymore..amazing how quickly a family member can become invisible. 

I haven't dared bring anything up around my MIL, she and my FIL were as dedicated as anyone you could find. They attended the temple every Wednesday, for years. But my husband brings up the essay on the PH ban and says how racist Brigham Young was, he's never one to mince words, like me, except on this board. She doesn't say much back. My husband has a real beef about it because he served his mission in Mississippi and didn't even get to teach the blacks the majority of the time.