Jeanne Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: 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. My cousin, who was on her mission in the sixties was asked not to contact black people..although they had to do cold calls from a phone book. They also took sales classes. Kudos to your husband for being honest with YOU in how he feels about this particular episode in gospel teachings. As long as you two can talk to each other..this is a wonderful thing no matter what else happens in your quest for truth. I didn't have anyone! Basically, other than my Dad..who is coming around and warming up to me.it was my extended family that gave me the cahoots. Sad..because I really tried for my husband. I believe he would be very upset that me and kids are alienated from his family. Just be true to yourself and at some point..you will fall from the fence ..one side or the other..and be comfortable. Know that I route for your happiness no matter what!! 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, Calm said: 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. To me, "Innoculation" seems an apt term when applied to what anti-Mormons and other antagonistic critics do, which is to present selected facts out of context and in a distorted and slanted manner. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," applies as well to this as it does to anything else. Knowing the truth sets us free from vulnerability to the nefarious intent of antagonists. Edited July 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) I am not too worried about the younger generation in the long term. Many will leave for a while but they will be back. Where are they leaving to? A life time of staring at a small screen on a smart phone? When the wars, famines, earthquakes, ect start disrupting their lives and their comfort zones, they will have to flee to something. Nothing brings people to the Lord faster than fear and danger. Even if the global warming stuff is all true, I see it to be a net benefit. Prosperity takes people from God and all the bad things bring people too God. The essays are a good start but more should be done. Little time is given to the subjects in Church meeting or in the Ensign. Perhaps when they become official topics for Home Teaching, it will reach far more people than links buried on the Church website. Edited July 22, 2016 by carbon dioxide 1
HappyJackWagon Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: To me, "Innoculation" seems an apt term when applied to what anti-Mormons and other antagonistic critics do, which is to present selected facts out of context and in a distorted and slanted manner. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," applies as well to this as it does to anything else. Knowing the truth sets us free from vulnerability to the nefarious intent of antagonists. I don't agree with the premise but are a few out of context facts by antagonists more powerful than a lifetime of study and church attendance? If so, why? If not, what's to worry about? 3
jkwilliams Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't agree with the premise but are a few out of context facts by antagonists more powerful than a lifetime of study and church attendance? If so, why? If not, what's to worry about? Indeed. The implication seems to be that people aren't smart enough to dig more deeply and find out that anti-Mormon "facts" are just cherry-picked and distorted. That's true of the Ed Deckers of the world, but it doesn't really apply to what is happening now. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't agree with the premise but are a few out of context facts by antagonists more powerful than a lifetime of study and church attendance? With some, they would appear to be. Blessedly, with many others, they are not. Some such folks are (sometimes disparagingly) called apologists. Quote If so, why? You would have to ask them. I've seen some pretty silly reasons given for abandoning the faith. And yet it is obvious some folks view them as sufficient.
jkwilliams Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 Of course, the inoculation doesn't always work. My high-school age son told me a year or so ago that he had stumbled across the church essays after a conversation with one of the boys from his priesthood quorum. The information in the essays piqued his curiosity, and he spent some time digging around in the available primary sources. He concluded that the essays gave just enough information to appear forthright but were really just spin. I think that's the risk of the inoculation thing: a lot of kids will be curious and go beyond what the essays say, and that could be problematic, as it was for my son. 1
salgare Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 I can't find the link now, some GA just recently commented on the intended audience of the essays.
Jeanne Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: To me, "Innoculation" seems an apt term when applied to what anti-Mormons and other antagonistic critics do, which is to present selected facts out of context and in a distorted and slanted manner. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," applies as well to this as it does to anything else. Knowing the truth sets us free from vulnerability to the nefarious intent of antagonists. And yet...all those horrible anti-mormons ended up being right on a lot of things. Those essays are things that were brought up by horrible anti's.. Without those questions..those essays would not exist and a lot of people..would still be in the dark on a lot of issues. 2
rockpond Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 21 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I am not too worried about the younger generation in the long term. Many will leave for a while but they will be back. Where are they leaving to? A life time of staring at a small screen on a smart phone? When the wars, famines, earthquakes, ect start disrupting their lives and their comfort zones, they will have to flee to something. Nothing brings people to the Lord faster than fear and danger. Even if the global warming stuff is all true, I see it to be a net benefit. Prosperity takes people from God and all the bad things bring people too God. The essays are a good start but more should be done. Little time is given to the subjects in Church meeting or in the Ensign. Perhaps when they become official topics for Home Teaching, it will reach far more people than links buried on the Church website. I agree that the essays are a good start and that more should be done. The buried links aren't generating wide discussion and from what Elder Snow said, it sounds like that is the intent. I'd be careful with the assumptions you make about the younger generation. My cousin left the church, joined the Peace Corps, had amazing, life-changing experiences, met her husband... etc. She never came back to the church. 1
rockpond Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: To me, "Innoculation" seems an apt term when applied to what anti-Mormons and other antagonistic critics do, which is to present selected facts out of context and in a distorted and slanted manner. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," applies as well to this as it does to anything else. Knowing the truth sets us free from vulnerability to the nefarious intent of antagonists. I won't argue that some anti-Mormons and antagonists do that. The Church has also chosen, in the past and present, to teach/publish selected facts out of context and in a distorted and slanted manner. That's part of what has brought us to the point of needing the essays. 2
rockpond Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: CFR that the Church is "not planning to roll them into the curriculum for all members." I'll rescind that because upon review I don't think that's exactly what Elder Snow was saying. I think they may, over time, but according to Elder Snow there isn't an effort to widely disseminate the information in the essays except when it comes to the youth and those who are searching stuff out online. 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: I agree that the essays are a good start and that more should be done. The buried links aren't generating wide discussion and from what Elder Snow said, it sounds like that is the intent. I'd be careful with the assumptions you make about the younger generation. My cousin left the church, joined the Peace Corps, had amazing, life-changing experiences, met her husband... etc. She never came back to the church. The world still has too much peace and prosperity. I believe most will come back when the worm turns and social disorder, disaster, and war becomes the center of our lives. 1
rockpond Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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. 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. 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. 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. Responding by paragraph #: 1. I don't buy that excuse. The Church has professional historians and curriculum writers on staff. I took religion classes from well-educated professors at the Church's flagship university. The Church has the eyes and ears of most members for 3-hours per week (plus seminary, institute, conferences, broadcasts, publications, and periodicals). If they wanted to teach a more accurate history the opportunity was there. They passed. 2. It wasn't my parents that portrayed the church's beliefs and leaders in that way. It was the Church itself. I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that inoculation is an unfortunate metaphor. But it is the one our Church leaders are now choosing to use. We never should have been at this point. 3. The source is the Elder Snow address in the OP. 4. Elder Ballard in his recent broadcast and Elder Snow (in the OP) seem concerned about the status of the youth. From where I sit, I share in that concern. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: Responding by paragraph #: 1. I don't buy that excuse. The Church has professional historians and curriculum writers on staff. I took religion classes from well-educated professors at the Church's flagship university. The Church has the eyes and ears of most members for 3-hours per week (plus seminary, institute, conferences, broadcasts, publications, and periodicals). If they wanted to teach a more accurate history the opportunity was there. They passed. You apparently did not understand what I wrote about that, aside from suggesting that a bunch of well-educated professors taught you (name them and their qualifications,and the dates when you studied). Changes over time have and are occurring, but your impatience and lack of perspective & familiarity with real scholarship is what I get from your response. Please disabuse me of that. 2. It wasn't my parents that portrayed the church's beliefs and leaders in that way. It was the Church itself. I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that inoculation is an unfortunate metaphor. But it is the one our Church leaders are now choosing to use. We never should have been at this point. So your parents were fully familiar and knowledgeable about all that hidden history, but failed to communicate it to you? Same for your church teachers? Makes no sense. 3. The source is the Elder Snow address in the OP. I urged you to quote him and other sources rather than attributing your own ideas (and verbiage) to them. That is how responsible people carry on a discussion. 4. Elder Ballard in his recent broadcast and Elder Snow (in the OP) seem concerned about the status of the youth. From where I sit, I share in that concern. Again, let's have some numbers rather than blatant opinion-mongering.and rumor-mongering, regardless of source.
Calm Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: To me, "Innoculation" seems an apt term when applied to what anti-Mormons and other antagonistic critics do, which is to present selected facts out of context and in a distorted and slanted manner. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," applies as well to this as it does to anything else. Knowing the truth sets us free from vulnerability to the nefarious intent of antagonists. Since you are a wordsmith, I will assume you won't might my nitpicking/dissection of the term here. Innoculation involves taking a weaker/dead form of the disease to build up an immunity to it. But when we teach youth historical facts we are not presenting it in an antimormon way, just in smalldoses or weakened, but (hopefully) in a more accurate as well as faithful context. We don't teach our youth how to resist temptations, lies, porn, etc. by presenting them with a little temptation, a little lie, a little porn, but rather we try to teach what we believe is the truth about temptations and so forth. I am not going to protest the use of the term in general, but if the usage comes up in conversations like this one, I figure someone is interested enough in exploring appropriateness to speak out about it, so why not me too. 2
rockpond Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You apparently did not understand what I wrote about that, aside from suggesting that a bunch of well-educated professors taught you (name them and their qualifications,and the dates when you studied). Changes over time have and are occurring, but your impatience and lack of perspective & familiarity with real scholarship is what I get from your response. Please disabuse me of that. So your parents were fully familiar and knowledgeable about all that hidden history, but failed to communicate it to you? Same for your church teachers? Makes no sense. I urged you to quote him and other sources rather than attributing your own ideas (and verbiage) to them. That is how responsible people carry on a discussion. Again, let's have some numbers rather than blatant opinion-mongering.and rumor-mongering, regardless of source. 1. I don't have my old professors names and qualifications handy. I trust they were well vetted by the University. Is your argument here that the church-owned and managed institution of higher learning is not qualified to teach church history and doctrine? I understand that changes in understanding and knowledge of history develop and grow over time. Go ahead and insult my "familiarity with real scholarship" it only supports my point. I believe I adequately represent your average born/raised LDS, college-educated, middle-aged church member. The information published in the essays was known and published during my lifetime (as has been repeatedly stated here). The Church chose to eliminate certain aspects from the narrative that they taught us via curriculum and general conference. Do you disagree? Because I am failing to see whatever point you are trying to make. 2. My parents were not familiar with the full history of the church. One was a life-long member, the other was a convert. Both attending seminary and were BYU grads but they, like me, were taught only a specific church narrative with many details (some of which now constitute the "inoculation") left out. That's the problem. The curriculum, created by church leaders and the staff they hired, chose to present a certain narrative. It was apparently so bad that now they need to inoculate the younger generation against the full truth. 3. The quote is provided in the OP, it is what the thread is about. I assumed that you listened to it. That's part of responsibly participating in a thread. 4. I don't have numbers but I am not opinion/rumor-mongering... I'm citing two general authorities of the church. You are free to listen to their remarks and make your own conclusions. I assume you don't want me to spoon-feed you. 3
hope_for_things Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 48 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Of course, the inoculation doesn't always work. My high-school age son told me a year or so ago that he had stumbled across the church essays after a conversation with one of the boys from his priesthood quorum. The information in the essays piqued his curiosity, and he spent some time digging around in the available primary sources. He concluded that the essays gave just enough information to appear forthright but were really just spin. I think that's the risk of the inoculation thing: a lot of kids will be curious and go beyond what the essays say, and that could be problematic, as it was for my son. Which is why I see the essays as needing to evolve over time. Maybe they will release gospel topics 2.0 in a couple years which will add additional complexity to the narrative. I think the church will need to keep addressing and readdressing these issues. I think Adam Miller likens this process to re-translating Mormonism all over again for each new generation. 1
stemelbow Posted July 22, 2016 Author Posted July 22, 2016 30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Which is why I see the essays as needing to evolve over time. Maybe they will release gospel topics 2.0 in a couple years which will add additional complexity to the narrative. I think the church will need to keep addressing and readdressing these issues. I think Adam Miller likens this process to re-translating Mormonism all over again for each new generation. I imagine sometime down the road at least one of the essays will have to be stricken and completely rewritten to reflect a more accurate portrayal. These should not be stamped as complete, in that sense. But this is the problem the Church has had in the past--putting out official statements, claiming revelation and knowledge, but then having to deal with it later when the sure facts of previous years turn out to be mistaken. So much wiser to proceed with a line upon line approach, acknowledging our weakened position as we move forward. I think the essays present a bit of a problem on this front--nothing that can't be corrected--but their a little too conclusion based a little too much guesswork. 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) On 7/21/2016 at 9:01 AM, stemelbow said: IAny thoughts on how the essays inoculate? https://clyp.it/gq0cdhf1# I guess it would be likened to vaccinate. When one vaccinates a person against a certain pathogen, usually it requires several doses. The vaccine only works against the pathogen being targeted. Sometimes the vaccine has side effects and some times it just does not work. But if you vaccinate enough people, you get herd immunity which protects the group as a whole even those who are not vaccinated. I have no problem with the term as it probably is accurate. The essays only address the issue in question. They might require multiple doses. In this case, multiple essays and continual addressing. They might cause a person to get sick. In other words, some might have some crisis of faith but they get over it. And some might not be effectively immunized and they get sick and fall away. Overall its always better to do something than do nothing. Ignoring a problem never makes it go away. In fact it can fester and get a lot worse. Hopefully the Church will start learning that ignoring issues does not accomplish anything in the long run. Edited July 22, 2016 by carbon dioxide
JulieM Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 The essays should at least be required reading for any youth preparing to serve a mission. Have any of you conversed with the online missionaries that you can message back and forth with? They are clueless about Joseph living polygamy and have no idea what the word polyandry even means let alone that it was practiced. All they respond with is to bear their testimony when asked about this topic and then they say to read the Book of Mormon. 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 Just now, JulieM said: The essays should at least be required reading for any youth preparing to serve a mission. Have any of you conversed with the online missionaries that you can message back and forth with? They are clueless about Joseph living polygamy and have no idea what the word polyandry even means let alone that it was practiced. All they respond with is to bear their testimony when asked about this topic and then they say to read the Book of Mormon. Of course. What do we expect from 18 and 19 year olds. Especially if they are more well versed on text messaging or playing a video game than church history or knowing scriptures. I am in the Sunday School Presidency and the current manual really does not prepare the youth. The same basic lessons for the 13 year old kids are given to the 17 year old kids. Perhaps they are taught at a higher level but still If I was a kid and I went through these lessons year after year I would get bored.
stemelbow Posted July 22, 2016 Author Posted July 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Of course. What do we expect from 18 and 19 year olds. Especially if they are more well versed on text messaging or playing a video game than church history or knowing scriptures. I am in the Sunday School Presidency and the current manual really does not prepare the youth. The same basic lessons for the 13 year old kids are given to the 17 year old kids. Perhaps they are taught at a higher level but still If I was a kid and I went through these lessons year after year I would get bored. The Come Follow Me lesson manual is pretty shallow. But I've treated it as if it leaves room to introduce things like those found in the essays. Back when I taught the youth we'd go ahead and broach these topics. I figured they needed them--they needed to be inoculated.
rockpond Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Of course. What do we expect from 18 and 19 year olds. Especially if they are more well versed on text messaging or playing a video game than church history or knowing scriptures. I am in the Sunday School Presidency and the current manual really does not prepare the youth. The same basic lessons for the 13 year old kids are given to the 17 year old kids. Perhaps they are taught at a higher level but still If I was a kid and I went through these lessons year after year I would get bored. Yep... this is a big part of the problem. The lessons we give our youth are pretty basic. We're trying to build up their testimonies, right? Then they hit 18-19 and life becomes a whirlwind... mission, college, marriage, babies. When they arrive in their late 20's, early 30's life they start to get settled in a bit, maybe take a calling that inspires them to really dig deep into church doctrine or history and BAM, they are hit with something that shatters the perspective we raised them with. I keep seeing it happen. And I think this is what Elder Ballard and Elder Snow are saying that the church is working to resolve. Edited July 22, 2016 by rockpond
rockpond Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The Come Follow Me lesson manual is pretty shallow. But I've treated it as if it leaves room to introduce things like those found in the essays. Back when I taught the youth we'd go ahead and broach these topics. I figured they needed them--they needed to be inoculated. That was my understanding... that Come Follow Me was designed to allow for the introduction of tougher/deeper discussions. But how can our teachers bring those topics in if they are not familiar with them either?
Recommended Posts