Inoculation is Overrated

[pelagius]

In the past I have generally thought it was a good idea, but now I am not so sure.[1] Let me outline a few problems I see with inoculation and perhaps a suggestion that inoculation is sub-optimal (at least the way I usually see it proposed).

1. Let's suppose that X members leave the church each year that would not have if they were inoculated. Some argue that X=0 because these people are really leaving because of a lack of testimony (or some other "core" reason). I tend to not agree with such reasoning. In my view X > 0 but I don't have any idea how large. However, X > 0 doesn't justify the implementation of an inoculation curriculum in the church. Even a very large X does not by itself justify it. Inoculation would be justified if X > Y where Y is the number of members that leave per year because the curriculum would be less devotionally focused (instruction time is a scarce resource).
   
   
2. I think it's the wrong reason to tackle tough issues. It's too defensive. I find the prospect of teaching so defensively unappealing and ultimately spiritually unsatisfying to all parties. In many cases (not all, but many) handling and discussing the "tough issues" can be faith enhancing. Talk about the multiple first vision accounts but not to preempt a disturbing discovery. Instead use it to make Joseph Smith more identifiable and allow people to connect with his spiritual journey more closely. Use the "tough issues" to enhance faith and along the way there might be a side benefit of inoculation.
   
   
3. You will always miss something. Sure you can hit the biggies but there will always be something that is surprising, shocks, or blind sides. If one does try to inoculate don't make it about a set of preemptive issues and preemptive responses to those issues. Make it more general. Help people develop a framework that is flexible and dynamic; that helps people deal with surprising information. Build in flexibility about the nature of revelation, prophecy, fallibility, etc. You can use "facts and "thorny issues" to help illustrate. My father once told me when I was around 14-15, "Pelagius, the early brethren made a lot of mistakes but isn't that what we would expect?" This was enough for me to start thinking about things with more flexibility. Sure, many "facts" in the course of my life surprised me. My father couldn't stop that. I really doubt if he had tried to inoculate me that he would have thought to preemptively discuss the book of Q which bothered me initially when I first encountered it on my mission. However, what he provided was far better: an embryonic framework to deal with surprises.

----------------
[1] This post is not a response to the following thread: Lack of inoculation takes another. I have been meaning to write this up for a while. Still the timing is not coincidental.

[creekster]

Nice post.

For your premise you seem to have assumed a very narrow definition of inoculation. In my mind, your father's comment IS innoculation and that is exactly what he did for you. Thus, as you encountered mistakes, you were not fazed.

Nice use of footnote, btw. Perhaps this should be a new Cuffie category.

[pelagius]

Nice post.

For your premise you seem to have assumed a very narrow definition of inoculation. In my mind, your father's comment IS innoculation and that is exactly what he did for you. Thus, as you encountered mistakes, you were not fazed.

You're right ... I am responding to a notion of inoculation; the one I percieve is typically proposed on cougarguard, CUF, and other fora. My point (3) is definitely about a form of inoculation. If this is the form everybody has in mind when they talk about inoculation then I guess I don't think its so overrated (maybe just a little overrated).

[creekster]

You're right ... I am responding to a notion of inoculation; the one I percieve is typically proposed on cougarguard, CUF, and other fora. My point (3) is definitely about a form of inoculation. If this is the form everybody has in mind when they talk about inoculation then I guess I don't think its overrated.

I think I would like to see something in between. I thik we can llok at the faith building aspectgs of things such as the mulitple versions of the first vision and this serves to build faith and to inoculate.

[pelagius]

I think I would like to see something in between. I thik we can llok at the faith building aspectgs of things such as the mulitple versions of the first vision and this serves to build faith and to inoculate.

Agreed, I definitely had that idea in mind in point (2). One problem I see with this is that teaching is a scarce resource. Maybe not so much in the Mormon corridor, but in most places finding someone willing to teach seminary by itself is a dicey proposition. Finding someone that can teach the "thorny issues" in either a faith building or inoculation context would be rare. I think one could argue that butchering an inoculation approach or teaching the tough issue to build faith approach could do more damage than butchering the normal devotional approach (and its much easier to do well in my view).

[CardiacCoug]

I like the idea of inoculation. It seems like most of my intellectually curious relatives who were not adequately inoculated by parents no longer participate in the Church.

I agree with you (I think) that inoculation is really about helping members of the Church develop an overall attitude and approach to Church history and doctrine rather than getting too specific about every potentially thorny issue. It's about acknowledging generally that prophets are fallible and that many things in the scriptures and rituals of the Church are symbolic and often not to be interpreted literally.

The example of your dad saying that early Church leaders made mistakes (just in a general sense) is a great example of "generalized inoculation." He didn't need to give you a detailed history of the Joseph Smith-Fanny Alger relationship -- he just needed to acknowledge the concept that Joseph Smith was not perfect. I remember my father saying something along the lines of, "It says right in the preface of the Book of Mormon that it may have errors. There are things that seem obviously historically inaccurate, like references to horses and advanced metallurgy. But there are plenty of passages that I find inspiring even if there are errors."

In the era of the internet in which almost every college-educated person will eventually get curious and can easily delve into Church history and controversy online, I think the right kind of "generalized inoculation" regarding Church history is very important for the Church to retain intelligent members who think critically about these issues.

The opposite to the attitude of inoculation in my mind is the "All or Nothing" ultimatum that is often heard. "EITHER the Church is God's only true Church that has always been perfectly guided by men who speak directly with God OR Joseph Smith and the Church are the biggest frauds and shams the world has ever seen." If that was the only attitude I had been exposed to prior to reading non-correlated versions of Church history, I would have said sayonara to the Church long ago.

The attitude I was brought up with was along the lines of:
You may eventually decide that you dislike and disagree with many things in the present-day Church and in the Church's history. But there are some really fantastic blessings that can come from staying in the Church. So don't act too hastily about some of those unsettling things. Think your decision through and consider all the pros and cons of the Church before you walk away.

[pelagius]

Nice use of footnote, btw. Perhaps this should be a new Cuffie category.

We should ... you or I might have chance of winning in the category. Although, posters like Solon, AA, Babs, or SIEQ would probably just start showing off their footnoting skillz and we would be outclassed again.

[Solon]

I like the idea of inoculation. It seems like most of my intellectually curious relatives who were not adequately inoculated by parents no longer participate in the Church.

I agree with you (I think) that inoculation is really about helping members of the Church develop an overall attitude and approach to Church history and doctrine rather than getting too specific about every potentially thorny issue. It's about acknowledging generally that prophets are fallible and that many things in the scriptures and rituals of the Church are symbolic and often not to be interpreted literally.

The example of your dad saying that early Church leaders made mistakes (just in a general sense) is a great example of "generalized inoculation." He didn't need to give you a detailed history of the Joseph Smith-Fanny Alger relationship -- he just needed to acknowledge the concept that Joseph Smith was not perfect. I remember my father saying something along the lines of, "It says right in the preface of the Book of Mormon that it may have errors. There are things that seem obviously historically inaccurate, like references to horses and advanced metallurgy. But there are plenty of passages that I find inspiring even if there are errors."

In the era of the internet in which almost every college-educated person will eventually get curious and can easily delve into Church history and controversy online, I think the right kind of "generalized inoculation" regarding Church history is very important for the Church to retain intelligent members who think critically about these issues.

The opposite to the attitude of inoculation in my mind is the "All or Nothing" ultimatum that is often heard. "EITHER the Church is God's only true Church that has always been perfectly guided by men who speak directly with God OR Joseph Smith and the Church are the biggest frauds and shams the world has ever seen." If that was the only attitude I had been exposed to prior to reading non-correlated versions of Church history, I would have said sayonara to the Church long ago.

The attitude I was brought up with was along the lines of:
You may eventually decide that you dislike and disagree with many things in the present-day Church and in the Church's history. But there are some really fantastic blessings that can come from staying in the Church. So don't act too hastily about some of those unsettling things. Think your decision through and consider all the pros and cons of the Church before you walk away.

This is all good. It's about time we discussed what "inoculation" really means. I really like P's idea of flexibility - just inoculating for inoculation's sake sometimes does more for the teller's ego than the recipient's understanding of fact, truth, belief, and faith.

Institutionally, though, I think the church could do a better job of addressing some of these issues, even if indirectly.

For instance, two of the letters in Lesson #20 of the Joseph Smith manual (specifically, the letter to Emma of 4 April 1839 and that of 12 November 1838) are edited at the end to remove the phrase "your husband till death" as the closing (the manual has the first letter end at "your husband"; the second letter omits the final sentence altogether). But the final letter from Joseph to Emma, that of 16 Aug. 1842, ends "your affectionate husband until death, through all eternity; for evermore."

It seems that this would have been a good way to trace the revelation of eternal marriage - and JS's understanding of it - over the course of a few years. Instead, we're left to wonder why the editors felt it necessary to remove the phrase.

[Solon]

We should ... you or I might have chance of winning in the category. Although, posters like Solon, AA, Babs, or SIEQ would probably just start showing off their footnoting skillz and we would be outclassed again.

Don't you business academics all use parenthetical citations anyway?

I'm all about the Chicago Manual, baby.

[TripletDaddy]

Pelagius, very interesting topic.

I struggle with this issue each week as I teach the Priests. Whenever we have a new Teacher turn 16 and join us, I make it a point to let them know that our class has a "no judgments" policy.....no question is off limits and there will be no judgments for truthful answering.

One moderate example from today....talking about Faith. One of the Priests asked...."If faith really precedes the miracle, how come the scriptures say that after Jesus did some miracles, many believed? That is a contradiction." He went on to say that he sometimes finds little contradictions here and there when reading the scriptures. It turned into a great discussion on the accuracy of translation, literalism vs allegory/metaphor, and prayer for faith when we don't always have the answer. This isn't the greatest example, but one that is fresh in my mind. Keep in mind that these are 16 year olds, not well-read graduate students, so I know my examples would not rise to the level of complexity which you describe in your initial post.

At first I wondered if the Bishop would find this approach too edgy, but he quickly warmed to it. Our lessons generally enjoy a very high level of participation and the Bishop has told me that he has been able to have solid one on one conversations with the Priests as the result of the open environment we have created in the Sunday lesson. Keep in mind that he is not always talking about worthiness issues....sometimes he will meet with the boys simply to discuss how they are doing, what their mission plans are, how things are at home, etc...

It seems that in the late teens, these kids don't want to be handed a bunch of b.s. they are ready for the straight talk express and actually crave serious questions and answers. Sometimes at that age, "straight talk" is nothing more than an open acknowledgment that Joseph Smith maybe made some mistakes or that it is perfectly normal to struggle with testimony sometimes.

But I often wonder if it would be best to simply stick 100% to the manual and tell everyone that it will all work out in the end. As much as I try to stick to the script, it doesn't seem to fit my personality.

[pelagius]

Don't you business academics all use parenthetical citations anyway?

I'm all about the Chicago Manual, baby.

Yes, citations are all parenthetical (at least they are in finance and economics' journals). We still do a fair amount of footnoting. You mention stuff like minor robustness test, untabulated results, or clarifications that would be distracting in text body (e.g., We do not use a lagged price restriction in these regressions because we wish to explore the determinants of loan fees and be able to potentially predict loan fees for the widest possible cross-section.)

[wuapinmon]

The opposite to the attitude of inoculation in my mind is the "All or Nothing" ultimatum that is often heard. "EITHER the Church is God's only true Church that has always been perfectly guided by men who speak directly with God OR Joseph Smith and the Church are the biggest frauds and shams the world has ever seen."

My belief is this: "If the Book of Mormon isn't the inspired Word of God, there is no God."

I don't care about it's phyiscal presence in the world, how he translated it, etc. I believe it's Scripture, and I'm so convinced, that if it isn't, I think this is as good as it gets.

[pelagius]

One moderate example from today....talking about Faith. One of the Priests asked...."If faith really precedes the miracle, how come the scriptures say that after Jesus did some miracles, many believed? That is a contradiction." He went on to say that he sometimes finds little contradictions here and there when reading the scriptures. It turned into a great discussion on the accuracy of translation, literalism vs allegory/metaphor, and prayer for faith when we don't always have the answer. This isn't the greatest example, but one that is fresh in my mind. Keep in mind that these are 16 year olds, not well-read graduate students, so I know my examples would not rise to the level of complexity which you describe in your initial post.

More than anything this reminds me of the value of good teachers. High quality teachers can be such a tremedous benefit. Still, it also nicely illustrates what I was trying to get at in point (2). There is real upside to tackling "thorny issues" in terms of deepening faith. I consider your example to be a very good good one because it deals with how one should approach and read our canonized texts and is a critical issue to in terms of reaching a mature faith in my view.

[creekster]

My belief is this: "If the Book of Mormon isn't the inspired Word of God, there is no God."

I don't care about it's phyiscal presence in the world, how he translated it, etc. I believe it's Scripture, and I'm so convinced, that if it isn't, I think this is as good as it gets.

Sure, but if they cant get there from where they are it won't matter.

[woot]

My belief is this: "If the Book of Mormon isn't the inspired Word of God, there is no God."

I don't care about it's phyiscal presence in the world, how he translated it, etc. I believe it's Scripture, and I'm so convinced, that if it isn't, I think this is as good as it gets.

That's similar to my view on my mission. I remember telling one of my companions that if I weren't a Mormon I'd be an atheist. Back then I was absolutely sure that the church was true though. I imagine that many people of all religions feel that they'd turn to atheism if they discovered their religion was wrong, but would guess that it's higher among Mormons than most because of the specific claims and the general incompatibility with other religions. Catholicism may be similar in this regard.