Inoculation is Overrated

[All-American]

I don't like the idea of innoculation. Neither do I think it is necessary to avoid the "skeletons in the closet" in teaching. If it is truth, it willbe uplifting and set us free.

Two weeks ago, I was asked to teach Sunday school on the first vision. I printed out copies of the different first-person accounts of the first vision, passed them out to class members, and compared them to try to discern what happened in the grove that day. I even got the accounts, as it turned out, from an anti-Mormon website. It was a great lesson.

There's no need to sit somebody down and brace them for the day they find out that, for example, Joseph wrote four accounts of the first vision. That seems to be the approach of inoculation. Instead, when we take the time to learn why there are different accounts, what is different, and what we can learn from them, all are edified.

We teach that all truth will be circumscribed into one great whole. Let's live according to that belief.

[pelagius]

Two weeks ago, I was asked to teach Sunday school on the first vision. I printed out copies of the different first-person accounts of the first vision, passed them out to class members, and compared them to try to discern what happened in the grove that day. I even got the accounts, as it turned out, from an anti-Mormon website. It was a great lesson.

There's no need to sit somebody down and brace them for the day they find out that, for example, Joseph wrote four accounts of the first vision. That seems to be the approach of inoculation. Instead, when we take the time to learn why there are different accounts, what is different, and what we can learn from them, all are edified.

Nicely put AA ... my wife took a very similar approach in a recent Relief Society lesson she taught and had a very similar reaction.

[BlueHair]

It seems like the simple solution would be for the church to change the lesson manuals to reflect the truth, or at least truth to the best of their knowledge. Most kids go to church because their parents take them there from the time they are born. If the truth was taught from the beginning, there would be no need for innoculation. I doubt it would make much of a difference to a child whether the plates were translated behind a sheet or with a stone in a hat. I think the betrayal people feel when the find out the truth is the real problem. I remember thinking, "If they lied about this, what else are the lying about".

[RobinFinderson]

I think the church would benefit from a series of lessons for investigators that HONESTLY outline the church's history. I think the average member would benefit from these lessons as well. Current manuals that touch on church history are case studies in obfuscation, so at the very least, the church needs to change its relationship with the truth.

Does the average member know the events that led up to Joseph's murder? Could the average member tell you why he was incarcerated?

Assuming an average investigator doesn't seek outside information about the church, is she going to know that she is joining a church that used to practice polygamy, and continues to practice spiritual polygamy into the present? Is it reasonable to think that this might cause her some concern if she discovers this after joining?

[CardiacCoug]

Neither do I think it is necessary to avoid the "skeletons in the closet" in teaching. If it is truth, it will be uplifting and set us free.

You obviously disagree with the Church leadership on this issue, then.

Is there a formal Church-approved lesson about the different versions of the First Vision? Maybe I missed it.

[pelagius]

You obviously disagree with the Church leadership on this issue, then.

Is there a formal Church-approved lesson about the different versions of the First Vision? Maybe I missed it.

Well it depends on your view I suppose. I think most people think Ensign articles are fair game in terms of incorporating them into lessons (although I don't think Ensign articles aren't formally an encouraged source at the beginning of the lesson manuals, still its an official source). So one could bring the multiple accounts into the discussion with,

Milton R. Backman, Joseph's Smith's Recitals of the First Vision:

At that point bringing in the actually text seems like a natural extension.

[CardiacCoug]

Well it depends on your view I suppose. I think most people think Ensign articles are fair game in terms of incorporating them into lessons. So once bring it into the discussion with,

Milton R. Backman, Joseph's Smith's Recitals of the First Vision:

At that point bringing in the actually text seems like a naturally extension.

That's a good article. I like that and didn't know about it.

Why nothing new along similar lines since 1985?

Maybe because it's not part of the new, official, ultra-correlated, sanitized, and approved version of history put out by the Church that would make the former Soviet Union proud.

This is a little bit of a tangent, but the approach to history reminds me a little bit of many Church members' approach to media. There are some members of the Church who say, "I only watch movies that I would feel comfortable showing my 8-year old." Their shelves are full of Disney movies. They honestly don't believe that there are any themes or topics that are appropriate for adults to consider and learn about that aren't appropriate for young children.

Likewise, many members (and apparently Church leaders generally) believe that the only appropriate history to discuss is that which you would discuss with an 8-year old. It's ludicrous and very unsatisfying to have adult Sunday School meetings that address Church history in such a trite and oversimplified manner.

I have even heard Primary kids call out their leaders for giving the same oversimplified version of the creation story that would be recited in an adult meeting ("Isn't the earth actually billions of years old?")

[Solon]

While I readily acknowledge and applaud the innovative teaching approaches and lessons of Pelagius, DDD, All-American, and others, these guys are in the vast minority. Be as "edgy" as you can with the official church doctrine. You're only one hardliner bishop away from running into trouble.

Furthermore, there is no really good forum in the church (nor should there probably be) for viewpoints that strongly oppose the official point of view. While I think Lebowski and Pelagius were right to say we should leave that to the historians, we all know where the historians have ended up.

The toughest part isn't the primary sources that have been avoided or eschewed: it's the conclusions that come from them. I think you're probably alright to discuss the various versions of the First Vision, but you'd probably better come to the "right" conclusion in church.

Church services are for boosting faith. History is for understanding the past and making sense of the present. Sometimes their marriage gets ugly.

[pelagius]

That's a good article. I like that and didn't know about it.

Why nothing new along similar lines since 1985?

Maybe because it's not part of the new, official, ultra-correlated, sanitized, and approved version of history put out by the Church that would make the former Soviet Union proud.

I suspect the timing of the first vision article has more to do with when most of the historical work in the academic literature was done in terms of the multiple accounts than anything else. In 85, it was still somewhat timely.

I would be happy to see a refreshing of the article in the Ensign. Although to be fair the Ensign has done some decent historical stuff recently. See, for example:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre By Richard E. Turley Jr.

[RobinFinderson]

A big challenge for the church is that it continues to demand the most literal belief from its members. I could never rejoin the church without lying, because the baptismal interview would screen me out. But MOST people don't choose to join a church because they literally believe everything its leaders teach. Most people view their relationship to their church very differently than the average believing Mormon. These questions are equivalent: Should the church inoculate? Should the church encourage membership among those that don't literally believe everything the prophets have taught?

[Solon]

That's a good article. I like that and didn't know about it.

Why nothing new along similar lines since 1985?

Maybe because it's not part of the new, official, ultra-correlated, sanitized, and approved version of history put out by the Church that would make the former Soviet Union proud.

This is a little bit of a tangent, but the approach to history reminds me a little bit of many Church members' approach to media. There are some members of the Church who say, "I only watch movies that I would feel comfortable showing my 8-year old." Their shelves are full of Disney movies. They honestly don't believe that there are any themes or topics that are appropriate for adults to consider and learn about that aren't appropriate for young children.

Likewise, many members (and apparently Church leaders generally) believe that the only appropriate history to discuss is that which you would discuss with an 8-year old. It's ludicrous and very unsatisfying to have adult Sunday School meetings that address Church history in such a trite and oversimplified manner.

I have even heard Primary kids call out their leaders for giving the same oversimplified version of the creation story that would be recited in an adult meeting ("Isn't the earth actually billions of years old?")

Here is one of the best historical Ensign articles I've ever read. It's told from a faithful LDS point of view, but goes light on the smug-factor. It's very accurate and quite well done. And it doesn't make any silly claims about Greek philosophy ruining the world.

Oh, and it's 30+ years old.

[pelagius]

Some nice thoughts in general Solon. I meant to mention early that I thought the following from an early post was great:

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.

Just a brief comment on the following:

While I readily acknowledge and applaud the innovative teaching approaches and lessons of Pelagius, DDD, All-American, and others, these guys are in the vast minority. Be as "edgy" as you can with the official church doctrine. You're only one hardliner bishop away from running into trouble.

I am sure you a right about this and I am sure such a situation we bother me greatly if it happened. On the other hand, I have even taught in my typical way in front of several GAs and they took part in the lesson and seemed to enjoy it. It turns out the most people don't find me very controversial. (I am the world's worst heretic)

[Solon]

Some nice thoughts in general Solon. I meant to mention early that I thought the following from an early post was great:



Just a brief comment on the following:



I am sure you a right about this and I am sure such a situation we bother me greatly if it happened. On the other hand, I have even taught in my typical way in front of several GAs and they took part in the lesson and seemed to enjoy it. It turns out the most people don't find me very controversial.

From my experience, it's 95% presentation. When people are just saying things to shock others or undermine their cherished beliefs, they're going to get some blowback. When teachers are humble, things go better.

It's probably better to say it, and let the GA's react, than to keep quiet and feel resentful. Sincerity goes a long way.

[CardiacCoug]

I suspect the timing of the first vision article has more to do with when most of the historical work in the academic literature was done in terms of the multiple accounts than anything else. In 85, it was still somewhat timely.

I would be happy to see a refreshing of the article in the Ensign. Although to be fair the Ensign has done some decent historical stuff recently. See, for example:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre By Richard E. Turley Jr.

I agree that the MMM article was well-done.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well it depends on your view I suppose. I think most people think Ensign articles are fair game in terms of incorporating them into lessons (although I don't think Ensign articles aren't formally an encouraged source at the beginning of the lesson manuals, still its an official source). So one could bring the multiple accounts into the discussion with,

Milton R. Backman, Joseph's Smith's Recitals of the First Vision:

At that point bringing in the actually text seems like a natural extension.

There is a guy in our ward who is on the stake high council. He sees it as his personal mission to keep us all on the straight and narrow. Whenever anyone deviates from the lesson manual he comes down like a ton of bricks. He gets red-faced and chews them out on the spot. Drives us nuts. Some of the instructors just chuckle and ignore him, but he does intimidate. He would have gone ballistic at AA's lesson on the first vision.