Inoculation is Overrated

[All-American]

Who is to say that those details are not important? Part of their utility might be how they help the average person see the difference between real prophets and false prophets. Don't the scriptures warn that there will be many false prophets? That way if someone comes along and translates ancient manuscripts with the help of seer stones in a hat, that person may very well be a prophet.

All the more reason.

[woot]

I'm trying to decide if I should let this statement stand without objection. Sooner is too busy to waste time on the board, but I don't think he would object to SU's statement. I know where SU is coming from because I can't honestly say I believe the Church or any church is "true."

But SU and I probably differ in that my feelings toward the Church as a whole are very positive. I have no doubt that the Church is a tremendous force for good in my life, and that is the basis for my testimony. I enjoy the social aspects of the Church and music in the Church a great deal. I enjoy teachings of the Church that relate to Christian living and practical matters. I'm predisposed to give Church leaders the benefit of the doubt because I think they are very good people who are doing their best even when they are wrong and when they lag behind the rest of society in regards to racism (largely in the past) and sexism (still a major issue).

I reject abstract theology as pure conjecture and superstition. Nobody knows what (if anything) happens when we die, in my opinion. I guess in my heart I am an agnostic, not arrogant enough to be an atheist but unlikely to ever be convinced that things happen in this world that cannot be fully explained as natural phenomena.

I loved this post, but I can't help but point out that you've bought into the anti-atheist stigma by considering it to be an arrogant position, when it is the exact opposite of an arrogant position (theism is the ultimate in arrogance, from a philosophical perspective). By definition, if you are agnostic, that means you don't think it's possible to know if there is a god or not, not that you're not sure if you believe in one. If you don't have a positive belief in god (ie the vast majority of agnostics) then by definition you're an atheist. We already had this whole discussion at length in another thread, but the short version is that atheist and agnostic are not points on the same line, and are not mutually exclusive.

[Solon]

The most important thing to know about Joseph Smith is not whether he used stones in a hat to translate, had multiple wives, or occasionally engaged in behavior that many would consider un-prophetic, but whether or not he was a prophet of God.

While this is certainly true from a religious point of view, my problem stems from those who outright deny or otherwise obscure the basic facts, as far as we know them. It's more subtle on an institutional level, more pronounced at the local (depending on the place and who's in charge), but overall there's a culture of spinning or denying many of these issues altogether. There was a groundswell of change under Hinckley, but I'm not sure yet if this will continue.

I doubt these historical issues need to be aired in a church setting. But there should be no problem airing them in a professional and historical one. Unfortunately, there is - or, at least, there is the perception of one.

[ERCougar]

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 sill claims about Greek philosophy ruining the world.

Oh, and it's 30+ years old.

This is a GREAT article. Thanks for the link.

They can't do enough of this stuff, IMO. Well, I guess they could, but we're not even close to that point.

[CardiacCoug]

By definition, if you are agnostic, that means you don't think it's possible to know if there is a god or not, not that you're not sure if you believe in one. If you don't have a positive belief in god (ie the vast majority of agnostics) then by definition you're an atheist. We already had this whole discussion at length in another thread, but the short version is that atheist and agnostic are not points on the same line, and are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think it's possible for me to know if there is a god or not and I tend to think that other people who claim to know are just deluding themselves. That seems like agnosticism to me.

I missed the discussion of atheism/agnosticism and have to admit I haven't thought much about the exact definitions. I thought an atheist claimed some degree of certainty in the absence of God, which considering the severe limitations on human knowledge of the universe and its origins seems sort of arrogant. But I agree it's probably not more arrogant than believing in God in the absence of any evidence.

Wow, this board is great. You can get called out for dissing the atheists as well as dissing the orthodox Mormons. I love it.

[SoCalCoug]

I've generally stayed out of the discussion of inoculation, because I don't consider myself to be either a scholar or a historian. Pelagius' criticism in the other thread of Rough Stone Rolling was fascinating to me. Because I'm a lawyer, and not a historian, I have to put it in a context I can readily understand.

The essence of what I do as a lawyer is take the facts that I am able to discover and put them into an interpretive framework that advocates my position. The other side puts the facts they discover in an interpretive framework advocating their position, and then the judge (or jury) listens to both sides and try to determine what the truth is.

It seems to me that putting a biography in an interpretive framework is kind of like advocating one interpretation of a person's life, possibly without the opportunity for a differing presentation of interpretation.

Honestly, I don't read a lot of biographies, so I guess I'm a little out of my element.

Since any biography is going to impose an interpretive framework for the subject, there really can't be any true "definitive" biography, can there?

I have to admit that I have not yet read RSR, although it's next on my list, and I am anxious to do so. If it skimps on the interpretive framework in favor of facts, that's great to me. I like to be given all the facts, and left to make my own interpretation. Even if they're not "useful" facts. I don't mind knowing that a human head weighs 8 pounds, even if I will probably never use that fact (I know, the kid was probably off a few pounds) for any real purpose.

I completely disagree with any viewpoint that allows for facts to be obscured from adults (except in the forum of attorney advocacy, of course). I don't know that I advocate "inoculation" about perceived negative church history, as I advocate full disclosure and not shying away from truth (small case "truth" not large case "Truth"), regardless of its potential effect. I don't like hiding facts when it comes to historical matters. Let me know the facts, and then make my own interpretation of them. I don't want to be spoon-fed history.

[Clark Addison]

I don't think it's possible for me to know if there is a god or not and I tend to think that other people who claim to know are just deluding themselves. That seems like agnosticism to me.

I missed the discussion of atheism/agnosticism and have to admit I haven't thought much about the exact definitions. I thought an atheist claimed some degree of certainty in the absence of God, which considering the severe limitations on human knowledge of the universe and its origins seems sort of arrogant. But I agree it's probably not more arrogant than believing in God in the absence of any evidence.

Wow, this board is great. You can get called out for dissing the atheists as well as dissing the orthodox Mormons. I love it.

While it doesn't fit the dictionary definition, in many people's minds Atheist = Militant Agnostic. "Atheists" under this definition are people who are more likely to think all religious people are idiots. Atheists are more likely to decry the pernicious effect of religion on society. Atheists are more likely to file lawsuits and make a stink about things. There are a whole lot of people who don't believe in God, but they are OK with religion and religious people in general, so they don't want to be associated with the baggage of the Atheist label.

[woot]

Indeed there are various different definitions, most of them wrong, that people ascribe to the two terms, but atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god, regardless of whether they think it's possible to know whether there is a god. All of the atheists you've ever heard of are agnostic atheists. I don't know any gnostic atheists, but have seen a few people on the internet claim to be certain that god doesn't exist, so those people would fall into that category.

[All-American]

While this is certainly true from a religious point of view, my problem stems from those who outright deny or otherwise obscure the basic facts, as far as we know them. It's more subtle on an institutional level, more pronounced at the local (depending on the place and who's in charge), but overall there's a culture of spinning or denying many of these issues altogether. There was a groundswell of change under Hinckley, but I'm not sure yet if this will continue.

I doubt these historical issues need to be aired in a church setting. But there should be no problem airing them in a professional and historical one. Unfortunately, there is - or, at least, there is the perception of one.

And this is where I stray from the approach. It is far more important to know that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence than that he owned slaves- but that doesn't mean we should ignore the latter bit of information. My perspective calls for those facts to be acknowledged, not spun fudged or ignored, but to find a place for them in a view that would not obscure the most important facts.

[UtahDan]

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).

I know I am days late to this discussion to feel free to not respond if you have already reached thread fatigue or if I am rehashing. I'm going to share my thoughts anyway.

I think the above is a very cold, cynical, amoral view. I don't mean that in the pejorative, rather I'm trying to frame the argument. The above can only be accepted if you remove normative considerations from the calculation, unless by normative we mean what maximizes membership.

On the merits of the argument, as I have framed it, I agree that you have to prioritize either X or Y depending on which one keeps more people in. For the reason that I don't think that this calculation should be the basis for making a decision about what to do, or at least that it should be a marginal factor, and since I see telling the truth as a stronger moral imperative I don't give it a great deal of weight notwithstanding that it is correct.

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.

When you say "it's the wrong reason", I'm not sure what the antecedent of "it" is. I think you mean inoculation and when you say inoculation you mean this hyper-defensive approach to warning people about problem areas that you are describing. I see that as a bit of a straw man because I don't think anyone is suggesting we do that. I do agree with the latter half of the paragraph which is precisely what my understanding of what inoculation is.

For example, two weeks ago I taught the about apostasy in gospel doctrine and about the need for a restoration. In giving an example of this I taught the class about the Johnine comma and summarized a large quantity of Ehrmann to educate them about how difficult it was for the well intentioned Reformation thinkers to have an accurate guide to rely on.

Later when I talked about the first vision I very matter of factly noted that that there are no fewer than nine accounts given by Joseph. The first in 1832 in his own hand, some in letters, some in interviews, one recorded by Orson Pratt and then the most exhaustive and complete in 1838 which we now find in our scriptures. I didn't dwell on it more than what I just said.

My primary intention was to teach the material. My secondary objective was to mix in some lesser know facts in a faithful context. Maybe they will want to learn more, maybe they won't, maybe it lets some of them not feel like something was hidden from them when they encounter it in a non-faith promoting context.

Based on what you say, I think you agree with my approach. I would be curious to know if you don't.

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.

Now that I am at the end I think you have faked me out with your thread title and opening paragraph. I think rather than constructing an argument that inoculation is a bad idea and overrated, you have laid out very nicely how it can and should be done in a beneficial way.

[pelagius]

I know I am days late to this discussion to feel free to not respond if you have already reached thread fatigue or if I am rehashing. I'm going to share my thoughts anyway.

I will admit to reaching my faitgue level on this subject (but I don't have the stamina of some of the more prolific posters). I apologize to both you and SoCalCoug. You both brought nice additional insight to the topic and both deserve thoughtful replies from me I think. I don't disagree with many and don't disagree substantially with any of your overall points (at least for some of them you echo some of the early points the Creekster made as well). You also frame the issue in a bit different but I think helpful way so I hope most of the board takes a good look at your post even if it is at the end of thread's life.

I might, for example, argue with you over whether the current "devotionally based system" is less true to the truth (how about that for a phrase) but I think I would like to save that one for a separate discussion possibly (and maybe not even then because I would be in such a distinct minority I think that I would feel positively Texian). Plus in some sense I suspect I really did argue that there is a system more true to the truth than the current system so I probably end up agreeing with you anyways.

[Solon]

And this is where I stray from the approach. It is far more important to know that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence than that he owned slaves- but that doesn't mean we should ignore the latter bit of information. My perspective calls for those facts to be acknowledged, not spun fudged or ignored, but to find a place for them in a view that would not obscure the most important facts.

Well put. I agree completely.

[ERCougar]

Later when I talked about the first vision I very matter of factly noted that that there are no fewer than nine accounts given by Joseph. The first in 1832 in his own hand, some in letters, some in interviews, one recorded by Orson Pratt and then the most exhaustive and complete in 1838 which we now find in our scriptures. I didn't dwell on it more than what I just said.

I would've liked to see your lesson on this. I was working when we had our lesson, so I missed it in our ward, but this is how I see it going down (based on other SS experiences):
"There were no fewer than nine accounts of the First Vision. There are a few small differences in the accounts and some have used this fact to disparage the Prophet, when they obviously don't realize that he was talking to different audiences. Anti-Mormons are so stupid. They use these silly arguments as an excuse to leave the church so they can drink and have sex, without realizing how easily they're refuted. Moving on..."
(ok...slight exaggeration at the end...)

In other words, they really don't give the argument any sort of fair treatment, which in some ways is the same (or worse) as not bringing up the point at all--they create a straw man. Meanwhile, if I were to raise my hand and point out that those differences aren't exactly small, for instance, I just look like I'm attacking the Church. So everyone stays silent and the faithful just go on feeling even more comfortable and superior to those who question.

Now, if you were the instructor in our class, you may not phrase it this way, but someone's going to raise their hand and say essentially the same thing. How would you handle it?

[UtahDan]

I would've liked to see your lesson on this. I was working when we had our lesson, so I missed it in our ward, but this is how I see it going down (based on other SS experiences):
"There were no fewer than nine accounts of the First Vision. There are a few small differences in the accounts and some have used this fact to disparage the Prophet, when they obviously don't realize that he was talking to different audiences. Anti-Mormons are so stupid. They use these silly arguments as an excuse to leave the church so they can drink and have sex, without realizing how easily they're refuted. Moving on..."
(ok...slight exaggeration at the end...)

In other words, they really don't give the argument any sort of fair treatment, which in some ways is the same (or worse) as not bringing up the point at all--they create a straw man. Meanwhile, if I were to raise my hand and point out that those differences aren't exactly small, for instance, I just look like I'm attacking the Church. So everyone stays silent and the faithful just go on feeling even more comfortable and superior to those who question.

Now, if you were the instructor in our class, you may not phrase it this way, but someone's going to raise their hand and say essentially the same thing. How would you handle it?

If my ward has very many others who are hip to the facts, on both sides, surrounding the "problem areas", they keep that fact to themselves.

But to answer your question, I try really hard not to let people caricature things. If someone were to say that, I would probably very matter of factly say that there are significant differences between them and that this has been a hang up for some people, though many people, including me, have been able to assimilate it. I would almost certainly also add that it I am always reluctant to judge others or their motives. That last bit I say frequently.

[SoCalCoug]

I apologize to both you and SoCalCoug. You both brought nice additional insight to the topic and both deserve thought.

Woo hoo! Free apology burrito coming my way!