Inoculation is Overrated

[pellegrino]

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?

I can tell you what I did when I taught the lesson. I asked how many were aware that there are multiple accounts of the first vision. Only a handful did. I could see visual discomfort in some of their faces when the topic was breached. Some class members were confused, others smiled because we were finally talking about something interesting.

We actually went and in as detailed as possible talked about differences in the various accounts (particularly the 1832, 1838, and 1842 versions). I didn't bring in the actual text, but we did discuss the particulars of each one. Even though I do feel that nearly all Anti-Mormon analyses of the multiple accounts are completely facile and lack sophistication, I didn't ridicule them, or even bring them up other than to say that it was important for members to know and be familiar with the multiple accounts because there would be those who would use it against us. I presented the facts and encouraged members to make of it what they would. In the end, either what J.S. said was true, or it wasn't. I personally feel that he was telling the truth. In the end I received a lot of compliments, even from those who were appeared to be extremely uncomfortable with the topic. One even said it was nice to have an open conversation about the multiple accounts without feeling pressed to defend them.

[faith]

My mother converted to the Mormon church when I was a young child, and my father did not convert (Although my mother still hopes and prays). As a believing Mormon who grew up in part-member, convert family, I was extremely ignorant of many aspects of my religion. My mother never took out her endowments until after I left for college, because all through my childhood it was discouraged for women who had non-Mormon husbands to participate in those temple ordinances. I grew up in the church sometimes hearing the word “garment”, but it never occurred to me that it was referring to some special type of underwear. It was not until I attended BYU that I learned about garments or endowments. I also remember when I first discovered about Mormons relationship with Polygamy. It wasn’t at church, it was in my 9th grade History Class from the textbook that I read about this part of Mormon history. I’m 36 years old, to give you an idea of the time period I am referring to. I understand that there are some converts on the board, and I am curious about when you learned about polygamy, temple covenants, etc. and in what context you learned these things.