Inoculation is Overrated

[myboynoah]

If you keep this up I am going to just have to respond to your posts with stuff like, "quoted for truth." You know gospel doctrine and Elder's quorum can be boring sometimes but there are those moments where it is extremely rewarding. A yes the rewarding times are sometimes very typically Mormom moments.

Yesterday was a very freaky mullah day. I even buried my testimony. Apparently the Deacons had a "testimony chain" going on and my son was fourth in line. He started nervously balking so I told him if he went, then I would go. The chain was not broken. Sometimes it is possible to channel emerging Deacon testosterone into good works.

My 18-year-old daughter told me it was the first time she remembers me doing the testimony thing in church. More ammunition for my wife.

[RobinFinderson]

That explains the post. I was confused. Robin's obsession with Waters, even when they are not together, is weird.

Unlike the rest of you faithless jump-ships I remain his one true and loyal #1 fan.

[Indy Coug]

At what point do you become "inoculated"? How much dirt do you have to have at least a passing knowledge of to be armed against the fiery darts of Satan and internet ne'er-do-wells?

[CardiacCoug]

At what point do you become "inoculated"? How much dirt do you have to have at least a passing knowledge of to be armed against the fiery darts of Satan and internet ne'er-do-wells?

Why would you want to have only a "passing knowledge" of the dirt? I would think you would want to be familiar with as much of the data as you can be in order to make your own decision.

As All-American said, ultimately the truth will win out. You shouldn't be avoiding any information that is true just because you don't find it useful. (Yes, I disagree with Elder Packer on that issue and it appears that All-American disagrees with him, too.)

[myboynoah]

At what point do you become "inoculated"? How much dirt do you have to have at least a passing knowledge of to be armed against the fiery darts of Satan and internet ne'er-do-wells?

Do you see no use to the process, however it is defined? Or do you think it a silly exercise? Or something else? I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts on the matter.

[creekster]

At what point do you become "inoculated"? How much dirt do you have to have at least a passing knowledge of to be armed against the fiery darts of Satan and internet ne'er-do-wells?

As pelagius and I very briefly discussed at the beginning of the thread, his opening post presented several versions of what might be called 'inoculation.' If you are suggesting that an in depth emphasis on the negative and peculiar aspects of church history is not going to be useful in the long run, I would agree with you. In fact, this is not the role that I think we should promote in church settings, for the reasons Pelagius already set forth (time as resource, among others).

OTOH, preparing members for the idea that the peculiar or negative events and ideas exist, and that they are not incompatible with a testimony and that they key is faith and spiritual experiences, and then discussing them fairly and openly in a faith promoting way, may be essential to connect with the rising generation who view the idea of edited history with suspicion. This is particularly true given that no one is likely going to be successful in keeping an edited history expurgated.

I do agree that we do not need to emphasize the negative aspects of history, but the ensign article about the multiple written versions of the first visions, for example, was not faith damaging, IMO.

[CardiacCoug]

I like and admire Sooner and Cardiac very much, as I've made clear. Their views are heresy to mainstream Mormonism. I'm not aware of any material difference between their views and mine, though they have married in the faith and elected to remain part of the community.

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.

[creekster]

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 am glad you did that. The statemnt was jarring to me, as I think the differences are rather evident. Even so, you can obviously speak for yourself (and more eloquently and with fewer typos than I ever could).

[RobinFinderson]

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.

If I ever had regrets, and wanted to rejoin the church to enjoy membership in exactly the same way that you enjoy your membership, I would need to lie during the baptismal interview in order to get re-baptized.

[creekster]

If I ever had regrets, and wanted to rejoin the church to enjoy membership in exactly the same way that you enjoy your membership, I would need to lie during the baptismal interview in order to get re-baptized.

Not true. You could show up and go to all the activities, except you would not be asked to speak or pray, and you would not be given a claling. Otherwise, you would probabyl be treated better than the average schmoe becasue people would, against their better instincts I suspect, try to re-convert you.

[Mormon Red Death]

There is an arrogance in the term "innoculatation" that I think is unfounded and obnoxious. Sooner and Cardiac were innoculated, you see where that got them. Innoculation at an early age gives license to reject the faith without consequence. The real way to innoculate, on the contrary, is to deftly ingrain that there are expectations in terms of the faith that are a precondition to the full receipt of blessings associated with belonging to the family and the larger LDS community. The booster comes with marriage to an LDS spouse and in many cases economic well-being becoming inextricably bound up with the LDS community.

A very salient point

[RobinFinderson]

Not true. You could show up and go to all the activities, except you would not be asked to speak or pray, and you would not be given a claling. Otherwise, you would probabyl be treated better than the average schmoe becasue people would, against their better instincts I suspect, try to re-convert you.

Sure, but to get BAPTIZED...

[All-American]

Why would you want to have only a "passing knowledge" of the dirt? I would think you would want to be familiar with as much of the data as you can be in order to make your own decision.

As All-American said, ultimately the truth will win out. You shouldn't be avoiding any information that is true just because you don't find it useful. (Yes, I disagree with Elder Packer on that issue and it appears that All-American disagrees with him, too.)

Eh. Yes and no.

President Packer's prevailing message is that we should allow the most important truths to emerge as we teach. 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. Our teaching should focus on that ultimate question without being distracted by details across which we may come along the way. I agree wholeheartedly with this general sentiment. We focus a lot on showing that the prophet was a man when the most important thing to show is that the man was a prophet.

I stray from President Packer's line of thinking when it comes to what to do with those details. He and others may argue that the less important truths may distract from that which truly matters, and should therefore be avoided so as to eliminate background noise. I, on the other hand, find that there is a place for each piece of truth and information as I construct in my mind an image of the prophet. We should not be left unaware of the less important details; rather, we should learn how to find a place for each bit of truth in our world view, and even be willing to make changes to our world view when indisputable evidence so demands. The result of such a process is an understanding of the world around us that can adapt, conform, and most importantly, absorb new truth as it comes our way.

[RobinFinderson]

Eh. Yes and no.

President Packer's prevailing message is that we should allow the most important truths to emerge as we teach. 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. Our teaching should focus on that ultimate question without being distracted by details across which we may come along the way. I agree wholeheartedly with this general sentiment. We focus a lot on showing that the prophet was a man when the most important thing to show is that the man was a prophet.

I stray from President Packer's line of thinking when it comes to what to do with those details. He and others may argue that the less important truths may distract from that which truly matters, and should therefore be avoided so as to eliminate background noise. I, on the other hand, find that there is a place for each piece of truth and information as I construct in my mind an image of the prophet. We should not be left unaware of the less important details; rather, we should learn how to find a place for each bit of truth in our world view, and even be willing to make changes to our world view when indisputable evidence so demands. The result of such a process is an understanding of the world around us that can adapt, conform, and most importantly, absorb new truth as it comes our way.

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.

[SeattleUte]

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.

Thanks for your candor. I think the chief differences between our views is the positive feelings I have toward religion may be more ecumenical than yours, and I derive no joy but a lot of vexation from committed involvement with any congregation. I may be wrong about the former point; Mormonism may be your focus simply because you were born in it. You probably recognize the profound beauty in many Catholic and Orthodox liturgies and, say, Bach's religious music. You probably recognize the positive practical impact of Christianity historically (I tend to think it's less relevant or important today). From what I've seen on these boards, it seems you may derive more joy from practical day to day participation in Mormonism than many who claim to believe the abstract theology.