New video -- apologetics/inoculation topic

[Paperback Writer]

I would argue that the Internet does not in fact make it easier to validate or put into context the church's history. It renders the churches history issues more complicated. Mostly, what can be found on the World Wide Web merely piques one's curiosity. The instant gratification nature of the Web clouds one's ability to discern fact from fiction. Our curiosity is too easily satiated by the immediacy with which we can access information. Lazy or, an absolute lack of real personal scholarship and introspection is the consequence. Most of what is discovered on the Web is junk food for the mind. We all love junk food. But, it has the potential to have a calamitous affect on our health and well being ... mentally and physically.

All history is a type of fiction. Credibility is a careful ruse "historians" play on their readers. If history has shown anything—especially in this case—it's that credibility is fluid. The desire and drive to seek and validate credible sources is commendable. It's not something that should be rushed or, worse addressed with a statement that reads like a wikipedia entry. (For clarification, I am not characterizing nikuman's post as a wikipedia entry).

I readily accept and have parroted many of your thoughts on "internet-the social interactions." It's one of the reasons I come here from time to time.

Perhaps we use the internet differently. What you ascribe to the internet as "instant gratification" and having "our curiosity too easily satiated", I attribute to the LDS faith promoting narratives found throughout lesson manuals. The "white washing" of LDS history in those manuals are the epitome of "lazy, or, an absolute lack of real personal scholarship and introspection". In short, "junk food for the mind" as you describe it.

However, you're correct to point out that history is complicated and can be "a type of fiction". I'm not sure credibility in itself is fluid. Credibility in individuals and institutions can be earned or lost. I no longer trust the LDS church to do this for me in it's offical manuals because they have lost credibility with me. I guess I'll take my chances with the internet.

[Pelado]

The church isn't responsible for this site. Living Hope Christian Fellowship seems to be the site owner. Pretty deceptive though

The WHOIS data for the site shows the registrant organization as Boost Films and the registrant email as dennis_packard@byu.edu:

http://whois.net/whois/mormonchallenges.org

And here's the profile for the email registered with the entry:

http://philosophy.byu.edu/directory/djp4/

And here's the BYUtv Latter-Day Profiles on Dennis Packard:

http://byutv.org/watch/64d70353-8c27...1-2b4bdc97dd21

I haven't watched the profile yet.

[eldiente]

The WHOIS data for the site shows the registrant organization as Boost Films and the registrant email as dennis_packard@byu.edu:

http://whois.net/whois/mormonchallenges.org

And here's the profile for the email registered with the entry:

http://philosophy.byu.edu/directory/djp4/

And here's the BYUtv Latter-Day Profiles on Dennis Packard:

http://byutv.org/watch/64d70353-8c27...1-2b4bdc97dd21

I haven't watched the profile yet.

My Bad....... saw a link to the vid on an anti-site and forgot where I was..... Still though, this isn't a Church effort.

[tooblue]

Perhaps we use the internet differently. What you ascribe to the internet as "instant gratification" and having "our curiosity too easily satiated", I attribute to the LDS faith promoting narratives found throughout lesson manuals. The "white washing" of LDS history in those manuals are the epitome of "lazy, or, an absolute lack of real personal scholarship and introspection". In short, "junk food for the mind" as you describe it.

However, you're correct to point out that history is complicated and can be "a type of fiction". I'm not sure credibility in itself is fluid. Credibility in individuals and institutions can be earned or lost. I no longer trust the LDS church to do this for me in it's offical manuals because they have lost credibility with me. I guess I'll take my chances with the internet.

I am not certain if your comments in your first paragraph are a type of vitriol? Regardless, the manuals put out by the church are in no way comparative to the information found on the Internet. Those manuals, by in large, are quite effective at teaching a curriculum. They were put together by well educated curriculum specialists. At one point, Gordon B. Hinckley was in charge of the creation and publication of many of the churches manuals. What's more, they have always meant to serve as a guide to teachers as good curriculum should do. It's clear nikuman uses them as a guide and then magnifies his teaching with serious introspection. In my experience that is what he should and is directed to do as indicated in the manuals you appear to deride. When I teach I also use them as a guide and try to magnify my teaching.

The White-washing of history is a highly debatable assertion. It would be great if it were that simple. It's not. Again, credibility is a ruse. As much as it is earned through perceived actions it can also be purchased. I am not trying to pick a fight. I am saddened by your expressed frustrations. Of course, when I think about history, I consider my own personal history. How much am I really willing to share with my children or others? Do I hold back? Yes. I would be a fool not to. Especially if my intentions include the well being of my children or others. What is of value to them vs. what is not in my history? It's a very important question I have asked myself again and again.

I am not saying this is what the church and it's curriculum department has done in whole, but, perhaps in part in regards to church history. Is it time for that to change? Yes. And I, personally, am beginning to see that change. It has started with the new youth curriculum. Which places a greater responsibility on the teacher and student to study material and not merely follow a ready made formula laid out in a manual. It's going to take time for this new model to have an affect.

Good luck with the Internet.

[jay santos]

I am not certain if you comments in your first paragraph are a type of vitriol? Regardless, the manuals put out by the church are in no way comparative to the information found on the Internet. Those manuals, by in large, are quite effective at teaching a curriculum. They were put together by well educated curriculum specialists. At one point, Gordon B. Hinckley was in charge of the creation and publication of many of the churches manuals. What's more, they have always meant to serve as a guide to teachers as good curriculum should do. It's clear nikuman uses them as a guide and then magnifies his teaching with serious introspection. In my experience that is what he should and is directed to do as indicated in the manuals you appear to deride. When I teach I also use them as a guide and try to magnify my teaching.

The White-washing of history is a highly debatable assertion. It would be great if it were that simple. It's not. Again, credibility is a ruse. As much as it is earned through perceived actions it can also be purchased. I am not trying to pick a fight. I am saddened by your expressed frustrations. Of course, when I think about history, I consider my own personal history. How much am I really willing to share with my children or others? Do I hold back? Yes. I would be a fool not to. Especially if my intentions include the well being of my children or others. What is of value to them vs. what is not in my history? It's a very important question I have asked myself again and again.

I am not saying this is what the church and it's curriculum department has done in whole, but, perhaps in part in regards to church history. Is it time for that to change? Yes. And I, personally, am beginning to see that change. It has started with the new youth curriculum. Which places a greater responsibility on the teacher and student to study material and not merely follow a ready made formula laid out in a manual. It's going to take time for this new model to have an affect.

Good luck with the Internet.

You should watch the video I linked to. I'd be interested to hear what you thought.

[tooblue]

You should watch the video I linked to. I'd be interested to hear what you thought.

I did watch it. I agree with your assessment made in the opening post to this thread. I find nothing in it threatening. Would it be helpful? Maybe. It's certainly nothing new to me. But, I can definitely see how this type of information and the journey to answer the questions it raises can be devastating to an individuals faith. I have witnessed it happen to good people I know personally. However, those good people who left the church after living out this exact scenario did so because their bags were already packed so to speak. That's a much larger issue that needs to be addressed ... that I don't see being addressed.

I have to go indoctrinate the young men to Mutual. I understand that my point of view may encourage others to prop me up as and abstract representation of the church. A voodoo doll to poke at. Or, a target to throw darts at. I am not the church in that sense. But, if its cathartic, so be it. Fire away. However, the reality is I am just like the rest of you. Someone posting on an Internet message board. Enjoying some social media interaction.

[Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

http://mormonchallenges.org/

This is pretty interesting. The church seems to be really taking a different direction. A couple months ago, we have an article on Oliver's divining rod http://history.lds.org/article/doctr...owdery?lang=en. This video also seems to be a dramatic change of direction.

In the video, a good Mormon comes across "anti-Mormon" material on the Book of Abraham, and the video goes through his path of investigating this all out. What's interesting is that they acknowledge some difficult facts and acknowledge that the information is very tough to deal with, and that the kid is normal for doubting.

The church seems to be ready to be open and direct about some of this stuff.

An interesting response (albeit not from an unbiased source) to the professor videos at the mormonchallenges.org site:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,809065

[jay santos]

An interesting response (albeit not from an unbiased source) to the professor videos at the mormonchallenges.org site:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,809065

Yes I've seen those. Its a little unfortunate they started with the BoA, because those are the most difficult issues to deal with from apologetic standpoint. What I thought was kind of refreshing and unique about the video was all of the other stuff, ie the drama of the kid and his dad and his wife and everything, and how they treated him with respect and acknowledged it was very real and normal for someone to struggle with the information. And the answer was not necessarily to prove or disprove anything. 1) throw out an LDS scholar that gives a reasonably coherent, intellectual yet respectful response 2) Terryl Givens "faith is a choice", choose to believe. Which is ironic because I completely disagree with the Terryl Givens faith is a choice thing, but I think it's a good tactic and must make sense to a lot of people.

It's certainly a better approach than the Dan Peterson/FARMS view to make light of all the issues as though they're all anti-Mormon garbage, ridicule and insult the doubter, etc.

[UVACoug]

While I agree that the information has been out there for a long time, much of the the time the source or scholarship of the information was not known. So all too often credible information would often be classified and dismissed as "anti-Mormon" material. With the internet, one can better or more easily discern fact from fiction; history from fabrication.

Although, it may have been relatively easy to find decades ago, it's much easier to find now with the internet. And it's much easier to validate and put into context. None of this was new to me. What was new is how credible the information is and not so easily discarded as anti-Mormon propaganda. It's also somewhat reassuring that other "believing" or "inclined to believe" feel similar as I. That's another important benefit of the internet-the social interactions. It's one thing to feel this way about traditional Mormon narratives and feel that you're the only one that thinks this way because others around you are disinterested or arrive at different conclusions. It's another thing with encountering others of a like mind. It's similar to having the results of one's scientific studies validated by scientific methods at other laboratories. Prior to the internet, it was difficult to find such validation without venturing outside of Mormonism and having to deal with all the hostility and untruths of anti-Mormonism.

4233530998_internettruth_answer_3_xlarge.jpg

[statman]

My Bad....... saw a link to the vid on an anti-site and forgot where I was..... Still though, this isn't a Church effort.

If it's not church sanctioned, there are about to be some very public firings at BYU...