Historical Inoculation

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I agree... Lets never keep anything from our kids!!! Guess what Santa isnt real!!! guess what? Me and your mom get freaky all the time.. SAW I and SAW II are great movies for the family!

I see your point. Let's tell them that our prophets and leaders are never wrong and must be obeyed at all times. Lets tell them that JS used a urim and thummim instead of the stone in the hat. Lets tell them that Joseph Smith used the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham to translate when in fact they are a funery rite. Lets tell them Brigham Young never said people are living on the sun and moon. Your Santa Clause analogy was perfect. When they get old enough to realize the church's version makes about as much sense as Santa they won't believe anything ever taught.

My idea of a good Level A would be a simple version, but still the truth. Here is an example : We have a leader we call a prophet. He tries his best to teach us Christ's gospel. He is right most of the time, but he is human and still makes mistakes. When he speaks, you should think about what he says and pray to know if what he says is right.

Current Level A : We have a man called a prophet. When he speaks, you obey. He is never wrong. Even if he were (which he never is) you will be blessed for following him. No need to think, question, or pray about what he says. When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I see your point. Let's tell them that our prophets and leaders are never wrong and must be obeyed at all times. Lets tell them that JS used a urim and thummim instead of the stone in the hat. Lets tell them that Joseph Smith used the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham to translate when in fact they are a funery rite. Lets tell them Brigham Young never said people are living on the sun and moon. Your Santa Clause analogy was perfect. When they get old enough to realize the church's version makes about as much sense as Santa they won't believe anything ever taught.

My idea of a good Level A would be a simple version, but still the truth. Here is an example : We have a leader we call a prophet. He tries his best to teach us Christ's gospel. He is right most of the time, but he is human and still makes mistakes. When he speaks, you should think about what he says and pray to know if what he says is right.

Current Level A : We have a man called a prophet. When he speaks, you obey. He is never wrong. Even if he were (which he never is) you will be blessed for following him. No need to think, question, or pray about what he says. When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.

You've been inactive far too long. I relaize your engaging in reductio ad absurdum (or however you spell that) but there must be some truth in the premise for that approach to work. I am a level A kind of guy and I have never believed or been taught what you are asserting, nor have I taught that to my children. Your version of level A is very close to what I believe and what I teach my children. The fallacy you're presenting (or assuming) here is that the gosepl is about the history of the modern church. It isn't. It's about spiritual enlightenment and seeking, finding and doing the will of God. The modern church is the mechanism given to us to assist us to achieve these goals. My testimony is not now nor has it ever been based on the fact that Bro Brigham knows science. My testimony is based on my own spiritual experiences. The rest of it is filler to help us get through each day and bridge the lows when our testimony flags. In the end, however, if you don't feel it spirtiually, then it doesn't really mater how the book of mormon was translated. If you do feel it spirtiually, it likewise doesn't really matter how the book was translated.

That having been said, however, I think the point Ash makes in the cited aerticel at the beginning of the thread is very good. I do discuss a lot of these topics with my children and in my family so they can hear about it from a beleiver as opposed to just an opponent. The innoculation analogy, while a bit troubling, does make the point. But the criticism you are directing at the church may be true of some persons in it, and of some leaders in it, but it is not inherent in the gospel nor is it inhernet in the culture.

All of this is just MO, of course. Your mileage may vary.

[BarbaraGordon]

Pardon random thoughts from an outsider:

As far as progression of complexity of instruction, I believe there is an NT basis for this, as Paul has said,
"Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." Clearly we cannot teach an entirety of a belief system from day one, whether we're instructing a child or a new adult believer.

Our responsibility is to avoid creating the illusion of simplicity in a complex world. We do not want to mislead our children into thinking that there is a simple truth that will go unchallenged in this world.

It is as tooblue said elsewhere, we must raise children free of fear. If we shelter them from challenges, they find themselves unable to rise to any challenge, and they become fearful.


As the great spiritual mind Scott Stapp (Creed) has said,
"If I had just one wish
Only one demand
I hope he's not like me
I hope he understands
That he can take this life
And hold it by the hand
And he can greet the world
With arms wide open... "

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Pardon random thoughts from an outsider:

As far as progression of complexity of instruction, I believe there is an NT basis for this, as Paul has said,
"Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." Clearly we cannot teach an entirety of a belief system from day one, whether we're instructing a child or a new adult believer.

Our responsibility is to avoid creating the illusion of simplicity in a complex world. We do not want to mislead our children into thinking that there is a simple truth that will go unchallenged in this world.

It is as tooblue said elsewhere, we must raise children free of fear. If we shelter them from challenges, they find themselves unable to rise to any challenge, and they become fearful.


As the great spiritual mind Scott Stapp (Creed) has said,
"If I had just one wish
Only one demand
I hope he's not like me
I hope he understands
That he can take this life
And hold it by the hand
And he can greet the world
With arms wide open... "

Well said, Babs.

Milk is fine, but you can't toss it on the grill and cook it.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Current Level A : We have a man called a prophet. When he speaks, you obey. He is never wrong. Even if he were (which he never is) you will be blessed for following him. No need to think, question, or pray about what he says. When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.

I find it interesting that those I encounter who have the most dogmatic view of The Gospel are almost always former believers. It's as if we are/were members of totally different churches.

Within context, some of what you've said may be true, and even the best course to follow. However, the church I was raised in never required blanket unquestioning obedience. I've found that telling Mormons to do something soley because some church leader said so is a sure fire way to gum up the works. Then again, I grew up in Utah. It may be different elsewhere.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Well said, Babs.

Milk is fine, but you can't toss it on the grill and cook it.

Yeah, what he said.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Pardon random thoughts from an outsider:

As far as progression of complexity of instruction, I believe there is an NT basis for this, as Paul has said,
"Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." Clearly we cannot teach an entirety of a belief system from day one, whether we're instructing a child or a new adult believer.

Our responsibility is to avoid creating the illusion of simplicity in a complex world. We do not want to mislead our children into thinking that there is a simple truth that will go unchallenged in this world.

It is as tooblue said elsewhere, we must raise children free of fear. If we shelter them from challenges, they find themselves unable to rise to any challenge, and they become fearful.


As the great spiritual mind Scott Stapp (Creed) has said,
"If I had just one wish
Only one demand
I hope he's not like me
I hope he understands
That he can take this life
And hold it by the hand
And he can greet the world
With arms wide open... "

That's exactly where I'm coming from. Some of us have talked about the milk-meat discussion in 1 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 5-6. I don't recall anyone in a formal LDS setting ever citing Hebrews 5: 12-6:2 (of which you cited a portion) to assert the need for meaty instruction ("you ought to be teachers" etc.). Some seem to be studiously ignoring the instruction:

5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food;

13 for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness.

14 But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

6:1 Therefore let us go on towards perfection,* leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith towards God,

2 instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement.

[BarbaraGordon]

I just realized I completely missed your point when I posted this. I'll leave it here in any case.



Well, SEQ, frankly I owe you an apology.

I surveyed all of the milk/meat texts, and tried to slide by with that one, thinking no one would "call me" on the fact that I took this out of context and here Paul is actually demoting the group back to milk.

Indeed you are correct.

My point is that Paul makes this analogy repeatedly: that milk comes before meat, and that the righteous must eventually progress to the meat.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

That's exactly where I'm coming from. Some of us have talked about the milk-meat discussion in 1 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 5-6. I don't recall anyone in a formal LDS setting ever citing Hebrews 5: 12-6:2 (of which you cited a portion) to assert the need for meaty instruction ("you ought to be teachers" etc.). Some seem to be studiously ignoring the instruction:

5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food;

13 for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness.

14 But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

6:1 Therefore let us go on towards perfection,* leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith towards God,

2 instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement.

The principle of teaching basic church history before teaching complicated, confusing church history is applicable here. But let's not confuse the meat vs milk issue and apply it to church history.

Paul is referring to the meat of the gospel as Jesus' righteousness. That's a heavy concept. That definitely is meat. Would Paul call JS and BY's obscure quotes on polygamy meat? Nothing is more absurd to me than thinking Paul would call that stuff (Level C church history) meat.

My frustration with the proponents of teaching "meat" (which I'm all for if you define meat the right way), is that the meat of the gospel is considered by some to be the weird stuff, obscure early church leader quotes, Church history concerning polygamy and other controversial topics, etc.

Meat vs milk is definitely not a true comparison to Level A and Level C, IMHO.

There is a place for discussion and teaching of Level C history. But let's not get carried away and call it the meat of the gospel.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

There is a place for discussion and teaching of Level C history. But let's not get carried away and call it the meat of the gospel.

This is another concern I had in using that text. Which, just goes to show you, is why I should mind my own business and stick to discussing pop lyrics.