Historical Inoculation

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

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.

I wan't referring to you. Referring generally to SIEQ, but not really. This is a recurring comment for me, and aimed more generally at sentiment I've heard and read from many others--not just people here on the board.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

You make some good points. The church experience is vastly different from family to family, ward to ward, and stake to stake. Perhaps, if I grew up in your setting, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by jay santos

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.

I'm going to try and be congenial here, but you're way off on this, Jay. Your reductionist reading of what is meant by "meat" simply doesn't square with the text. No one is saying that "that stuff" is meat, but the mature understanding that can put it in a faith-consistent framework does have something to do with meat in that it evidences a finely honed ability to "distinguish good from evil." The Author of Hebrews (It's not Paul but is attributed to him) is asking for them to have a more mature understanding of the teachings of Christ, and he doesn't want them to keep "laying again the foundation"--dwelling on the milk. The Church manuals and instructors simply don't follow that counsel very well.

Moreover, the way the Gospel is presented in the formal teachings of the Church it is almost inevitably interwoven with issues and contexts that emerge in Church history (whether realized by any particular Church member or not). The current Relief Society and Priesthood manuals are fine examples of such interweaving, as is the D&C, parts of the Pearl of Great Price, and endless numbers of General Conference and Sacrament meeting talks. Moreover, the authoritative claims that the Church makes magnify it. Are Joseph Smith's accounts of the First Vision (all eight that are known to Level C folks) part of the Restored Gospel or of Church History? Clearly the question is a false dilemma, for a reasonable person can beleive they have bearing on both, as well as on the very scriptural notion of what a prophet is.

Moreover, a major point that Ash makes (and that I agree with) is that many of those weird, obscure, and controversial quotes and accounts are not in fact obscure at all. They are all over the Internet, and in various LDS-critical publications, and they've pushed more than a few Level As into Level Bs. You are simply arguing against inoculation here in that these quotes and accounts
are very relevant to the people whose faith is shaken by them. A Level C person not only provides a distraught and unsure Level B with the comfort that a knowledgeable and faithful person is aware of them, but also that s/he has well-reasoned answers (or as Kimball said, better counterarguments). Moreover, the Level C person can than help the Level B person put these issues into a more nuanced and superior framework.

No one is arguing that the Level's A and C constitute, in whole, what is presented in 1 Corinthians or Hebrews as the milk-meat discussion. Not by a long shot. But its not a stretch to say that wanting to "lay again the foundation"--to repeat the sameness of the (apparent) simplicities in the Gospel (which is often inextircable from Church history) and the admonition that we "ought" to be more mature than that is consistent.

Finally, you say that "There is a place for discussion and teaching of Level C history." That place is only very infrequently in a formal Church setting, which is another point that Ash is arguing. It seems to me like you are, again, saying "let them eat cake" (or rather "let them drink milk") and are defending the status quo for it's own sake. I have no problem with Church members who are on Level A; I do have a problem with the lack of institutional support for people who reach Level B, and the lack of encouragement for people on Level C.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm going to try and be congenial here, but you're way off on this, Jay. Your reductionist reading of what is meant by "meat" simply doesn't square with the text. No one is saying that "that stuff" is meat, but the mature understanding that can put it in a faith-consistent framework does have something to do with meat in that it evidences a finely honed ability to "distinguish good from evil." The Author of Hebrews (It's not Paul but is attributed to him) is asking for them to have a more mature understanding of the teachings of Christ, and he doesn't want them to keep "laying again the foundation"--dwelling on the milk. The Church manuals and instructors simply don't follow that counsel very well.

Moreover, the way the Gospel is presented in the formal teachings of the Church it is almost inevitably interwoven with issues and contexts that emerge in Church history (whether realized by any particular Church member or not). The current Relief Society and Priesthood manuals are fine examples of such interweaving, as is the D&C, parts of the Pearl of Great Price, and endless numbers of General Conference and Sacrament meeting talks. Moreover, the authoritative claims that the Church makes magnify it. Are Joseph Smith's accounts of the First Vision (all eight that are known to Level C folks) part of the Restored Gospel or of Church History? Clearly the question is a false dilemma, for a reasonable person can beleive they have bearing on both, as well as on the very scriptural notion of what a prophet is.

Moreover, a major point that Ash makes (and that I agree with) is that many of those weird, obscure, and controversial quotes and accounts are not in fact obscure at all. They are all over the Internet, and in various LDS-critical publications, and they've pushed more than a few Level As into Level Bs. You are simply arguing against inoculation here in that these quotes and accounts
are very relevant to the people whose faith is shaken by them. A Level C person not only provides a distraught and unsure Level B with the comfort that a knowledgeable and faithful person is aware of them, but also that s/he has well-reasoned answers (or as Kimball said, better counterarguments). Moreover, the Level C person can than help the Level B person put these issues into a more nuanced and superior framework.

No one is arguing that the Level's A and C constitute, in whole, what is presented in 1 Corinthians or Hebrews as the milk-meat discussion. Not by a long shot. But its not a stretch to say that wanting to "lay again the foundation"--to repeat the sameness of the (apparent) simplicities in the Gospel (which is often inextircable from Church history) and the admonition that we "ought" to be more mature than that is consistent.

Finally, you say that "There is a place for discussion and teaching of Level C history." That place is only very infrequently in a formal Church setting, which is another point that Ash is arguing. It seems to me like you are, again, saying "let them eat cake" (or rather "let them drink milk") and are defending the status quo for it's own sake. I have no problem with Church members who are on Level A; I do have a problem with the lack of institutional support for people who reach Level B, and the lack of encouragement for people on Level C.

No, you misunderstand me.

First, in order to understand my position you have to seperate the two issues: meat vs milk and teaching Level A,B,C history.

On Level A,B,C:

I said earlier in this thread it's an interesting and important topic. I don't disagree . You love this straw man argument. You do it to me, and you do it everytime you pull out your paranoid conspiracy theories about all those people who are keeping the intellectual man down.

There appears to be no perfect solution, in my mind. There are negatives to the current approach. There are even more negatives, IMHO, to a move to Level C teaching overnight. Maybe we can try to get there through baby steps.


On Meat vs Milk:

I'll fight to my death on this issue. I think your definition of meat is lacking. I think the typical "deep" High Priest quorum discussion is gaggy not meaty. Paul called the meat Jesus' righteousness. What is he talking about? He's talking about understanding topics like nature of God, atonement, justification, sanctification, mediation. Am I wrong? Is there evidence that Paul would have considered 19th century Mormon polygamy history the meat of the gospel?

I repeat, this doesn't change the importance of teaching accurate and more mature version of LDS church history. But it's not "meat". It's not even milk. It's not doctrine at all.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

I agreed with most everything you said right up until this line: "nor is it inherent in the culture".

My experience leads me to believe that many of the problems (or at least my problems) with Mormonism are inherent in the culture. Are you seriously trying to argue that Mormon culture does not encourage, cultivate, and promote the mentality that Boyd K. Packer so famously voiced: "when the Prophet speaks the thinking is done"?

When the kids in my primary class sing
"Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don't go astray. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way!", it appears to me as if Mormon culture is a significant vehicle for the BlueHair's description of "current level A".

[creekster]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

I agreed with most everything you said right up until this line: "nor is it inherent in the culture".

My experience leads me to believe that many of the problems (or at least my problems) with Mormonism are inherent in the culture. Are you seriously trying to argue that Mormon culture does not encourage, cultivate, and promote the mentality that Boyd K. Packer so famously voiced: "when the Prophet speaks the thinking is done"?

When the kids in my primary class sing
"Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don't go astray. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way!", it appears to me as if Mormon culture is a significant vehicle for the BlueHair's description of "current level A".

I may have overstated that point. I guess I mean that it is not a necessary part of the culture, but it is common.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by creekster

I may have overstated that point. I guess I mean that it is not a necessary part of the culture, but it is common.

I too believe it is unnecessary. Unfortunately, it is all too common.

One of these days I would like to get a thread going about the Law of Common Consent as it relates to (common/typical) Mormon culture and church government.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am all for historical inoculation. Any notion that certain topics can be avoided in the internet age is absurd. The real question is, do we want the story to be told exclusively by our enemies, or do we want to take a more proactive role?

The problem, IMO, is in the implentation. It is fine to talk about this, but how on earth do we accomplish it? Simply saying "We need to be more open in our dialog at church meetings" doesn't get us very far. I have yet to see any kind of realistic plan for achieving such an objective.

Any thoughts?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am all for historical inoculation. Any notion that certain topics can be avoided in the internet age is absurd. The real question is, do we want the story to be told exclusively by our enemies, or do we want to take a more proactive role?

The problem, IMO, is in the implentation. It is fine to talk about this, but how on earth do we accomplish it? Simply saying "We need to be more open in our dialog at church meetings" doesn't get us very far. I have yet to see any kind of realistic plan for achieving such an objective.

Any thoughts?

Just like you said, how to go about doing it is difficult. For me, I do best if I go at a problem head on, as in just seeing the problem and solving it in the most straightfoward way. Unfortunately, because of the years and years of sheltering folks from some of the less than attractive history of the church, it would be too much of a shock for far too many to just open up and talk about it. OTH, if they can't handle it, that would be their problem.

One thing I do like about GBH is that he's been very good for PR in the sense that he has been willing to do what others never did - be more open to the general public. He may not answer questions to satisfy a lot of people but his answers of "there are things that have happened in the past of which we're not sure why they were as they were" is much better than "no comment" or "that's not how it was".

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by grapevine

Here's what ETB said on "telling the truth of our history". I talked about it here earlier. What the history buff is implying is we haven't been telling the truth all along. (ETB fireside March 28 1976"

"the humanistic trend isn't only tied to our secular history, there have been and continue to be attempts made to bring the philosophy into our own church history. Again the emphasis to underplay revelation and God's intervention in significiant events and to inordinatly humanize the prophets of God so that there human frailities become more Apparant than there spiritual qualities. It is a state of mind asked by a history buff, who asked do you believe the church has arrived at a sufficent state of maturity were we can begin to tell our "real story" Implied in that aquisition is that the church hasn't been telling the truth. Unfortunatley too many of those that have been intellectually gifted have been so imbued with criticism that they become disaffected spiritually."

YOu know the story of Miriam getting Leprosy when she and Aaron criticized Moses. Since the lord is no respector of persons she probably instigated it and complained worse. But I wonder if people know in conversation or message boards that criticize the lords annointed suffer from spiritual leprosy. Saying the church does this wrong this brother did this wrong. Spiritually are they the ones suffering leprosy?

That's exactly what the LDS church wants you to believe, anyone who questions or is critical of the church is a leper. Good psychological ploy. So Benson said that in 1976, so do you think the members of the time who were critical of the church's discriminatory policies against blacks were lepers or greater prophets than ETB et al.?