Historical Inoculation

[Sleeping in EQ]

The current issue of Sunstone is worth the cover price. We’ve already hashed through much of this, but I thought I’d post a chunk of an excellent article by Michael R. Ash. The quotes are from p. 38-39 of the Nov. 2006 issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Many years ago, I concluded that fewer members would be shocked out of the Church if they were taught the stickier issues of LDS history in faithful settings or from faithful literature. When members are introduced to peculiar or unconventional aspects of LDS history from LDS-critical sources, the natural inclination for some is to assume that the Church has “covered up” or “lied” about its past.

From my more than two decades of dealing with “ex” (or struggling) Mormons, I’ve found that feelings of betrayal and being lied to are the most frequent emotions felt by those who leave the Church for “intellectual” reasons. When feelings of betrayal overpower belief, faith is often lost and the original challenging discovery is no longer the issue; the greater issue becomes the feelings of infidelity and deception—feelings that are not easily overcome, even if serious answers are forthcoming later on. A testimony lost at this stage can be hard to restore. What might have been sufficient answers earlier become insufficient once resentment—as a result of presumably being deceived—replaces faith. As LDS scholar Kevin Barney once remarked to me, “People can absorb hard facts when presented in a context of faith. But they can’t absorb the feeling of being lied to.”

Other LDS scholars, including D. Michael Quinn, have also noted the potential power of “inoculation” against these stickier issues. While I don’t completely agree with all points in Quinn’s important essay, “On Being a Mormon Historian,” I do agree that Latter-day Saints will encounter—even more so in today’s Internet age—the problematic issues from “other sources.” Mormon historians would be better off “seek[ing] to write candid Church history in a context of perspective in order to inoculate the Saints against the historical disease germs that apostates and anti-Mormons may thrust upon them.”

LDS historical inoculation is analogous to viral inoculation both in immunizing subjects against more serious harm by exposing them to smaller doses of the virus in a controlled setting, as well as the potential risk from the inoculation itself. For example, while those who contract smallpox typically have a 20 to 40 percent mortality rate, those who are inoculated against smallpox have a mortality rate of 2 percent or less. Likewise, it is unfortunate, but unavoidable, that some Latter-day Saints will lose their testimonies following LDS history inoculation or because of the actual inoculation. From my experience, however, those who survive inoculation with contra-conventional LDS information, generally preserve their testimonies when later faced with LDS-critical material.

Daniel Peterson, writing in a public forum, shared the following about a lecture he’d attended by the late Stanley Kimball regarding the complexity of LDS history.

He [Kimball] spoke of three levels of Mormon history. Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version. Everything on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious. Level B, however, is the anti-Mormon version of the same story…On this level, everything that you thought was good and true and harmonious actually turns out to be evil and false and chaotic.

[Kimball] noted that the Church typically seeks to keep its members on Level A or, at least, feels no institutional obligation to bring them to a deeper level. Why? Because souls are lost on Level B. And, though Level C might be academically more desirable, it cannot be accessed without at least some exposure to Level B. Were he in a leadership position, [Kimball] said, he would probably make the same decision. {This, I think, is an important point of discussion.}

Once members of the Church have been exposed to Level B, though, he said, their only hope is to press on to the richer, more complicated version of history that is to be found on Level C—which, he contended and I agree, turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A. The only remedy for bad anti-Mormon arguments is better counterarguments….

Although inoculated Saints may retain their testimonies when confronted with contra-conventional information, most who are exposed to challenging issues emerge with slightly differing views than unexposed members have. An inoculated member may still believe in all the basic Mormon tenets but will generally reject naïve assumptions such as infallible prophets, error-free scripture, or other absolutes that lack clear revelation (all of which, I believe, are superior understandings about prophets and scripture)…{he goes on for another column or so}…

…From my experience, more member testimonies are shaken when challenging information is introduced from critical sources, who as Bushman notes, rarely “feel compelled to empathize” with the believing reader, than those who are introduced to the same information from faithful sources….{I’ll now cut to the conclusion}…

With the growth and popularity of the Internet, the Church may soon be forced to take a more proactive role in inoculating its members “against the historical disease germs that apostates and anti-Mormons may thrust upon them.” Personally, I would welcome greater candor in the history articles and books published by the Church.

[hyrum]

Why does the author feel the need to put the word intellectual in quotes? Hilarious.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The current issue of Sunstone is worth the cover price. We’ve already hashed through much of this, but I thought I’d post a chunk of an excellent article by Michael R. Ash. The quotes are from p. 38-39 of the Nov. 2006 issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Many years ago, I concluded that fewer members would be shocked out of the Church if they were taught the stickier issues of LDS history in faithful settings or from faithful literature. When members are introduced to peculiar or unconventional aspects of LDS history from LDS-critical sources, the natural inclination for some is to assume that the Church has “covered up” or “lied” about its past.

From my more than two decades of dealing with “ex” (or struggling) Mormons, I’ve found that feelings of betrayal and being lied to are the most frequent emotions felt by those who leave the Church for “intellectual” reasons. When feelings of betrayal overpower belief, faith is often lost and the original challenging discovery is no longer the issue; the greater issue becomes the feelings of infidelity and deception—feelings that are not easily overcome, even if serious answers are forthcoming later on. A testimony lost at this stage can be hard to restore. What might have been sufficient answers earlier become insufficient once resentment—as a result of presumably being deceived—replaces faith. As LDS scholar Kevin Barney once remarked to me, “People can absorb hard facts when presented in a context of faith. But they can’t absorb the feeling of being lied to.”

Other LDS scholars, including D. Michael Quinn, have also noted the potential power of “inoculation” against these stickier issues. While I don’t completely agree with all points in Quinn’s important essay, “On Being a Mormon Historian,” I do agree that Latter-day Saints will encounter—even more so in today’s Internet age—the problematic issues from “other sources.” Mormon historians would be better off “seek[ing] to write candid Church history in a context of perspective in order to inoculate the Saints against the historical disease germs that apostates and anti-Mormons may thrust upon them.”

LDS historical inoculation is analogous to viral inoculation both in immunizing subjects against more serious harm by exposing them to smaller doses of the virus in a controlled setting, as well as the potential risk from the inoculation itself. For example, while those who contract smallpox typically have a 20 to 40 percent mortality rate, those who are inoculated against smallpox have a mortality rate of 2 percent or less. Likewise, it is unfortunate, but unavoidable, that some Latter-day Saints will lose their testimonies following LDS history inoculation or because of the actual inoculation. From my experience, however, those who survive inoculation with contra-conventional LDS information, generally preserve their testimonies when later faced with LDS-critical material.

Daniel Peterson, writing in a public forum, shared the following about a lecture he’d attended by the late Stanley Kimball regarding the complexity of LDS history.

He [Kimball] spoke of three levels of Mormon history. Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version. Everything on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious. Level B, however, is the anti-Mormon version of the same story…On this level, everything that you thought was good and true and harmonious actually turns out to be evil and false and chaotic.

[Kimball] noted that the Church typically seeks to keep its members on Level A or, at least, feels no institutional obligation to bring them to a deeper level. Why? Because souls are lost on Level B. And, though Level C might be academically more desirable, it cannot be accessed without at least some exposure to Level B. Were he in a leadership position, [Kimball] said, he would probably make the same decision. {This, I think, is an important point of discussion.}

Once members of the Church have been exposed to Level B, though, he said, their only hope is to press on to the richer, more complicated version of history that is to be found on Level C—which, he contended and I agree, turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A. The only remedy for bad anti-Mormon arguments is better counterarguments….

Although inoculated Saints may retain their testimonies when confronted with contra-conventional information, most who are exposed to challenging issues emerge with slightly differing views than unexposed members have. An inoculated member may still believe in all the basic Mormon tenets but will generally reject naïve assumptions such as infallible prophets, error-free scripture, or other absolutes that lack clear revelation (all of which, I believe, are superior understandings about prophets and scripture)…{he goes on for another column or so}…

…From my experience, more member testimonies are shaken when challenging information is introduced from critical sources, who as Bushman notes, rarely “feel compelled to empathize” with the believing reader, than those who are introduced to the same information from faithful sources….{I’ll now cut to the conclusion}…

With the growth and popularity of the Internet, the Church may soon be forced to take a more proactive role in inoculating its members “against the historical disease germs that apostates and anti-Mormons may thrust upon them.” Personally, I would welcome greater candor in the history articles and books published by the Church.

Excellent article. Hopefully decision makers read and incorporate that approach.

[jay santos]

Interesting idea to think about.

I agree with the comparison of immunization. I don't agree with the numbers used in the assumption for such a comparision, though. To stay with the comparison, the problem with immunizations is that they sometimes kill the patient. A good immunication might kill the patient 1,000 times less than the patient's probablity to catch the disease and die had they never been immunized. I would guess here that the immunization of teaching History level A,B,C would destroy a higher percent than are being currently destroyed by discovering level B and dying from it.

I think I agree with this Dan Peterson fellow here. I don't like it, but I think it's the right approach. I don't teach my kids what I believe about Joseph Smith. I teach them version A. When they're older and more mature and intellectually capable of digesting a futher level, I'll discuss it with them. But that's probably decades away not years.

Teaching Level C is easier said than done. It opens a can of worms for everyone.

Is there a common, accepted version of Level C history, or is even that a moving target?
Do I acknowledge there appears to be some messed up stuff and just ignore it and trust on faith?
What does prophet fallabality do to my current faith in Pres. Hinckley?
If JS and BY get to have sex with lots of women why can't I?
Was there a reason for JS and BY doing and saying things which I don't understand? Or were they just wrong on occasion?
Can a person with high school level education and below understand the concept of figurative vs literal scripture and role of a prophet, etc, that more educated people can understand?
I could go on forever with the can of worms issues.

I'm about as liberal, open-minded LDS as you'll find and I still have to take my level B,C stuff little at a time, because if you grow up level A it does do a doozy on you to overcome it over time.

[BlueHair]

It seems to me that the complete story should be told from day one. How can it possibly be right to teach Level A? Maybe we can trick them for long enough that they will have too much invested to be able to leave? I would say most life long members wouldn't believe Level C after a life full of whitewashed history and doctrine. How can we expect our children to have any faith and trust when we willingly deceive them? Before asking someone to give all their time, money, and talents to building the kingdom, the least we could do is tell them the truth.

[Archaea]

Blue Hair, that's not realistic in any endeavor, be it a game, a profession, a field of study.

If I wish to study philosophy, I take an overview course, learn more about fields and then concentrate on fields.

Level A introduction makes most pedagogical sense.

[BlueHair]

How long does the introduction phase last? My grandparents died in their 80's and all they ever got was Level A.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

How long does the introduction phase last? My grandparents died in their 80's and all they ever got was Level A.

On CB, I have started a discussion line.

For some, I guess they are satisfied with Level A. I don't see a reason to force somebody to level C, but Level C should be available.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Archaea

On CB, I have started a discussion line.

For some, I guess they are satisfied with Level A. I don't see a reason to force somebody to level C, but Level C should be available.

Agreed. That's all I'm saying. I am more apt to trust someone that is open and doesn't claim to know everything. It's not a weakness in my book to not know the answers to all of life's questions. I've always had a problem with the combination of prophet infallibility AND not having the answers.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

It seems to me that the complete story should be told from day one. How can it possibly be right to teach Level A? Maybe we can trick them for long enough that they will have too much invested to be able to leave? I would say most life long members wouldn't believe Level C after a life full of whitewashed history and doctrine. How can we expect our children to have any faith and trust when we willingly deceive them? Before asking someone to give all their time, money, and talents to building the kingdom, the least we could do is tell them the truth.

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!