LDS Inoculation - Good or Bad?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't know what the ideal venue is. I mentioned some other possibilities previously ... maybe there's additional options, I don't know.

The 3-hour block is intended to be for theological-based building of testimonies and faith. Tell me how a discussion on the controversy surrounding Adam-God, on the history of Joseph's polygamous relationships, on modern Egyptology's analysis of the Abraham papyri, on the varied and confusing contrasts between the First Vision accounts helps me:

- Be filled with love toward God and man
- Become a better parent to my children
- Gain a deeper understanding of the atonement, and its personal implications for me
- Offer more meaningful prayers
- Reach out more effectively to the poor, needy, sick, and afflicted
- Discern the Spirit more easily

I understand where you are coming from, though I disagree. I think that we DO uplift by preventing harm. Again, saying that you don't center your worship around these things is a straw man. Clearly you don't make that the focus. All I am talking about it tweaking the teaching materials to be more candid about these issues in context. It may not even come up every week.

Certainly I see that point that worship centers around inviting the spirit and feeling uplifted. But do you really believe that what I am suggesting here excludes that possibility?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I understand where you are coming from, though I disagree. I think that we DO uplift by preventing harm. Again, saying that you don't center your worship around these things is a straw man. Clearly you don't make that the focus. All I am talking about it tweaking the teaching materials to be more candid about these issues in context. It may not even come up every week.

Certainly I see that point that worship centers around inviting the spirit and feeling uplifted. But do you really believe that what I am suggesting here excludes that possibility?

I think what you're suggesting has the possibility of being a bigger distraction than you think. And I didn't say anything about "centering worship" ... I'm speaking of these items in the context we've been discussing them.

Appropriate historical background is perfectly fine, but I really don't see a need to ever introduce as a part of curriculum, from the pulpit or teacher's lecturn, the 3 different versions of the First Vision. I'm frankly amazed that you think doing so "prevents harm."

The substance of the issue aside, have you not read the plethora of posts on CG complaining about the lack of preparation and poor teaching skills of many class teachers? Have you ever been in a church class where the discussion gets irretrievably sidetracked by a completely irrelevant doctrinal topic? Even if the church did adopt the approach you're talking about, I'm not sure a lay membership is up to the challenge.

And let me emphasize: I'm not advocating a moratorium on all discussion. Just not during the 3-hour block.

[SoCalCoug]

If factual history is unimportant, with respect to spiritual and uplifting doctrinal discussions, why do they teach church history in Sunday School? Why do we spend so much time on the storyline in the Book of Mormon and the New Testament?

Because the factual background is relevant to the context of the spiritual teachings.

If facts are relevant to the context of the teachings, why isn't it important to get the facts right?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

If factual history is unimportant, with respect to spiritual and uplifting doctrinal discussions, why do they teach church history in Sunday School? Why do we spend so much time on the storyline in the Book of Mormon and the New Testament?

Because the factual background is relevant to the context of the spiritual teachings.

If facts are relevant to the context of the teachings, why isn't it important to get the facts right?

Or why don't we give some information on the varying viewpoints on certain factual assertions?

Basically, what Tex seems to be saying is that the facts don't matter, just that people walk away feeling good. We can make up the facts as we go along.

If the members feel good and like the story, it doesn't matter because it promotes faith.

[Tex]

Tex: "Appropriate historical background is fine."

SoCalCoug: WHAT?? You don't want the facts??? You don't want the background??

Archaea: Yeah! Yeah! Facts don't matter to Tex!

Nice demagoguery, boys. Two thumbs up.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Tex: "Appropriate historical background is fine."

SoCalCoug: WHAT?? You don't want the facts??? You don't want the background??

Archaea: Yeah! Yeah! Facts don't matter to Tex!

Nice demagoguery, boys. Two thumbs up.

Tex:

It is not a bad thing, but it shouldn't be in SS.

Several: Then where should it be?

Tex: Look, it isn't a bad thing, but not in SS.

Several: then where?

Tex: Don't be a demagogue.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Tex:

It is not a bad thing, but it shouldn't be in SS.

Several: Then where should it be?

Tex: Look, it isn't a bad thing, but not in SS.

Several: then where?

Tex: Don't be a demagogue.

...

Originally Posted by Tex

Warning: rant to follow. Nothing personal, Req.

This is not the purpose of priesthood and Relief Society meetings. I realize there's a desire on an intellectual level for the church to take on these issues and educate the membership, and if someone wants to hold a symposium, or "Know Your Religion" or what-have-you on it, fine. I have no problem with that.

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't know what the ideal venue is. I mentioned some other possibilities previously ... maybe there's additional options, I don't know.

Honestly, creek, you're above this.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Come on, creek, don't throw in with these half-brights. I offered some other options, and I also said I'm not really sure. I'm open to discussion on the topic. Quit pretending like I ignored it.

I'm not throwing in, nor do I think they are half-brights, but I found your post to be rather silly and so presented you with the same.

I am very sympathetic to your objections (although I would not go so far) especially with the difficulty involved in getting an instructor to handle it well. I would also add that in your average ward I don't think most people even WANT to hear this stuff. The thing that bothers me is that I wish the church would take control and own these issues. I wish thye would put out their own materials to address some of them, even if in a very general way (along the lines of what UtahDan mentioned) to help those people who do wnat to learn more. THe anti's are out there. The non-LDS academics are out there. THe church's absence on the stage is leaving a vacuum that is being filled by those we dislike and who do nto see the gospel as true. I do not think a testimony should be based on this sort of analysis, and I agree that the meetings need to be uplifting, but can't we at least provide some ammo for our own people?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

I'm not throwing in, nor do I think they are half-brights, but I found your post to be rather silly and so presented you with the same.

Fair enough. I simply get tired of the chattering naboobs every now and again.

Originally Posted by creekster

I am very sympathetic to your objections (although I would not go so far) especially with the difficulty involved in getting an instructor to handle it well. I would also add that in your average ward I don't think most people even WANT to hear this stuff. The thing that bothers me is that I wish the church would take control and own these issues. I wish thye would put out their own materials to address some of them, even if in a very general way (along the lines of what UtahDan mentioned) to help those people who do wnat to learn more. THe anti's are out there. The non-LDS academics are out there. THe church's absence on the stage is leaving a vacuum that is being filled by those we dislike and who do nto see the gospel as true. I do not think a testimony should be based on this sort of analysis, and I agree that the meetings need to be uplifting, but can't we at least provide some ammo for our own people?

I'm not opposed to the church putting out its own materials, or providing some "extra-curricular" venue for discussion on these topics. I just don't think the block is the time to do it.

I'm not sure the vacuum is as large or as empty as folks around here think it is. I think there's some good wisdom in not deigning to respond to the barking dogs everytime they yap (what I should've done with SoCal and Arch, I suppose). We haven't armed our missionaries (our "front line" you might say) with this sort of "ammo" in nearly two centuries and seem to be doing just fine.

But again, I'd be supportive of such an effort, so long as it took place outside the thrust of our theology-based curriculum.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

Fair enough. I simply get tired of the chattering naboobs every now and again.



I'm not opposed to the church putting out its own materials, or providing some "extra-curricular" venue for discussion on these topics. I just don't think the block is the time to do it.

I'm not sure the vacuum is as large or as empty as folks around here think it is. I think there's some good wisdom in not deigning to respond to the barking dogs everytime they yap (what I should've done with SoCal and Arch, I suppose). We haven't armed our missionaries (our "front line" you might say) with this sort of "ammo" in nearly two centuries and seem to be doing just fine.

But again, I'd be supportive of such an effort, so long as it took place outside the thrust of our theology-based curriculum.

You think the church would ever actually provide a venue for discussion of controversial topics? Also, by what standard are the missionaries "doing just fine"? Surely you don't think the church is happy with the current trend.

It also seems as if you're still under the impression that antis are the source of all the facts not included in official church literature. This isn't the case.