LDS Inoculation - Good or Bad?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Whatever. I really want to know if the instructor was in the fake choir or not. Req?

You're the francophile, it's a faux choir dude, and that makes it all the better. Facades work better in French.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're the francophile, it's a faux choir dude, and that makes it all the better. Facades work better in French.

Maybe a coeur faux, which is even worse.

[UtahDan]

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.

The First Vision happened. Yes, there are differing accounts, but what we have is not "sanitized" and I'm getting a little tired of hearing it called that. What we have also happens to be scripture, canonized, affirmed and re-affirmed by every prophet since the one who experienced it. At least as it concerns a priesthood lesson, there's no point in spending the precious few minutes we have, with instructors who have difficulty preparing much ahead of time anyway, delving into (from a theological standpoint) mostly irrelevant details.

As to the concept of innoculation: I'm not sure I see the great saving grace in going through this exercise. Yes, it would avoid the "shock" a member experiences when some on-the-street anti-Mormon shouts it in their face, or when the occasional intellectual mentions it in class. But testimonies are not built (and they should not be shattered) on these details.

I shudder to think someday if our church meetings rotate from a focus on our theology and the Spirit to academic discussions. It's not the place.

Respectfully Tex, that you relegate these matters to the realm of anti's shouting on the street and pointed headed intellectuals in gospel doctrine show that you don't quiet get it.

The fact is there is a flood of information available now in internet land, some from antis but a lot not, that is challenging to those who haven't been exposed to it. There ought to be a faithful context where they can get those questions answered. If the venue for that is not Sunday school or priesthood, then I guess I truly have no idea what the time spend at church outside of sacrament meeting is intended for.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by jay santos

ouch, but seriously this "fake" thing sounds like a good story. what thread was it on?

Here you go:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10466

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10679

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Here you go:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10466

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10679

How did you arrive at the conclusion that this was all a bunch of hooey?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How did you arrive at the conclusion that this was all a bunch of hooey?

We have our vays to make people talk.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We have our vays to make people talk.

[Goatnapper'96]

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.

The First Vision happened. Yes, there are differing accounts, but what we have is not "sanitized" and I'm getting a little tired of hearing it called that. What we have also happens to be scripture, canonized, affirmed and re-affirmed by every prophet since the one who experienced it. At least as it concerns a priesthood lesson, there's no point in spending the precious few minutes we have, with instructors who have difficulty preparing much ahead of time anyway, delving into (from a theological standpoint) mostly irrelevant details.

As to the concept of innoculation: I'm not sure I see the great saving grace in going through this exercise. Yes, it would avoid the "shock" a member experiences when some on-the-street anti-Mormon shouts it in their face, or when the occasional intellectual mentions it in class. But testimonies are not built (and they should not be shattered) on these details.

I shudder to think someday if our church meetings rotate from a focus on our theology and the Spirit to academic discussions. It's not the place.

I agree with Tex in principle. But while Requeim's story is pointless as she doesn't exist and if she did she is probably fat and ugly and most likely a dike, but that is beside the point. From my perspective the tension between academics/intellectually curious members and the whole "sanitized version" is as a consequence to the LDS Church and its policy concerning its history. There is merit in what you say concerning what is appropriate in a Church setting, I agree that is not the place to delve into the real history of the event. Discussion at church should be uplifting and focussed upon the aspects that impact one's testimony. However, if the Church did not go to such efforts to protect the members from the true history I doubt this type of discussion would get much thought. The Church is morphing into the policy of what is inappropriate for Church is still fine to study, but it is not the Church's role to bring that material to you, but this is recent and a result of technological inventions that bring the history to light.

In other words if the organization that is the LDS Church doesn't like that folks bring the tangential historical truths to light in a Church setting, it is my opinion that the LDS Church bears significant culpabality for why the situation is the way it is.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Respectfully Tex, that you relegate these matters to the realm of anti's shouting on the street and pointed headed intellectuals in gospel doctrine show that you don't quiet get it.

The fact is there is a flood of information available now in internet land, some from antis but a lot not, that is challenging to those who haven't been exposed to it. There ought to be a faithful context where they can get those questions answered. If the venue for that is not Sunday school or priesthood, then I guess I truly have no idea what the time spend at church outside of sacrament meeting is intended for.

Respectfully, no, I don't think you do.

[SeattleUte]

The fundamental problem is that the LDS Church uses terminology and some methods of judicial systems and empricism such as "witnesses" and "testimony," and and then when somebody takes up the challenge and demonstrates such thing as changed stories, lack of original documents, implausibility, character issues on the part of affiants and alleged divine conduits, and a penchant for outright lying on the part of the affiants or alleged dinvine conduits, etc. (again, the usual stuff of empiricism or a judicial proceeding) the LDS Church says this type of approach is not fair or appropriate when judging a religion.

The LDS Church wants its history and documents tested empirically, but only in kangaroo courts and show trials. No cross-examination, and no full disclosure. The LDS Church should stop the pretense of historicity and "testimonies" and proofs and instead focus on spirituality. But this won't happen while its members are complicit in the LDS Church treating them like children. Meanwhile, LDS gatherings are about as sterile and boring as any you'll find in any religion. Comments on this board about only one sacrament meeting all year more or less being not deadly boring, people chronically reading their handheld computers or sleeping in church, etc. testify to that. It shouldn't be that way.

Sterling McMurrin addressed this in his (in)famous, splendid 7th East Press interview.