http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 26724&st=0
Here's the opening post:
In the latest FARMS issue, Daniel C. Peterson states the following in the Editor's Introduction (emphasis below is mine):
QUOTE
Inoculation
Writing in his journal about Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman remarks that "part of my purpose in writing is to introduce the troublesome material into the standard account to prevent horrible shocks later."69
QUOTE
(This quote is from Bushman) The real question is, Should we hide troublesome things from the Saints and hope they will never find out? The problem then is what happens when they do. They are disillusioned and in danger of mistrusting everything they have been told. . . . Amazingly, many LDS don't know Joseph married thirty women. We have to get these facts out to be dealt with; otherwise we are in a vulnerable position. It may be my job to bring the whole of Joseph's story into the open.70
I keep hearing of young people who are shocked to discover the ideal Joseph Smith they learned about in Church is not the Joseph Smith most scholars perceive. Taken aback, the young Mormons not only wonder about the Prophet but about their teachers. Everything comes tumbling down.71
I worry about the young Latter-day Saints who learn only about the saintly Joseph and are shocked to discover his failings. The problem is that they may lose faith in the entire teaching system that brought them along. If their teachers covered up Joseph Smith's flaws, what else are they hiding?72
(DCP continues here)
I share Bushman's concerns and have reflected on this issue for a long time. I've repeatedly used the metaphor of inoculation to express what I have in mind. A friendly and well-intentioned healthcare professional injects a patient with a benign form of a disease under favorable circumstances so that, later on, when the patient encounters a more threatening form of the disease in more hostile environs, he or she will be immune to its ravages. It seems to me far preferable that Latter-day Saints hear about potentially difficult issues from fellow believers who have accommodated the facts into their faith than that they be confronted by such issues at the hands of people who seek to use new information to surprise them, undermine their confidence in the church and its leaders, and destroy their religious beliefs.
Many years ago, while a graduate student in California, I heard the late Stanley B. Kimball (a Latter-day Saint scholar who taught at Southern Illinois University and published extensively on both European and Latter-day Saint historical subjects) speak to a small group about what he termed "the three levels of Mormon history."
He called the first of these "level A." This level, he said, is the Junior Sunday School version of church history, in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, no leader ever makes a mistake, and all is unambiguously clear.
"Level B," he said, is the anti-Mormon version of church history—essentially a mirror image of level A or, alternatively, level A turned on its head. On level B, everything that you thought was good and true is actually false and bad. The Mormons (or, at least, their leaders) always or almost always wear black hats, and, to the extent that everything is unambiguously clear, Mormonism is unambiguously fraudulent, bogus, deceptive, and evil. Much in the level B version of Mormonism is simply false, of course; critics of the church have often failed to distinguish themselves for their honesty or for the care with which they've treated the issues they raise. But, in more than a few instances, level B approaches to Mormonism and its past are based on problems that are more or less real.
The church, Kimball reflected, tends to teach level A history. The trouble with this is that, like someone who has been kept in a germ-free environment and is then exposed to an infectious disease, a person on level A who is exposed to any of the issues that are the fodder for level B will have little resistance and will be likely to fall.
The only hope in such a case, he continued, is to press on to what he termed "level C," which is a version of church history that remains affirmative but which also takes into account any and all legitimate points stressed by level B. Those on level C are largely impervious to infection from level B. Level B formulations simply don't impress them. (Davis Bitton was a signal example of this. He knew far more about the Latter-day Saint past than the Internet critics who so glibly assert that Mormon testimonies cannot survive exposure to accurate Mormon history, yet he remained exuberantly faithful to the end.)
Kimball said that he and his fellow historians operate on level C, and that, on the whole, that's where he (as a professional historian) would prefer members to be. He was deeply convinced, he said, that level C was essentially like level A, except that it is more nuanced and somewhat more ambiguous. (He emphatically denied that level A is "false," or that the church "lies" in teaching it.) He acknowledged, though, that, were he himself a high-ranking church leader, he would be hesitant to take the membership as a whole to level C by means of church curriculum and instruction for the obvious reason that moving people from level A to level C entails at least some exposure to some of the elements of level B, and that such exposure will unavoidably lead some to lose their testimonies. Still, he felt that those who make it through to level C are more stable and resilient in their faith than those who remain on level A.
Stanley Kimball's analysis strikes me as profoundly true.73
So, DCP believes that what Bro. Kimball said was "profoundly true" and Bro. Kimball "reflected" that the Church "tends to teach level A history." Bro. Kimball described "level A history" as "the Junior Sunday School version of church history, in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, no leader ever makes a mistake, and all is unambiguously clear."
So, simple logic demonstrates that both Bro. Kimball and DCP agree that "the Church tends to teach a history in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, no leader ever makes a mistake, and all is unambiguously clear."
Then why all the insults hurled at those who assert that the Church has indeed presented an "adoring history" that fails to deal with matters "unfavorable" (to use Elder Oaks' words) that led to them being blindsided upon learning certain historical facts? Why the continuing effort to scour hundreds of thousands of pages to prove that the Church has occasionally "touched on" controversial issues, when the top LDS apologist and an apostle both agree that the Church's tendency has been, intentionally, to avoid such matters?
Indeed, why does DCP offer, above, a potential solution of "inoculation" if it is the case that the Church has never hidden its history or tried to keep controversial issues from its general membership? If this were the case, why would a new approach of inoculation be necessary? Why would a transition from a "level A" history to a "level C" history even be necessary.
A quick look at the threads on these historical issues indicate that most of the "defenders" on this board believe the membership is to blame if they do not know the history (in expressing this point, some posters have been particularly aggressive). Why does DCP suggest that the Church needs to change its approach instead of taking the position of many on this board that it is the members who need to change their approach, as they are the [insert pejorative here] who failed to find the five or six non-official books, or three issues of the Ensign, or one version of the institute manual from (1981 was it) that talked about these issues?
I remember suggesting this sort of "innoculation" way back when MAD was FAIR. (cough) Yet the predictable characters jumped on me and acted as if I were suggesting something outrageous. So, as if I didn't already know this, some of the more vocal MADdites react to suggestions completely based on who made the suggestion rather than the merits of the suggestion itself. I'll try to find the actual old thread to link, from memory, dart (kevin g) supported my suggestion while other believers jeered.
Second, the spin: despite the fact that the OP was careful to actually quote Peterson instead of paraphrase him, DCP accuses him of "overstating" his point for propaganda purposes.
Don't overstate my position for propaganda advantage.
I've never denied that Sunday School lessons tend to accentuate the positive and unambiguous. In fact, I've said so on numerous occasions. But I deny that the Church hides negative and ambiguous elements of its history. Moreover, I've always pointed out that fuller and more detailed treatments of its history have been widely and relatively easily accessible for years, and that alienated members and ex-members who complain that they were never told about _____________ (fill in the blank) should generally blame themselves rather than the Church. Solid academic books and articles about the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the different accounts of the First Vision and the biographies of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (and etc., and etc.) have been widely available for decades.
So the church doesn't hide controversial issues, it simply doesn't talk about them in formal meetings. Hence, it is the faithful member's responsibility to somehow know these issues exist and then look for information about them. I guess maybe the Holy Ghost should be whispering to members that they ought to investigate early polygamy, treasure seeking, the translation of the Book of Abraham, etc? Just how are these members supposed to know that controversial issues exist when the church refuses to even mention them in formal meetings?
What I think is particularly funny is the protest that the church just doesn't have TIME to deal with these issues in formal meetings.
Juliann:
I think the whine is that these things are not taught in Sunday School on a rotating basis, we could have a year on the Kinderhook Plates, a year on Polygamy, a year on peepstones and a year on Marriott hotels.
First, a moment of appreciation for Juliann's well-known sensitivity and compassion.
Second, this just made me laugh out loud. Church meetings consist of repeating the same lessons over and over and over and over and over and over and over. (hence creating the Mormon male tradition of leaning forward, putting heads in hands as if deep in thought, to nap)
I guarantee you, based on my experience with LDS meetings, that the LDS church could take one meeting a month to deal with controversies, and still have plenty of time to repeat the other lessons over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over..........