Comments on: “The Mormons” and Inoculation

By: Harold

Harold — Sat, 05 May 2007 15:55:52 +0000

After watching this “documentary”, I couldnâ€™t believe how inaccurate and biased it was. It made me wonder if PBS were to produce a similar documentary on Blacks, would they ask the KKK to research and present their history. It’s amazing to me that after all this time that Mormons are still persecuted.

By: Michael Lai

Michael Lai — Thu, 03 May 2007 23:11:13 +0000

Re: # 16
I loved Givens’ By the Hand of Mormon and found his segment on the “dancing God” very refreshing. Is he a formal BYU ballroom dancer? I’m curious to know if the dance piece was inspired by Givens during the interview process or if it was a part of the initial outline.

By: JWL

JWL — Wed, 02 May 2007 14:53:38 +0000

The most successful “inoculation” is one that uses the subject matter for a positive casuistic purpose. For example, MMM can be used to show the dangers of fear and resentment, and can be instructively contrasted with the Anti-Nephi-Lehis in the BoM, or even the contemporaneous offically approved guerilla campaign against Johnston’s Army which astonishingly avoided direct enemy fatalities. Polygamy can be a case study in thoughtful obedience, emphasizing the independent spiritual witnesses that hundreds of Church members testified they received before they accepted the doctrine. Joseph’s use of the seerstone to translate the BoM without even looking at the gold plates can be used to illustrate the importance of divine inspiration in the process. Of course, this doesn’t work in every case – I can not think of any useful moral message to be taken from the priesthood ban on blacks. But trying to approach these issues in this way is far more effective than the debunking, wink-wink spirit that is so tempting in disclosing facts which do not fit easily into a hagiographic approach.

By: Naismith

Naismith — Wed, 02 May 2007 11:38:32 +0000

I think the question of innoculation vs. paternalistically shielding our fellow members from hard truths is something of a false dichotomy.

I agree. While inoculation as a theory has been around for decades, measuring the efficacy has been more recent. In cases where it has been demonstrated to be effective, such as Michael Pfau’s work, there is often a “window of exposure” during which it will work, while messages given before or later will not work as well. For example, for messages about unhealthy drug use, that window is pre-adolescence, last years of elementary school.

My guess would be that for converts, there is also a window.

So maybe you are subconsciously considering the situation and determining whether the exposure will likely cause inoculation or something less favorable in that case?

And of course the other point is that while social inoculation is an intriguing theory, much of the time it does not have the intended affect.

By: PBS The Mormons--A Compendium « Messenger and Advocate

PBS The Mormons--A Compendium « Messenger and Advocate — Wed, 02 May 2007 05:20:19 +0000

[...] Common Consent â€œThe Mormonsâ€ and Inoculation â€œThe Mormonsâ€: Pregame show Upcoming Films: The Triple Whammy Joseph Smith as [...]

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Wed, 02 May 2007 03:37:06 +0000

Todd,

In what way is MMM a “heart” issue?

By: Hellmut

Hellmut — Wed, 02 May 2007 03:14:28 +0000

Aaron,

Authority is an essential piece of Mormon theology. It implies an obligation of obedience. That’s why the events at Mountain Meadow are important. They constitute the ideal case at the negative end of the spectrum, not in the philosopher’s ivory tower but in history.

By: Kerry Shirts

Kerry Shirts — Wed, 02 May 2007 02:45:45 +0000

Nice post Kevin….Yes the beauty of many LDS blogs is also the ability to keep the process of innoculatig going on as well…..

Best,
Kerry

By: Aaron B

Aaron B — Tue, 01 May 2007 22:44:08 +0000

I think the question of innoculation vs. paternalistically shielding our fellow members from hard truths is something of a false dichotomy. I suspect we all favor innoculation much of the time, and that we all favor being careful with what we share much of the time. You have to call these things on a case-by-case basis. I, personally, have certainly told myself how important it is to “tell the truth” about X, Y and Z in Church, and then when I’m confronted with an occasion to actually do so, I incorporate all sorts of contextual issues in the moment to decide whether and to what extent I will share some deep, dark Mormon historical factoid.

Aaron B

By: Aaron B

Aaron B — Tue, 01 May 2007 22:41:14 +0000

In a sense, I’ve also never understood the fascination with MMM. I read Juanita Brooks back in the day, but haven’t read much of the later treatments of the topic. My sense — from people whose opinions and expertise I respect — is that Bagley hasn’t replaced Brooks as the definitive source on Brigham Young’s involvement (or lack thereof) in the massacre. Until someone makes the argument for Young’s culpability more persuasively, MMM will never fascinate me like it does some.

The bit of angst I have had over MMM has centered on what I feel is the opportunity the incident provides us to reflect on religious fanaticism and violence in our own history and tradition and to have interesting conversations about same. An opportunity lost, obviously, since it’s almost never talked about in the Church. Oh well.

Also, I do think I understand why non-Mormons are so fascinated by it (other than those anti-Mormons who just want to beat us over the head with it). Look — weird polygamous cults in the news, poygamous killings back in the 80s and 90s, books like Krakauer’s, etc. Combine these with general ignorance about the tenets of the LDS faith, and of course people want to hear about a massacre of 100+ people by a marginalized, isolated religious sect.

Aaron B