Personally I think teaching the history of polygamy without raising the theological questions that make it a live issue (marriage after death) isn’t good inoculation. It’s better than what came before but it avoids the central issues. As I’ve said here many times if I die I want my wife to remarry, both for her emotional and financial health but also my children. I’d want her to remarry someone she loves. But that is then a real relationship and there are theological implications for what happens in the spirit world and resurrection.

So I think a lot of these discussions about inoculation are as much as anything saying we can and should do better.

I don’t quite see why “that system of thought is unsustainable in the 21st century.” Of course all of this ends up resting on the conception of God. Especially the conception taught in the King Follet Discourse. Even those who reject the KFD’s strength for theology still tend to adopt a radically different conception of God from Protestants or Catholics. God is in the universe instead of the source of the universe. (Meaning universe broadly rather than the sense within physics) There are tons of implications for that.

The mature view is to recognize the theology while also recognizing people in ignorance trying to live it screwed it up a lot. But of course it wasn’t just polygamy that was lived poorly in the 19th century. Monogamy was done poorly as well with few living as true partners in a life affirming way. However again discussions of polygamy tend to decontextualize things a lot. Once again good inoculation should bring in those contexts.

#76:

We don’t “innoculate” children regarding the Founding Fathers, or physicists, or philosophers, or musicians. We teach them to judge ideas on the merits. So for example, one could read the Constitution and reject some ideas (slavery) without fear of undermining the entire Constitution. We don’t have to endlessly rationalize Jefferson’s or Madison’s views on race. We can judge their ideas on the merits.

Obviously that’s not the case when judging Joseph Smith’s ideas. Regardles of the facts, regardless of the merits, Joseph Smith’s ideas are tied to the LDS conception of God. To judge Joseph Smith is to judge God. That system of thought is unsustainable in the 21st century. LDS people in the 21st century need to tell a different story than the 19th-century-hero-Joseph story. That ship sailed.

#77:

Let’s first make sure we’re working from the same definition. How about this one from Wikipedia?

rationalization. (also known as making excuses) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.

I would be happy for a Prophet to say he had a revelation that something basic in the Gospel should change (priesthood for all worthy members), but to just preach something without claiming revelation, leaves me thinking they are preaching their own beliefs, especially when they oppose the teachings of the Saviour, as discriminate against Gays, seems to oppose love your fellow men.

I can’t see Elder Oaks asking for that revelation because he knows the answer (the one his culture tells him) . If we had a Prophet who was open minded enough to ask the Lord, we would be going places.

I would like that open mindedness applied to the succession of the Prophet instead of allowing tradition to choose the next leader, and the tradition that Apostles can’t retire decide that too.

I’m not saying you or the people you are talking with would agree with Jonathan’s views. Just that perhaps they might come to realize there are more shades here than it first appears. That is you are casting aspersions on those you think are rationalizing dogma whereas from a different perspective your own views are dogma that might be being rationalized. When is something rationalization and when is it inquiry? Sometimes that’s just not apparent at the time.

The “inoculation” discussion makes me uncomfortable. I’m having a difficult time thinking of another area of my life where people would discuss “inoculating” others from certain ideas. As if history or facts were a disease from which we must protect others. Really?

I think preparing people to understand the culture and class of people and separate the ideas from the persons. The founding fathers are great examples. Both Washington and other founders had slaves for instance. That leads some to more or less discounting the significance of the constitution.

Likewise you have the same issue with famous thinkers ranging from Einstein’s frequent misogyny or Richard Feynman. When you go into philosophy you can find great thinkers who (to cut to the chase) were complete slim balls as persons. (Heidegger comes immediately to mind) Learning how to deal with these in a mature way isn’t something everyone can do. I suspect slowly broaching these issues so people learn the world is a complicated place in inoculation.

Of course for some, there is no excuse. That’s perhaps a little more excusable in philosophy where people could argue that Jefferson’s or Heidegger’s actions significantly undermine the place of their philosophical positions.

I think that the religious issues are much like this. I’d go so far as to say that probably it’s people who understand that sort of thing who are far less phased by Mormon history. Which maybe suggests that the most important part of inoculation isn’t introducing these controversial issues but that mature view of ideas and meaning as not controlled by the actions of an individual.

–Jonathan #67

I agree completely with much of your comment. I’ve worked for many years in the business of advocating interests and one thing I’ve learned is that it is very rare in life that facts inevitably lead to absolute conclusions. I’m very receptive to the idea of “contested facts.”

My concern is rationalization. I’m worried that constructing excuses or justifying certain behavior acts as endorsement of certain behavior. Two examples:

1. Recently I was made aware of a seminary lesson for LDS youth that teaches that D&C 132:51-65 is inspired by God. Scott Roskelley (#68 and #70) and Cari (#73) have stated why such an approach is offensive to many parents. I’m in complete agreement with their comments above. I’m very much opposed to rationalizing Joseph’s polygamy. Hopefully you can understand why rationalization is so offensive to many.

2. The other day I had a conversation with someone I admire very much. He’s one of the most caring individuals I know. He was telling me about his great-great grandmother who was married to an LDS man at age 17 without knowledge that the man was already married to several other women. She learned of the situation after she became pregnant. She gave birth to the child and sought a divorce. She was granted a divorce but was not allowed to take the child with her. She left Utah for California without the child.

I’m unwilling to rationalize what happened to this woman, her impossible choice of remaining an LDS plural wife or leaving her child. She had no legal rights. She had no advocate. She was given by her father to her husband without any knowledge of the situation. My concern is that by rationalizing the behavior of certain people because of their apparent historical importance to our faith, we become complicit in their actions. I believe it is better to reject certain behaviors outright than try to excuse them.

Am I to say to my teenage daughter (and son), “yes honey, I understand that reading about Joseph Smith’s polygamy makes you feel icky no matter how many times you read Brian Hales explanations. You just need to let your own feelings go and trust our leaders on this. God gave you your conscience for a very good reason so be sure to pay close attention to it when it comes to details in your own life, but when it comes to these historical issues it’s not reliable because God likes to test us to see if we’re willing to obey mortal authorities over our internal instincts of right and wrong. Morality is relative. Obedience will always be a higher virtue than your own reasoning.”

Will this lead to them giving their control away in other areas of life? Does this perpetuate to any degree self-doubt and unempowerment when it comes to judging their own feelings? This is not what I want for my kids. I don’t think it will do them any favors. Sorry.

But there are some fruits that suggest prophetic leadership has value. It has been noted in the news the last few days that children in Utah are more likely than those in any other state to be raised in a home with both biological parents present–a circumstance that has all kinds of demonstrated practical benefits. Likewise, in all the Utah counties for which there is data, the prospect that poor children will rise above their birth condition are much higher than the national average. Utah and Minnesota are exceptional in that respect, as is southeast Idaho (Mormon country) and northern Iowa. And Utah has the lowest Gini coefficient–a measure of wealth egalitarianism–of all the states in the US. Its coefficient is even better, as I recall, than that of Denmark, which is a world leader. Prophets probably deserve some credit for these desirable social outcomes.