In 2016, Elder Ballard, while speaking to all the seminary and institute instructors world wide, talked about the “Gospel Topic Essays” found on the church web site. He said:
“It is important that you know the content in these essays like you know the back of your hand. If you have questions about them, then please ask someone who has studied them and understands them. In other words, “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” as you master the content of these essays.”
He also said : “ inoculate your students by providing faithful, thoughtful, and accurate interpretation of gospel doctrine, the scriptures, our history, and those topics that are sometimes misunderstood.”
An Evening with Elder M. Russell Ballard
Address to CES Religious Educators • February 26, 2016 • Salt Lake Tabernacle
I find it interesting that he chose the word inoculate, making an analogy that teaching the essays to the students will somehow immunize them from these “sometimes misunderstood” topics. So lets delve into what it means to “inoculate” something, and I think you’ll find that this is in fact the perferct word for what the church is trying to do.
Inoculate means “to implant (a disease agent or antigen) in a person, animal, or plant to produce a disease for study or to stimulate disease resistance.” The implanted antigen is usually modified in some way so that the receiving person does not get the full blown disease. This is done by changing the antigen, watering it down, or otherwise rendering it imponent. The first smallpox inoculation was actually a cowpox viruses, which was close enough to smallpox to fool the body into developing antibodies that protected it from the much more potent smallpox. Other smallpox inoculation involved putting a little bit of the smallpox viruses in a scrape in the skin. Too much would kill the person, so it was just enough to create the antibodies, but not too much to kill them.
Now this analogy to what Elder Ballard was talking about writes itself. The disease is the full history of the church, lack of DNA evidence for Lamanites, or Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham translation among many such topics. The implanted antigen is a watered down, altered or otherwise impotent Gospel Topic Essay.
Lets look at an example about how this works. The truth is the Book of Abraham is no way found in the surviving manuscripts or the published facsimiles. That truth is the disease. To counter that disease, the church puts out an essay that talks about the Book of Abraham Translation, but like a good inoculation, it is a watered down version, giving just enough information to fool the mind (body) into creating resistance against further attacks from this truth (disease).
All the essays are like that; a watered down version, keeping the most potent facts out of the message, lest they kill the patient. In medicine, sometime people get an adverse reaction to an inoculation. That is the same with the church essays. There have been people that lost their testimony because of the church essays. Again, like in medicine, it has been decided that it is worth the bad reaction in the few for the greater good of the masses.
Elder Ballard has admitted by using the word “inoculate”, the essays are watered down, not the full “dose” of the truth. What has been your experience with the Gospel Topic Essays?
Image by Angelo Esslinger from Pixabay
Wheat & Tares 
Perefectly said!!!. You layed out the pure truth.
The sad reality is the church only tells half truths. It only wants solely a faith promoting narrative
The essays and the history have literally thousands of examples once examined.
Also the data behind church attendance, church baltisms, the data on tithing, telling missionaries not to write home about harms faced on their mission, to agree with leaders even when you do not agree, telling members affected crimes commited by priesthood members to forgive and not involve the police, the use of kirton mcconkie, etc,
My shelf had already broke before gospel essays came out, but their deceptive nature strengthened my testimony that the church only tells half truths. The church of 1/2 Jesus Christ of LDS.
Joseph Smith frequently told many half truths.
If Ballard stated members should know essays like back of hand, why are still buried on the church web site and unkbown still by members and treated like anti-Church literature?.
The essays were what created a shelf for me. Living in the Midwest as a teen, I was told many times that local people who knew an “incorrect version” of the church’s time in Nauvoo would try to convince me that Joseph was a polygamist, but this was only a cunning attempt to destroy my testimony. So I felt betrayed when I found the essays (2017-2018) and from that point have placed zero trust in the church and it’s leaders.
Fast forward to now – I have teenage kids in seminary. They were taught about things like Joseph’s polygamy. They said that when it came up the teacher was putting a positive spin on his marriage to a 14 year old, and someone stood up, pointed at a freshman girl in class, and said “that would be the same as you (teacher) being married to her! That’s seriously messed up!!!”. Laughter ensued and they said the teacher was PISSED. So I don’t think Ballard’s inoculation is having the same effect as he might have intended. It’s not teaching the questionable things in a faith-building way because there just is no faith building way to teach that stuff. The facts from much of early church history are viewed by youth today as weird, distasteful and just dumb. It only cements their disinterest in the church and religion in general.
I don’t like the word inoculate, it implies that you have a preconceived ending. For example, not getting sick. I’m inoculated against Covid. Hopefully, I won’t the disease and thereby won’t pass it on to others.
In the case of religion, I have come to grips with my beliefs. In the case of our children, I didn’t try to inoculate. Hopefully, they felt free to make their own decisions. Develop their own belief structure. Hopefully, they know I will love them no matter what direction their spirituality heads.
I want them to nice and caring people. And they are. They set great examples for our grandchildren.
Bishop Bill, very interesting post. I think the church would be much better off just being plain and simple with the truth, and let the membership make their own decisions. I don’t believe God is afraid of the truth, and the church shouldn’t be either. The church’s fear of the truth has in many ways affected my own fear of the truth throughout my life (in many areas). It has taken a long time for me to be willing to face the truth in my own life and I honestly feel uplifted and spiritually stronger by accepting what I believe to be true, even if it is less orthodox.
As far as your last comment, that Elder Ballard is admitting something, I disagree. The definition you gave for inoculate is clearly the correct and most thorough definition, but Elder Ballard was clearly using the word the way many average people would use it, which is simply to protect oneself from something. I doubt most people really understand the details of what goes into an inoculation.
I have a hard time faulting the Church too much. They emphasize getting a testimony, which to me is a very real thing. It took studying, pondering, prayer, discussion, questioning, and other types of work, but it’s there. I do feel the Holy Ghost is a real thing and the cause of that testimony. All other discussions end up getting measured by that standard.
Having said that, I may have gotten a bit of “inoculation” when I was younger. I think my first real experience with anti-material was as a fifteen year old when the young men attended general conference. We walked out of temple square, the leaders walking far behind, and I was handed a facsimile interpretation by somebody who gave the “real” scoop on what was going on. I’ll admit it got me thinking, but I was also thinking about how more seemed to be off with the man than with what he told me.
I also had some awesome parents and Sunday School teachers. They didn’t shy away from talking to me about anything. One SS teacher was also an Institute teacher. Not sure whether he had approval from the SS president or Bishop, but every few months he’d reserve a Sunday simply for questions and answers, and neither he nor the youth shied away from less spoken subjects in Church circles. I enjoyed that, but in talking to others (especially here), it seems my experience may have been the exception, and not the rule.
There was very little that was new to me with the essays, but now, even as an adult who does read a lot of material for and against the Church, I still get whacked in the head from time to time (had a few hard hits after the mission). I ultimately have to remind myself of what it is I know, and that it motivates me more than what I don’t know. Somehow, it’s going to fit together (even if a piece of that puzzle was just that some men were stupid from time to time).
I can appreciate “giving Brother Joseph a break” but on the other hand you still have LDS tour guides in Cancun, Mexico.
Tangent comment/question
Why do they say Bro. Joseph…and not President Smith?
I know the history and changes with HJG and then DOM…….but lets be down to earth and say Brother Nelson…get rid of these titles of superiority.
I actually perfer dropping Bro/sister…..just use first names.
Eli’s comment mentions early exposure to “anti” material and that that something “seemed to be off with the man” who introduced him to it.
Therein lies the problem. Separating information into an “anti” category peddled by people who are “off” creates an expectation that information that is critical/unflattering of the church will always be false. It’s not. The gospel topics try to correct for this but, as was discussed on W&T on another excellent post a few months ago, they obfuscate to the point of feeling duplicitous and don’t actually do a very good job of inoculating members.
Take the race and the priesthood essay for example which says, “President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would ‘have [all] the privilege and more’ enjoyed by other members.9” Look at the source for footnote 9, however, and you get the full context: Young was advocating for slavery while appealing to God as his authority, something the essay conveniently leaves out. The essay fails to prepare the reader for something as horrifying as BY saying, “Inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery.” And that, right there, is a testimony killer for some people.
“Therein lies the problem. Separating information into an ‘anti’ category peddled by people who are “off” creates an expectation that information that is critical/unflattering of the church will always be false.”
I never said that was always the case. That’s the impression I got that time, however. I’ll admit it’s really kept me on my toes since then, but I’ve also met some very cordial and sincere people seeking to tear down the Church over the years. You’ll get “off” people peddling truths (truths generally part of a bigger picture), sincere people peddling lies, “off” people peddling lies, and sincere people peddling truths. That’s about true with anything. Regardless, I still have to measure it up to what I already know.
I do have a healthy amount of respect and admiration for “anti” producers who call out the lack of integrity of other “anti” producers when they see a need. It does add a measure of credibility in what they’re trying to accomplish.
@eli maybe you need to be more clear what you mean by “anti”. While it’s true there are some truly “anti-Mormon” people and sources out there, Mormons tend to label factual information that contradicts their views as “anti” so it’s a triggering and sloppy label for a lot of people.
To the OP, I’m sure your interpretation isn’t what Ballard meant but I think it’s spot on. Perhaps he should have quote Emily Dickinson: “We tell the truth but tell it slant.”
Bodensmate, you are probably correct, we can’t expect a car salesman to know what the true meaning of inoculation is. He is a General Authority, but not an authority in general. I would hope Pres Nelson knows how to properly use the word inoculation, unless it was in a chapter of his studies that talked about evolution, which he probably skipped.
In the garden, inoculation isn’t about disease. We differentiate germ from disease. Composts are created for this purpose–to introduce processed and aged yeasty bacteria to the bacteria already present in the topsoil. The compost germ, when mingled, brings forth vitality and replication– new life–like yeast expanding to the new form of a loaf, making bread. The compost, if processed and prepared properly, has no disease, (or it would stink). Good compost smells like forest floor and the atmosphere before rain. Put another way, inoculation should be sweet (fruit), and its sound doctrine should inspire (breathe new life).
The inoculation should not stink.
In many cases the CES belief systems in the Gospel Topics essays have done more damage than the belief systems of the infamous CES Letter. We won’t get out of the maze until both institution and congregation are able to differentiate belief systems from doctrine. The CES is the menace.
Elisa,
Very good point. I’ve generally associated the term “anti-Mormon” to anyone who makes it their life-mission or greatest hobby to target the Church and its members, whether that involves lies, half-truths, truths out of context, or other methods. I’ll admit a sizeable number of members associate it purely with maliciousness and lies. Perhaps I can be more careful in how I use it.
If the essays are so important, why only introduced to the yonger generation, and not the “Older” one?
I assure we all know the answer.
We were told a different verision of LDS doctrine and history.
On a lighter note, Russell Nelson can be considered our most prominent anti-Mormon, since he fixates on only using the formal name of the Church.
As to the serious discussion here about inoculation, I understand President Ballard’s desire to not have people who grew up naively in the Church be blind-sided by adult awareness of difficult issues that cause a realization that the Church is not immaculate.
The question of whether the essays do a credible job of addressing the difficult issues is another issue, in and of itself.
But my own inoculation, as a young man who converted at age 22, was caused by three things: (1) a speedy realization that a Church with a high percentage of kooks would NOT have a perfect past or present; and (2) my own curiosity, which caused me to read pro, anti, and neutral material, despite the worries of well-meaning members; and (3) my determination that I would make up my own mind on issues.
I also learned to check the footnotes in what I read, whether pro, anti, and neutral. I am skeptical of the claims of both believers and non-believers.
The result of my own self-administered “inoculation” is that I remain what I call a “disillusioned believer.”
People sooner or later need to wake up and realize that there is no Santa Claus, even in the Church, and then make the decision whether or not they should stay in the Church. I hope they will stay, but I understand all too well that for some people, formally or informally leaving the Church is a healthier option.
The essays, the polygamy ones in particular, were a turning point for me. It’s one thing to have “messy” history; it’s another to pass the mess off as the will of an almighty, loving God.
I can’t believe in the God of the essays. I struggled free from the preposterous explanations and excuses and made a mental escape to a God that makes sense to me.
Now, why I didn’t look at this more carefully earlier in my life? I don’t know.
I think many members, especially those in the COB, adhere to a short leash model, i.e. the Lord has tight control over the statements and decisions of the church leaders, the higher up, the shorter the leash.
I beleive in a long leash model, i.e. the Lord give tremendous leeway for his children to make decisions, goos or bad, at all levels. This model allows me to be more forgiving of egregious error by current and past church leaders, recognizing that most of the time they were fumbling though the dark and dreary waste lome me. It also helps me to not be too worried if this my philosophy doesn’t agree fully with their philosophy.
On a side note, soft keys on cellphones are such a pain…
John chastity spring, where are you? I miss your comment on this one.
I find it interesting that he chose the word inoculate, making an analogy that teaching the essays to the students will somehow immunize them from these sometimes misunderstood topics. It is a watered down version, giving just enough information to fool the mind into creating resistance against further attacks from this truth.
The implanted antigen is usually modified in some way so that the receiving person does not get the full blown disease. This is done by changing the antigen, watering it down, or otherwise rendering it imponent. The first smallpox inoculation was actually a cowpox viruse. Other smallpox inoculation involved putting a little bit of the smallpox viruses in a scrape in the skin.