- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was reading the following paper this morning “ The Pedogogical Dimension of IndoctrinationThe problem:
1. What if Joseph Smith’s real revelation in the First Vision was that “Doctrine” is the abomination of the creeds? The paper describes “Doctrine” as a “set of principles stated as true that aim to guide or govern people’s actions.”, and indoctrination as “the attempt to make somebody adhere to a doctrine, an opinion, a point of view.” In contrast to this, the figurative account of the creation twice says that mankind are to “Learn from their own experience to distinguish good and evil.”
2. We have a notoriously difficult time in the church fixing down ‘official doctrine’. Could it be because ‘official doctrine’ is not to be taught, but rather, the gospel is all about learning truth, as it is, from our own experience and sharing that experience with one another?
3. The major innovation of Joseph Smith is that humans can learn divine will by themselves: personal revelation, to the mind and heart (D&C
, and that the mind (reason) is not to be inactive: You must study it out in your own mind (D&C 9), and THEN look for spirit.4. Joseph fostered religious innovation, and this got out of hand in the early church. This caused schisms, and often, the inflow of innovative doctrines, such as polygamy and others. This is evidence of a lack of fixed doctrine in the earliest church.
5. To begin to fix doctrine, the book of commandments (original name) became the “Doctrine and Covenants”. Hmm.
6. Brigham Young and later prophets were highly authoritarian. Authoritarian systems used ‘Indoctrination’ as the means to control behavior.
7. Indoctrinated totalitarian systems require absolute obedience to illogical or irrational behavior patterns as a test of the indoctrination. Complying with polygamy, dress standards, and the word of wisdom are examples of compulsive behavior patterns not based in reason.
8. In the early to mid 20th century, a battle in the church was fought between those who saw truth as “that which is” versus those who saw truth as “doctrine: that which has been received”. BH Roberts, James Talmadge, Hugh B Brown, and David O McKay were leaders of the “that which is” camp, and Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Ezra Taft Benson, Bruce R. McConkie, and Boyd K Packer were in the “doctrine” camp.
9. With the death of each member of the “that which is” camp, the “doctrine” camp increased the stakes of “doctrine”. e.g. “Man his origin and destiny”, “Mormon Doctrine”, and especially, the rise of correlation and CES as the means to “indoctrinate” the church.
10. CES and correlation remain the means whereby the church is “indoctrinated” today. The move toward absolute adherence to “doctrine” and indoctrination infiltrates every program now in existence in the church.
The Solution:
The attached paper, while academic, is an interesting, easy read — it speaks of “Constructivism” in education as the key to overcoming “indoctrination”. Constructivism is based in the work of Jean Piaget, and refers to how we have in our minds a Schema of knowledge — not necessarily truth, and the role of eduction is to improve the quality and truthfulness of the schema through experience, questioning, and self-discovery. Liberal education tends to be constructivist, conservative education tends to be indoctrinaire.
As LDS come to a realization that the truth claims of the church are not what they are laid out to be, the flaws of an indoctrinated schema of ‘doctrine’ become clear. Thus, what typically happens is that the indoctrinated schema collapses because the core components and paradigm are found to be false. In those who have bought into the ‘doctrine’ lock, stock, and barrel, this collapse causes an immediate cognitive collapse of everything around the church. Most people leave if they can.
The attached paper notes the problems with indoctrination, especially as used in authoritarian systems, to control people. To break the flaws in the authoritarian system, teachers need to first deconstruct the doctrinal schema, and then help the pupil, through their own experience, to reconstruct a valid, truth-based schema.
In my impression, this can be applied to faith transition. As a person coming into the faith crisis, the deconstruction of the schema is already underway. Unfortunately, it tends to be an uncontrolled deconstruction — a cascaded collapse of everything “Mormon” and “religious” as well. It’s so severe in some cases that a person jumps off the cliff of certainty into an uncertain world, leaving behind all good things the church built for that person: relationships, the wonder of life, the culture, and the good and positive things the Gospel has taught. It’s as close to a disaster as anything.
For those in the Middle Way that feel the need to StayLDS, i think it important that we ‘survive’ this collapse, retaining the good things in the church, while shedding the tyranny of indoctrination. This is a tough challenge.
What are your thoughts on this?
This is one of those touchy subjects. I’m coming from a history of both sides on this. I liken this as a simile with the indoctrination of countries agenda, capitalism would be a simile in our country tied with the god created this land for us roots. To support a specific agenda or purpose one needs to indoctrinate both rules and ideas and thinking to create a action for that peruse(who remembers WW2 indoctrination to get everyone on board to who were hesitant to join WW2). When I was emotionally charged and very biased I saw a huge difference between the these and our own history and we were justified because it was the truth and the will of god to indoctrinate. Well at least I was taught that without using those words but the meaning was the same. Now having been broken emotionally for about 4 years now(I reached a point of emotional and phyiscal stress the either my brain or spirit snapped to the point where I can’t feel emotions or just feel remnants). Consequently looking at it logically now I find it hard to see the differences, despite trying to force or trigger myself back to my original view so I will be in harmony with the church and my family on this view.
I just see it as something authority does now. It’s hard not to see it now in all shapes and forms around the world.
I do not attach a negative or a positive to it, because well it seems impossible for me to at the moment.
I see benefits and draw backs. On one hand everome is on the same page everywhere, well at least that is the theory.
On the other it takes away from the the basic process of learning, that is to discover for yourself things seems the or A way to acheive real knowledge.
An example is I can read books in college all day long. But unless I go hands on I never really understand or learn it and the grades reflect that until I go hands on. I don’t always learn what I was cultivated to learn in college or church. Sometimes I take away a diffferent perspective then the intended one of the exercise.
I think that’s because largely people learn in different ways.
And there in there lies the problem. If people learn in different ways and I’m
sure god knows this(obviously) then how can indoctrination or a rigid or systematic program of teaching and learning work well? Do we just throw away the people that don’t learn in this manor, do we leave them by the way side and plunge forward so they don’t slow us down, or do we acknowledge that different people have different experinces and ways of learning and may even take a different lesson home then the intended lesson from the Curriculum?
I like the idea of clean slate learning, which seems to at least contradict systematic learning(wether passively aggressively enforced or not). People can be on board with the idea and belief, but they may take home vastly different meanings from thier own learning. We can either subjugate people to a official view within the system of belief or we can cultivate togather the different experiences to create a more complete whole(sometimes the pieces will fit, sometimes they won’t, but at least we will know through experince since we are all in the dark). I’d feel pretty dumb now throwing away pieces of the puzzle that were good just because someone else supposed them to not fit the puzzle without checking).
In my opinion, I think faith and hope don’t work all that well unless we try and test the puzzle pieces for ourselves. We have to attach what helps us and gives us meaning in our own lives and in or own way. Something that a systematic approach can not do. We are responsible for trying and testing works. Not our teachers. Sometimes the test fails and it may be the opportunity to take a different approach to test again. The only “perfect system ” is the one that works beat for you to combine knowledge,faith, hope and charity. The topic is different if it is just doctrines of men, or true eternal doctrines. False doctrines would collapse over time.
I find it tricky to find out if there is a doctrine out there that is eternally true that can be expressed in words that we can grasp.
But the survival of the Mormon Church tells me there is something there more than just ideas that don’t stand the test of time.
On the other hand, we really don’t understand doctrine in the church the way we should. Word of Wisdom is not an eternal doctrine to me. And it has lived past its prime. But that doesn’t mean all LDS doctrine is that way.
Heber13 wrote:The topic is different if it is just doctrines of men, or true eternal doctrines.
False doctrines would collapse over time.
I see them as both. Eternal doctrines that are interpreted by men and thus at least partly of men.
People will believe what ever it is they want to believe. If it serves a purpose for them then wether or not it is truth or doctrine it will survive. An example is that as one of my Hasidic Jewish friends told me when I asked how is it that the miracules of Christ can be dismissed. The long held answer was given to me like this. He said in relation to Christ walking on water it was because “he knew gods real name, wrote it on paper and slit is foot and inserted it into his foot giving him the power to walk on water by invoking gods real name”. I personally don’t view it very differently but this Hasidic Jewish view has survived 1000s of years. Yet it is not truthful doctrine to me or to most of us or to the church. So belief can survive in anything and is rooted in our DNA nature to do so if it provides a purpose for the person(people).
Wayfarer wrote: Quote:8. In the early to mid 20th century, a battle in the church was fought between those who saw truth as “that which is” versus those who saw truth as “doctrine: that which has been received”. BH Roberts, James Talmadge, Hugh B Brown, and David O McKay were leaders of the “that which is” camp, and Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Ezra Taft Benson, Bruce R. McConkie, and Boyd K Packer were in the “doctrine” camp.
9. With the death of each member of the “that which is” camp, the “doctrine” camp increased the stakes of “doctrine”. e.g. “Man his origin and destiny”, “Mormon Doctrine”, and especially, the rise of correlation and CES as the means to “indoctrinate” the church.
I really appreciate this synopsis. I feel like I am in the “that which is” camp. I too am a constructivist in my thinking. I feel that the indoctrination “old school” camp explains why there are so many feuds within quorum’s or groups in the church. My father is a indoctrination kind of guy, and I am “that which is” person. So this will help me with any future gospel discussions. I will apply this tool in assessing where people are at, it will help me avoid conflicts in church.
Thanks again for the post.
Explorers always struggle against “indoctrination” – but that same indoctrination is vital to the security-focused settlers. It’s only “evil” or even “bad” to those who don’t want it. For everyone else, it is a foundational aspect of sanity itself. As with so many things, the struggle between freedom to explore and safety to conform is the communal opposition in all things. It’s hard for many people of EITHER orientation (and it is an orientation as powerful as sexual orientation in many ways) to understand how important and valuable (even necessary) the other orientation is to those for whom it is natural.
I agree with the historical overview, wayfarer, but there was at least as big a percentage of the Church that left the Church or became totally inactive during the free-wheeling days as left the Church or became totally inactive during the days of most extreme indoctrination – and everything I’ve studied says the percentage is significantly higher the more unrestricted the boundaries are. There simply are more settlers in the world than explorers – and it’s important to recognize and even honor that.
jamison wrote:I really appreciate this synopsis. I feel like I am in the “that which is” camp. I too am a constructivist in my thinking. I feel that the indoctrination “old school” camp explains why there are so many feuds within quorum’s or groups in the church. My father is a indoctrination kind of guy, and I am “that which is” person. So this will help me with any future gospel discussions. I will apply this tool in assessing where people are at, it will help me avoid conflicts in church.
As you no doubt know, Piaget is the father of constructivism. I believe that understanding Piaget and his thought on schema is extermely critical in understanding faith crisis and how to deal with it. Of course Piaget was concerned with early childhood education and not church indoctrination, but… when the church creates an indoctrination model as if we are 10 year old children, I think Piaget fits to a tee.To me, professionally, “schema” has a very specific meaning. “Schema” is used to define meta-data: the structure of information within a database. For Piaget, it is the data itself. I see it as a hybrid of both: the church schemata is structured so as to be based upon specific founding stories. This creates a hierarchal schema, where the life and existence of any given doctrine, including the existence of god, is dependent upon the founding stories. When the founding stories are found to be suspect, the entire schema tends to collapse. When the existence of one’s marriage covenant is also based in the schema, then it, too, collapses.
Schema collapse is the predominant problem in LDS disaffection — it is what makes the Middle Way largely untenable, because the physical structures in the brain — the actual neural connections of dependent facts to the primary root constructs of the schema, become disassociated from the limbic structures of certainty. Once we move the foundation stories, the primary fundamentals of the LDS truth paradigm to “uncertain”, then every other neural connection in the schema is now ‘uncertain’. Cognitive dissonance is a physical and emotional state of the brain, and when any neural trigger associated with the former church schema fires, then the associated limbic emotion associated with root constructs fire as well. Let me demonstrate:
1. Primary trigger: I just argued with my spouse
2. triggers a limbic structure: is this a threat to my marriage
3. triggers church schema: I have an eternal marriage
4. triggers church schema: eternal marriage happened in temple
5. triggers church schema: temple is revealed authority from priesthood
6. triggers church schema: priesthood was restored by joseph smith
7. triggers new information: Joseph Smith may have fraudulently restored church
8. triggers limbic response: cognitive dissonance
9. triggers limbic response: THREAT
This aren’t even thoughts in my conscious mind. my nonconscious mind is always processing cognitive events as ‘friend or foe’, generally quickly and never with any real attention by my consciousness. But when the limbic response “THREAT” is assesrted, the conscious mind is ACTIVELY informed that this is a ‘bad thing’. When the schema was wired as ‘true believer’ steps 7-9 were different:
7. triggers church schema: Joseph Smith was god’s prophet
8. triggers church schema: the prophet will never lead us astray.
9. triggers limbic response: feeling of certainty, be at peace.
Old-Timer wrote:Explorers always struggle against “indoctrination” – but that same indoctrination is vital to the security-focused settlers. It’s only “evil” or even “bad” to those who don’t want it. For everyone else, it is a foundational aspect of sanity itself. …and it’s important to recognize and even honor that.
Ray, this isn’t about explorers versus settlers, it’s about indoctrination versus a valid constuctivist truth paradigm.Let’s use the settler paradigm as an allegory — some of my details are going to be mythological, so bear with me:
The settlers were farmers, and but the explorers that scoped out our area weren’t farmers at all — they saw the big lake in our valley and thought, “wow, lots of water for farming, let’s settle here.” They also had a lot of crazy, speculative, superstitious ideas. As the first farmers started to stake out claims and settle, they rapidly saw that the explorers’ speculations were wrong – it wasn’t a lake at all, but a great salt lake, unusable for farming. A lot of settlers gave up, because the explorer/leaders didn’t know farming and made bad choices. The land could not sustain the number of people as would be the case if that were a fresh-water lake.
Eventually, our leaders established a better set of rules for farming. In fact, a new farmer-leader established a set of rules — his rules, that needed to be obeyed for every farm settlement: he specified everything, from the structure of the city grid on which you had to build, as well as what you could dress, eat, and drink. He even specified with exactness, what you needed to think about the farm society. The reason he did this is because all those explorers had a lot of really crazy ideas, and he saw that their crazy ideas caused a lot of settlers to move away. Importantly, he locked down the explorers’ speculations to one set of myths that he declared as ‘the truth’ and required everyone to teach and believe those myths. One of the myths was that the top guys could have multiple wives, and even take wives of lesser worthy men if they so desired. The new farmer-leader enforced obedience to the rules of the society, or else your land would be taken, you’d be cast out, and even your wives would be added to his.
Scrolling forward over time, the farmer-leader dies, and the government decides that the wife swapping and polygamy thing was illegal, and it started taking lands from the new leaders of the community. So, reluctantly, the new leaders suspended that one rule, didn’t remove it really, but because the farmer-leader was divine, no-one changed any of the rules for farming.
As time goes on, new scientific methods prove that some of the farming techniques specified by the divine farmer leader are good, but some aren’t. In fact some of the things the farmer leader talked about were downright wrong. Arguments ensue between the twelve members of the settlement council: the scientific members on one side of the debate, and the superstitious ones faithful to the old farmer-leader and tradition on the other. They declare truce, because the spectre of dissention raises a bit of a head. A few years later, most of the scientist leaders die off, and the faithful believers decide to start publishing and educating the settlers that they must follow the traditions — and that the traditions are the only truth.
One of the more dogmatic of the faithful believers, who happened to be the chairman of the settlement council, went down to the primary settlement school to speak to the settler-students that whatever the settlement-leader said (and all settlement-leaders in history back to the original farmer-leader) was absolute truth on any topic, and that to question any of it was to be thrown out. The current settlement-leader was very frustrated when the chairman said this, wanted an apology, but really wasn’t able to muster one. Within a year, all schools and the settlement publication were teaching that whatever the leaders said was truth on any topic and must not be questioned.
At the same time, a group of historians and scientists observed that a number of the traditions were downright wrong and unscientific, and that modern methods would be much better for the land, and we need to teach the truth in our schools. The next year, the settlement historian is sacked, and within another 11 years, all the scientists are rounded up one september and summarily executed for daring to speak dissent about the traditions.
From this time forward, a group of settlement defenders create a new historical thinktank called “FARMS” to defend and uphold the tradition as if it were true history and scientific fact. As well, two of the settlement council members establish a “Strengthening Community Members Committee” (SCMC) to spy on and report any dissenters.
In spite of all these efforts, however, the flaws of the farming methods become painfully known to the community. The origin of most of the traditions becomes exposed by a new network of libraries called the “Internets” (sic), and many of the settlers make alarming discoveries that much of the tradition is flawed. In responose to any criticism, the FARMS group and its spinoff ridicule and disparage any dissenters, and the the SCMC kicks in to help local council leaders take action against them.
—-
Ray, we are the settlers — the explorers are long gone. We’re dealing with truth versus doctrine, and the methods to which members are required to uphold doctrine in the face of further light and knowledge.
Do we serve the Way of Truth, or do we serve Doctrine (aka LDS creeds) and their professors (literally, those who profess them and require indoctrination in them)?
I do not honor doctrine taught as truth. I believe we need to
1. accept and honor all truth regardless of how inconvenient it may be,
2. reject all things proven or likely not true, and
3. agree to a limited set of doctrinal truths about the unknowable, acknowledging in these latter things we don’t know but we have faith.
It is doctrinal speculation that you’re referring to as the wild and wolly frontier that caused people to depart, because so many different ideas were taught as irrefutable truth from a prophet, when in fact they were things unknowable and simply guesses from someone who self-identified as a ‘yankee guesser’ and not a prophet.
As for me and my house…
I agree with you, wayfarer, with regard to just about everything you said – but I still maintain that the primary difference is between mental settlers and mental explorers and how they view classic indoctrination. I didn’t have time to delve further into the points of the post, so I focused only on that aspect in my comment. I want a balance between the earliest days and the days of about 40-20 years ago, since that’s my own personal orientation, if you will. I want classic indoctrination to some degree, but I also want the freedom to create my own paradigm. I believe we are moving back toward that balance right now.
To me, the issue isn’t indoctrination as it is defined by many people; it’s the focus and force of the indoctrination. I am against codification and creedalism – and I think that’s what you’re describing when you use the term indoctrination. I’m cool with that, but I do think it’s important to distinguish between those who want the freedom to “explore” and those who want the safety and security of “settling” as it relates to this issue.
Old-Timer wrote:
To me, the issue isn’t indoctrination as it is defined by many people; it’s the focus and force of the indoctrination. I am against codification and creedalism – and I think that’s what you’re describing when you use the term indoctrination. I’m cool with that, but I do think it’s important to distinguish between those who want the freedom to “explore” and those who want the safety and security of “settling” as it relates to this issue.This, some people are not concerned with at all the whole truth, all truth and nothing but the truth. For many it is illrelavent. Many don’t want a long explanation of things, they prefer a very simplified one even if somewhat incorrect and to just go back to their lives. Having worked in customer service and trying to explain marketing and the halfs truths in it to people I have come to realize this. Thy ask a question, I try to explain it in a way that makes sense to them now.
Read just about any commercialized product box and you’ll read a very clean and highly “ideal” version of “about this company or product on it. We simply do the same thing.
The trouble arises when a person finds some of the claims aren’t quite what they were lead to believe. As with us.
It has been my job to try to diffuse the situation(pacify) the customer so they understand why it is that is and isn’t true and why the claims were made. Most are not interested to hear any response. They want life to remain simple. Some want to understand how it really comes about because they are legitimately confused and frustrated and simply wish to understand.
In your analogy i take the ideal situation approach to customize it to what ultimately helps that indivual and his/her needs.
The problem with correlation is not correlation itself but forced correlation. Enforcing it so that it gets taught everywhere and by everyone exactly as it is wanted without regard to a individuals needs. When the individuals needs gets sacrificed for the cooperation or body of government, then it becomes Indoctrination(how I define it).
It is a philosophy that reigns supreme in Japan (and others) that has both merit and very negative consequence to it. Where ever this is taught and enforced it advancement of the body(tribe) but very high stress and high suicide rates.
Can we have both the individuals needs and the tribes needs served? I believe we can. Teaching correlation is one thing, forcing is another entirely. We shouldn’t sacrifice those that believe but yearn for more truth and details or interpret traditions differently etc. for the sake of the tribe(whole). That whole idea just reeks of alpha male behavior to me. We can do better. It’s tremendously high stress to have a knowledge and not be able to share it. As humans we yearn to share what we have learned. We can’t subjugate those in a tribe to toe a line, long term it doesn’t work(never has). We have to learn to coexist among different believers even those that are different in the same tribe.
If we are here at stayLDS, it is by choice. We choose to belong to this tribe because we believe in some form what is taught. We just crave for more, more knowledge, more tolerance, more love and understanding… Something to fill the void that isn’t being filled by adhering to official correlation or “official doctrine”(what ever that means). Either way it shows a desire to work for a goal of peace either within ourselves or as a tribe. Sorry for rambling, just some thoughts I had that somehow make sense to me.
I found this useful post which far predates us(this site) regarding indoctrination and feeling fed or not felling fed spiritually. “Seasons
The relentless flow of time has brought me to the point where I must terminate my long and pleasant association with Dialogue. At age 89, I suddenly find myself a widower. My reading is limited mainly to the headlines, and I am deaf. Of course, as friends are aware, reading, writ- ing, research, and teaching have been my career. Well, as Jimmie Durante used to say, “That is the condition that prevails.”
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought has served and is serving a highly important and constructive purpose. There was an urgent need for a medium through which Mormon scholars and writers could find an outlet for penetrating study of Mormonism. The official organs of the Church are mainly concerned with indoctrination and organizational in- formation. They are closed to articles of intellectual depth.
But Dialogue has opened many windows on the broader aspects and significance of Mormonism. May it continue.
Lowry Nelson
Provo, Utah
From Vol. 15, No.2 (Summer 1982)
As a new reader of Dialogue, I would like to thank you for the won- derful articles, poems, and art you publish. I have recently been reacti- vated into the church, and I struggled with giving up my intellectual en- deavors (however young they may be) in my new life. Dialogue helped me reconcile this, and my life is more full.
Now serving a mission for the church, I always look forward to each issue as an alternative source of refreshment and relaxation. Some arti- cles have helped me in preparing talks for district and zone meetings. My mission president has even borrowed a couple of issues for his own personal study. My knowledge has been deepened and my spirit fed. Thank you.
Dallas B. Robbins
Indiana Indianapolis Mission from Vol. 24, No. 3 (Fall 1991)”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.