Coming Revisions To Church Curriculum

[wenglund]

It's my impression that it has always been so. That there was a time when "Sunday School" wasn't viewed solely as a faith-delivery mechanism but also to teach.

People who are familiar with meaning of the word "school" will understand that teaching is an indispensable and integral part of the "faith-delivery mechanism" called "Sunday SCHOOL."

Since teaching is key to Sunday SCHOOL, the question isn't whether there is teaching or not (there is), but what is appropriate and best to teach.

One of the essential principles of effective instructional design suggests that the lessons be constructed to best meet the course objective--which objective, ultimately, in regards to the Church, entail the four-fold mission of the church.

Another essential principle is that the lessons ought to be constructed to reinforce past teachings--i.e. foundational and infrastructural principles and methods that have been previously laid out line-upon-line as the students are prepared to receive them, which, in relation to the Church entail scriptural things like Moroni 10 and Alma 32,

In short, Sunday SCHOOL lessons are designed to bring us to Christ, enable us to become more like him, using the means he has established to best accomplish that end. And, to the limited extent that man-made methodologies like history, or archeology, or sociology, etc. are utilized, it should be clear that such methodologies are rightly subordinate to Christ's methodology, and ought also be employed in such a way, and on such matters, that best bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him.

This, in my estimation, and as Deborah intimated, is what the critics tend not to get when proposing what they think ought to be taught on Sundays.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zerinus]

Can you quote in writing the relevant passage?

I listened to it and found the following relevant passage which I transcribed:

This is what we have in mind, and that is to develop our response to the tough issues, whether that is polyandry, or DNA in the Book of Mormon, or whatever it is; and then in cooperation with the curriculum department and of the Church educational system try to build into our curriculum, our basic curriculum and in the Church Education’s curriculum, material that will cover these areas, and make our young people especially—it is interesting in several of the scriptures that give us the information we have about what the Church historian should do, it speaks of the rising generation, indicating that there really is an important emphasis on them—so our hope is to put them in a knowledgeable way to give reason for the hope that is in them, and to do it in a specific ways sometimes ... So we are aware that this is a concern, and in all honesty, in the YM and YW curriculum where their manuals are severely outdated right now, they just announced a new package of materials that is going actually to be a library and we will be hearing more about this in the coming months—that they are creating a learning library, where teachers can go and in a sense create their own curriculum within certain bounds for the young people in their ward, and give lessons drawn from this database that has been created. So we are moving I think with some—they are not revolutionary, they are at least a breath of fresh air across the Church. So we are setting up something that is really important to us, and will try and respond to—maybe belatedly, but we are getting there.

[Scott Lloyd]

I listened to it and found the following relevant passage which I transcribed:

This is what we have in mind, and that is to develop our response to the tough issues, whether that is polyandry, or DNA in the Book of Mormon, or whatever it is; and then in cooperation with the curriculum department and of the Church educational system try to build into our curriculum, our basic curriculum and in the Church Education’s curriculum, material that will cover these areas, and make our young people especially—it is interesting in several of the scriptures that give us the information we have about what the Church historian should do, it speaks of the rising generation, indicating that there really is an important emphasis on them—so our hope is to put them in a knowledgeable way to give reason for the hope that is in them, and to do it in a specific ways sometimes ... So we are aware that this is a concern, and in all honesty, in the YM and YW curriculum where their manuals are severely outdated right now, they just announced a new package of materials that is going actually to be a library and we will be hearing more about this in the coming months—that they are creating a learning library, where teachers can go and in a sense create their own curriculum within certain bounds for the young people in their ward, and give lessons drawn from this database that has been created. So we are moving I think with some—they are not revolutionary, they are at least a breath of fresh air across the Church. So we are setting up something that is really important to us, and will try and respond to—maybe belatedly, but we are getting there.

Regarding the portion in bold, I wonder if this is what Elder Jensen is referring to:

http://www.lds.org/service/leadership?lang=eng

It is called the Leadership Training Library. It is new and was discussed extensively at the recent General Sunday School Auxiliary Training held just before general conference.

I haven't seen anything therein by way of dealing with the so-called "tough issues," though. I readily acknowledge I haven't perused it thoroughly.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[zerinus]

Regarding the portion in bold, I wonder if this is what Elder Jensen is referring to:

http://www.lds.org/service/leadership?lang=eng

It is called the Leadership Training Library. It is new and was discussed extensively at the recent General Sunday School Auxiliary Training held just before general conference.

I haven't seen anything therein by way of dealing with the so-called "tough issues," though. I readily acknowledge I haven't perused it thoroughly.

No, this appears to be something completely different. It is not the same as what Elder Jensen was talking about.

[Cobalt-70]

You neglect to mention here that Joseph assured the reader that he was not guilty of any "great or malignant sins," but rather, engaged in joviality and unseemly associations. I think he sounds a great deal like many of the active and spirited LDS youth of today. Obviously, I don't take the dim view that you do of Joseph's youthful behavior.

Well, in an earlier draft, Smith said he said he "displayed the weakness of youth and the corruption of human nature, which I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God." Should we be teaching our youth to be "gratifying their appetites"? Richard Bushman suggests that this might have meant that Smith drank too much. Michael Quinn thinks there was probably sexual sin. Either way, I'm not teaching my children to do that.

The arrest, as I recall the story, was a trumped up charge -- borne of neighborhood ill will and bigotry -- that didn't hold up in a preliminary hearing.

Whether or not the charges were born of ill will, the point is that Smith was, for substantial fees, using a magic stone to lead treasure hunting expeditions to the supposed location of hidden chests of gold and silver. Is that what we want our youth doing?

You strike me here as having a presentist mindset: taking Joseph out of his cultural milieu and then judging him. Even today, many people, especially in their youth, get involved in enterprises that are not particularly praiseworthy.

I idolize Smith, despite his (sometimes pretty serious) imperfections. It is the manual that has the presentist mindset. It is asking the youth of today to look back at Joseph Smith and model their lives after him. Though I love Smith, I don't think he was, as a youth, a very good role model for modern youth. So that's one part of the manual I would change.

[Hamilton Porter]

I think that in addition discussing Joseph Smith more frankly, we need to talk about him less. In Mormon culture there is a quasi-worship of his status, and disillusionment with Joseph Smith is the #1 cause of apostasy.

We should ground members' faith more solidly in Jesus and the Book of Mormon.

[Cobalt-70]

I think that in addition discussing Joseph Smith more frankly, we need to talk about him less. In Mormon culture there is a quasi-worship of his status, and disillusionment with Joseph Smith is the #1 cause of apostasy.

We should ground members' faith more solidly in Jesus and the Book of Mormon.

Good point. And, for the Book of Mormon itself, less emphasis on its alleged historical accuracy. The book's religious and spiritual value is in its teachings and stories. People can easily get set up for disappointment when they are later exposed to mainstream archaeology and genetics.

[Log]

Good point. And, for the Book of Mormon itself, less emphasis on its alleged historical accuracy. The book's religious and spiritual value is in its teachings and stories. People can easily get set up for disappointment when they are later exposed to mainstream archaeology and genetics.

Sure. Because a book in which no particular statement is true is a verifiable cornucopia of valuable religious and spiritual stories and teachings. Why, maybe the Church should just canonize The Jungle Book for the spiritual and temporal value of its teachings.

The sky's the limit!

[Hamilton Porter]

Good point. And, for the Book of Mormon itself, less emphasis on its alleged historical accuracy. The book's religious and spiritual value is in its teachings and stories. People can easily get set up for disappointment when they are later exposed to mainstream archaeology and genetics.

Anti- alert.

[Calm]

. Why, maybe the Church should just canonize The Jungle Book for the spiritual and temporal value of its teachings.

As long as it was the original Kipling Jungle Books (there are two) and not the Disney version, I would so go for it.

[cdowis]

If you want an eye-opening (and depressing) experience, try going into any youth Sunday School class and ask the following questions:

What book of scripture are we studying this year?

Hmmmm. I was asked to substitute teach a class of older primary children and the lesson was on the Kirkland temple.

Just for fun, I started the class by showing them pictures and asking about -- Joseph Smith..... ? the First Vision.... ?? the angel Moroni....???

Needless to say, our lession was not on the Kirkland temple. We went over the basics.

Edited April 19, 2012 by cdowis

[Cobalt-70]

Sure. Because a book in which no particular statement is true is a verifiable cornucopia of valuable religious and spiritual stories and teachings. Why, maybe the Church should just canonize The Jungle Book for the spiritual and temporal value of its teachings.

I did not say, and do not believe, your strawman that "no particular statement is true" in the Book of Mormon. I happen to agree with Smith's statement that the book was the "most correct" (doctrinally) of any other book. But how many people have been converted to Mormonism because the Book of Mormon provides an explanation for the amount of melanin in the skin of Native Americans, or for why Native Americans were less technologically advanced than Europeans, or because the Book of Mormon describes pre-Columbian horses and elephants? Every time our publications and manuals emphasize points like these which have now essentially been abandoned even by our own apologists, that is one more chance for someone to leave the church over archaeology and genetics.

For example, whenever we say things like the church "stands or falls with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon," lets clarify that. That doesn't mean that unless Native American pigmentation was darkened by God circa the 500s BC to prevent their interracial marriage with white people, that the church is false. It doesn't mean that unless there were horses and elephants in the Americas prior to Columbus, then the church is false. It just means that if the Book of Mormon was not inspired by God, then what's the point of Mormonism?

[wenglund]

I think that in addition discussing Joseph Smith more frankly, we need to talk about him less. In Mormon culture there is a quasi-worship of his status, and disillusionment with Joseph Smith is the #1 cause of apostasy. We should ground members' faith more solidly in Jesus and the Book of Mormon.

Let's see, if the Church doesn't spend its Sunday meetings disclosing everything about Joseph, it is damned by the critics for lack of full disclosure. Yet, if it spends even a modest amount of time disclosing things about Joseph, it is damned for not focusing enough on Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kenngo1969]

Hmmmm. I was asked to substitute teach a class of older primary children and the lesson was on the Kirkland temple.

Just for fun, I started the class by showing them pictures and asking about -- Joseph Smith..... ? the First Vision.... ?? the angel Moroni....???

Needless to say, our lession was not on the Kirkland temple. We went over the basics.

Kirkland ... is that anywhere near Kirtland, Ohio?

Just wonderin'!

[Calm]

For a Kirkland temple, check out your nearby Costco....

[changed]

I think it's good to address the harder issues, so long as that is not the focus. Just teach everyone what they need to do to feel the Spirit, once you understand what the Spirit is, the rest is just details.

[Log]

I did not say, and do not believe, your strawman that "no particular statement is true" in the Book of Mormon.

Well, we can go sentence-by-sentence through the book and figure out which statements you do believe are true. If there is true doctrine contained in some statement, or collection of statements, within the Book of Mormon, then surely at least one statement is true, right?

How about the one that starts "I, Nephi..."?

Otherwise, why shouldn't we canonize the Jungle Book? Who says the Jungle Book isn't inspired by God?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[Pahoran]

Well, we can go sentence-by-sentence through the book and figure out which statements you do believe are true. If there is true doctrine contained in some statement, or collection of statements, within the Book of Mormon, then surely at least one statement is true, right?

How about the one that starts "I, Nephi..."?

Otherwise, why shouldn't we canonize the Jungle Book? Who says the Jungle Book isn't inspired by God?

Well, some certainly do seem to want to treat Just So Stories as holy writ...

Regards,

Pahoran

[Log]

Well, some certainly do seem to want to treat Just So Stories as holy writ...

Wrong thread, darn it! LOL

(why do I miss all these awesome one-liners?)

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

Well, some certainly do seem to want to treat Just So Stories as holy writ...

I was under the impression that more wanted to treat holy writ as Just So Stories....

They do make great parables....and how can one's attention resist being captured when you are called out to as "O Best Beloved"; especially as a child, it's like being rolled up in your mother's softest blanket and carried off in your father's strong arms to sit by the fire to learn the arcane ways of the mysterious beasts that are so human....not that this ever actually happened for me when I read and reread them as a child, but it felt like it did and that was almost as good.

This reminds me, the grandkids are just about at the age they can begin to enjoy these, will have to go get the book out.

[Cobalt-70]

Let's see, if the Church doesn't spend its Sunday meetings disclosing everything about Joseph, it is damned by the critics for lack of full disclosure. Yet, if it spends even a modest amount of time disclosing things about Joseph, it is damned for not focusing enough on Christ.

From my perspective, I would disagree. As a default, you spend more time discussing Jesus and scripture. To the extent that you discuss church history, however, you just need to make sure you do it in a way that doesn't give the appearance of hiding the ball.

[Cobalt-70]

Well, we can go sentence-by-sentence through the book and figure out which statements you do believe are true. If there is true doctrine contained in some statement, or collection of statements, within the Book of Mormon, then surely at least one statement is true, right?

How about the one that starts "I, Nephi..."?

Otherwise, why shouldn't we canonize the Jungle Book? Who says the Jungle Book isn't inspired by God?

You can believe that "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents..." is a true statement, regardless of whether Nephi is a fictional character or historical figure. Everyone would agree that "Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father" is a true statement, even though both of them are fictional characters.

[Log]

So, my so-called "straw man" was not made of straw after all.

[Cobalt-70]

So, my so-called "straw man" was not made of straw after all.

Your man is as straw-filled as ever.

My point is that it is totally irrelevant to people's salvation whether or not Nephi is a real historical figure, or whether there were elephants and horses in America before Columbus. What does matter are the doctrines of the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon stories which provide Mormons with moral examples and a unifying mythology.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Log]

Stories and examples that are fictional carry no weight in the real world, as they are not even false; just as the statement that "Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father" is true in a make-believe world of fantasy, but is not even false in the real one. So much for the doctrines one might glean from this fantastic, anachronistic, racist tale written by a delusional backwoods farmer, which doctrines likewise are not even false; we'd have to have grounds to assert the ones we like independent of the fictional cocoon they come wrapped in, and if we could do that, what need would we have for the cocoon? Certainly we can have no grounds to view the Book of Mormon as having any traction on reality, nor any normative value in our lives, anymore than any other work of fiction.

Why, again, do we not canonize The Jungle Book? Or, perhaps we could choose The Lord of the Rings, as it has a unifying mythology and moral examples?