dblagent007 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 My view of this is somewhat cynical.Consig, I think there are two issues here: 1) the boredom factor and 2) the content factor. Although they are related to some degree, I think the solution to each is separate. Regarding the boredome factor, any standardized curriculum, regardless of the content, will eventually lend itself to boredom (e.g., I'm sick of hearing about translating the BOM with the seer stone in a hat, everyone already knows that). The solution to the boredom factor, when dealing with standardized curriculum, lies, unfortunately, in the teacher's creativity and the student's willingness to receive it. Now, if you don't have a standardized curriculum, then the sky's the limit (e.g., Mary and God had sex to create Jesus, Adam was created in some similar fashion, etc.).With regard to the content factor, I think the church has decided that the cost of teaching its unvarnished history is too high relative to teaching the more palatable version.
Scott26.2 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Then perhaps you are just the person to explain to me why in over 4,500 hours of church attendance I have never heard of the process by which Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon.I mean, since there's no spirit of avoidance and all. All the Best!--ConsiglieriBecause we don't know for sure! My earlier post quotes Joseph Smith "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon" (HC 1:220) Its a fireside topic, or an Adult Education topic, an Education Week class. But when we have 45 minutes in GD, I say stick to the scriptures.Scott 26.2
Jason Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Because we don't know for sure! My earlier post quotes Joseph Smith "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon" (HC 1:220) Its a fireside topic, or an Adult Education topic, an Education Week class. But when we have 45 minutes in GD, I say stick to the scriptures.Scott 26.2Amen.
consiglieri Posted February 2, 2009 Author Posted February 2, 2009 Because we don't know for sure! My earlier post quotes Joseph Smith "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon" (HC 1:220)I would hope that a cloistered community of Mormons in Gospel Doctrine class would not qualify as "the world" in Joseph Smith's terminology.All the Best!--Consiglieri
stn9 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I think we all know that is was Hyrum in a Church meeting who suggested that Joseph would related how the Book of Mormon was translated that brought forth this declaration. So apparently he (or maybe the Lord) didn't want to tell even Church members.
dblagent007 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Because we don't know for sure! My earlier post quotes Joseph Smith "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon" (HC 1:220) Its a fireside topic, or an Adult Education topic, an Education Week class. But when we have 45 minutes in GD, I say stick to the scriptures.Scott 26.2Can we teach the parts we do know for sure? Can we teach as fact that Joseph put a stone in a hat, put his face in the hat, and then dictated the translation. If we leave it to those facts are we okay in your view? Or is the translation never to be spoken of in church due to the supposedly high level of uncertainly surrounding it?By the way, the church does not seem to shy away from teaching historical accounts that show JS in a positive light. Why is the standard of "fact" elevated with regard to the BOM translation?
Mortal Man Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 consig,My hat's off to you for teaching this lesson. Don't listen to all the "stick to the manual" blather in this thread. I would LOVE to be in your class! You've made a fan out of me and I'll be rooting for you until you get released (probably this week). GIVE IT TO EM BABY! GO GO GO GO GO!MM
consiglieri Posted February 2, 2009 Author Posted February 2, 2009 GIVE IT TO EM BABY! GO GO GO GO GO!You are far too kind, Mortal Man.For those who want a head's up on next week, I will be introducing the class to Royal Skousen's critical text of the Book of Mormon; covering some of the remarkable things his studies have uncovered, including how the Original Manuscript and Printer's Manuscript corroborate the witnesses' accounts of the how the Book of Mormon was REALLY translated; and also try to squeeze in a number of emendations to the current edition that members can write in their copies in order to make it conform more exactly to the original.That will be right after I lead off with the Book of Raziel's account of the book delivered by an angel to Adam which was written in an unknown language and which Adam could not read except with the aid of a sapphire which he held to his eyes and saw the words of the text in blazing letters.All the Best!--Consiglieri
mnn727 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 For those who are concerned that Consig didn't teach the lesson as they thought he should.... How many times do we have to hear the same boring stories and hear mini testimony meetings? At least Consig is actually teaching something that people will remember. Too bad he didn't teach the lesson that was called for in the manual. Sounds to me like he wants to be released. We had a very interesting lesson on personal revelation -- I even took a couple notes as the teaching was that good.
searchinguy Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Too bad he didn't teach the lesson that was called for in the manual. Sounds to me like he wants to be released.Ya Consigâ?? Stick to the script, will ya?
consiglieri Posted February 2, 2009 Author Posted February 2, 2009 Too bad he didn't teach the lesson that was called for in the manual. Sounds to me like he wants to be released. We had a very interesting lesson on personal revelation -- I even took a couple notes as the teaching was that good.Would this be a bad time to voice my disgruntlement over the Correlation Committee's decision to rework the Doctrine and Covenants/History of the Church manual to make it just another manual that teaches all the pedestrian tenets of the Church?With the exception of a shallow lesson on the First Vision and the Book of Mormon translation, the balance is turned over to such scintillating subjects as Tithing, keeping the Sabbath Day Holy, a discussion of the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel, the Plan of Salvation, etc., you get the idea.All the Best!--Consiglieri
ttribe Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 With the exception of a shallow lesson on the First Vision and the Book of Mormon translation, the balance is turned over to such scintillating subjects as Tithing, keeping the Sabbath Day Holy, a discussion of the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel, the Plan of Salvation, etc., you get the idea.While I don't necessarily disagree with your decision to teach what you did, regarding the information that is being outlined in the manual (and which you've sarcastically labeled "scintillating") - you have to admit, the general population of the Church is having a hard time even living those basic tenets. Perhaps if the members were doing a better job of living the basics, there would be a broader set of topics introduced into the curriculum. Just a thought.
ERayR Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I hope you do not get in any sort of trouble for this. I have a feeling that in my ward-Which is about 90% of retirees/ or at least 60+(It is a very old town ) you would probably get the smack down. Honestly-There are two babies and about 4-5 in primary.Here is a good example the RSP said a joke about new block hours-and that the bishop Still wasn't sure of our new times..With the new time needing to be known the following week. A woman in her 80's got up and said we need to stop disrepecting the priesthood and walked out. The GD teacher mentioned money digging(for a second)two weeks ago I believe and about three people got offended and said we could not prove it. Give me a break.I almost left-The ignorance makes me want to burst out laughing at one moment or cry the next(What did I get myself into? :'( )I assume the other posters mentioning personal revelation would only find it appropriate to speak about uplifting revelation. Not weird or possibly a tiny bit questionably.I wish you were my GD teacher. I would not skip the class as often(if ever!). AH the wonderful thing about having a newborn .. Eating and changing diapers aka getting to leave the "Boring" classes.There is nothing to crazy that can slide by in a GD class or SM .. THAT I couldnt find online(OR words of prophets, or ...) that is not testimony breaking.I really resent your insinuation that some way we older members are unaware and ignorant. Your assumption about personal revelation is also unwarrented. Your characterization of gospel doctrine classes as being boring speaks volumns about your own attitude and less about the classes.
PrettyNewMommy Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 All the Best!--ConsiglieriI can only guess what SM you may be talking about, but I am glad to hear you still like it.All the Best!--ConsiglieriI enjoy every sacrament meeting. (That I do not need to speak in ) The best one was .. A few days after my mom and DH had been talking about politics .. My mom who does not believe in organized religion mentioned disliking the fact that most churches get up and tell you who you should vote for, what you should vote for etc. My DH said "That is what is great about our church, there are no politics involved"!Two days later the bishop gets up and says we urge you all to vote, just remember the church does not support gay marriage. My DH's jaw dropped. -But it could have been a lott worse. That is not bad at all compared to some other organizations. He did not correct himself with my mom .. She found out about it on the news ..
consiglieri Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 I enjoy every sacrament meeting. (That I do not need to speak in )Oh!"SM" stands for "S"acrament "M"eeting.I get it.All the Best!--Consiglieri
ttribe Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Oh!"SM" stands for "S"acrament "M"eeting.I get it.All the Best!--ConsiglieriYeah...umm...that had the potential to really go awry.
PrettyNewMommy Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 I really resent your insinuation that some way we older members are unaware and ignorant. Your assumption about personal revelation is also unwarrented. Your characterization of gospel doctrine classes as being boring speaks volumns about your own attitude and less about the classes.Hmm I don't remember saying unaware or ignorant directed to all old people. They(maybe not every last one in class) do not like to go off topic or listen to things they have possibly never heard of. I'm there every week (except baby feeding time) I would know. I Love older people, and I love most of the older people in my ward. They are not open to anything out of the ordinary basics-And I DID NOT say anything was wrong with them. Personal revelation-Read Emileza's(Wrong Spelling? Sorry) explanation on that. PEOPLE HAVE given out some personal revelations in class. AND PEOPLE DO start getting upset if the revelations are not understood properly, or other people think they are in some way demeaning to others. IT happens(not all of the time).. IT happened at my ward. It is not unwarrented. I can learn more on this website in an hour than I can learn in GD class - THAT speaks volumes. I feel the spirit most in SM and RS honestly. My attitiude most days is just fine. I try to feel the spirit in each class, that class as of right now does nothing for me.
PrettyNewMommy Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Oh!"SM" stands for "S"acrament "M"eeting.I get it.All the Best!--ConsiglieriI must be missing something.
ttribe Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 I must be missing something.That's probably a good thing....
PrettyNewMommy Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 That's probably a good thing.... Have you never heard that acronym used for sacrament meeting? .. I have. Eh..Oh Well
consiglieri Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Perhaps if the members were doing a better job of living the basics, there would be a broader set of topics introduced into the curriculum.I hear what you are saying, ttribe, but is it possible this is just another variation on the theme of blaming the class members for the low level of education?It's kind of like teaching kindergarten material all the way through 12th grade and then blaming the high school senior for not knowing his ABC's.All the Best!--Consiglieri
ttribe Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 I hear what you are saying, ttribe, but is it possible this is just another variation on the theme of blaming the class members for the low level of education?It's kind of like teaching kindergarten material all the way through 12th grade and then blaming the high school senior for not knowing his ABC's.All the Best!--ConsiglieriCould be...like I said, just a thought...since "thoughts" are what keep us from becoming too dogmatic about any particular position.Have you never heard that acronym used for sacrament meeting? .. I have. :unsure:Eh..Oh WellNope...but that's okay...it made for a good giggle.
consiglieri Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Could be...like I said, just a thought...since "thoughts" are what keep us from becoming too dogmatic about any particular position.Agreed.Thought sometimes I get concerned that the LDS Church is too interested in having its members think only the "right" thoughts.And controlling the dissemination of information accordingly. All the Best!--Consiglieri
Scott26.2 Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Ya, that evil church, wanting us to think the right thoughts. How rude.Scott26.2
emeliza Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Thought sometimes I get concerned that the LDS Church is too interested in having its members think only the "right" thoughts.And controlling the dissemination of information accordingly. I go back and forth on all this. I personally wish either Sunday School or RS/PH discussed this stuff a bit more, but that is because I like this type of stuff. At the same time that I say that, I think the Church is fairly open about information and I don't think there is any dissemination like you are speaking of (hiding), instead it is more like the dissemination is like a dandelion trying to get the seeds out there. They want the people who care to know. They allowed full access to records for the MMM book by Turley (and others). You were quoting Ensign articles in your lessons that cover some of this stuff. So it is more like they are being more open for the people who want to know this type of information and they are not so open for people who don't seem to care. The problem lies in people who want to know, but either don't have the avenue to figure it out or find things on their own as they are worried about stumbling onto the wrong information or have others to help them out. Or maybe it lies more in the people who don't want to do the work to find out themselves, but want to be more spoon fed. I don't mean this in a bad way, but all of us on this board are on here during our own free time and we are reading the information in our own time because we want to know, because we find it interesting and because we like it. However the majority of Church members don't even read the Ensign, let alone the lesson manuals or sometimes even their scriptures. So my thoughts are yes, I wish the information was put into the manual a bit more so that the seeds of information could be planted for those that are wanting to know and I really think this should be done starting at a younger age. However I also understand why the Church might be slow to do this as it will take people who are creative, understanding and have the spirit with them to be able to teach this information with out it becoming a joke or negative.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.